A focus group study of health care priority setting at the individual patient, program and health system levels
AbstractFaced with an ageing population and newspaper warnings that escalating costs are leading to a health crisis, debate has intensified in Australia and elsewhere on the allocation of limited health resources. But whose values should inform decision-making in the health area, and should the influence of different groups vary with the level of decision-making? These questions were put to 54 members of the public and health professionals in eight focus groups. Unlike previous studies, participants were not asked if particular groups should be involved in decisions but rather through deliberation and discussion nominated their own potential decision makers. This delivered a clear message that participants saw a legitimate role for a broad range of stakeholders in priority setting decisions. The results suggest that qualitative methods of investigation have the potential to improve the legitimacy and accountability of policy decisions by contributing to a better understanding of the values of the public and health professionals.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Monash University, Centre for Health Economics in its series Centre for Health Economics Research Papers with number 16/07.
Length: 16 pages
Date of creation: Feb 2007
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Building 75, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
Web page: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/
More information through EDIRC
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Teresa Cheong).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.