IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v87y2008i2p203-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priority dilemmas in psoriasis care and visions of a future care in a group of administrators, politicians and professionals in northern Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Uttjek, Margaretha
  • Dufåker, Mona
  • Stenberg, Berndt
  • Nygren, Lennart

Abstract

During the 1990s priority discussions were actualized in Sweden due to increased demands on health care and limited resources. In the county of Västerbotten in northern Sweden, with large rural areas, the decision makers faced special challenges due to distances and cost. Despite discussions striving for fairness in priorities, decision makers are still dealing with limited resources and difficult priority decisions regarding different diseases and treatments. In this study we aimed at describing views on priorities in public psoriasis care and visions of a future care among politicians, administrators and professionals in the county of Västerbottten in northern Sweden. Qualitative research interviews were performed with 23 key-persons. The findings revealed priority dilemmas about issues on organization, accessibility and ethics. Visions of a future care appeared as ambitions of a more effective care with good accessibility, continued research, information and a holistic approach in priorities. We conclude that dilemmas revealed in this study were a reflection of a gap between intentions and practice. In efforts to reduce these dilemmas we suggest methods with fairness in economic planning and priority setting, with concrete, official statements about the dominating views on which the priorities are based, and public information about these statements.

Suggested Citation

  • Uttjek, Margaretha & Dufåker, Mona & Stenberg, Berndt & Nygren, Lennart, 2008. "Priority dilemmas in psoriasis care and visions of a future care in a group of administrators, politicians and professionals in northern Sweden," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 203-216, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:87:y:2008:i:2:p:203-216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00012-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abelson, Julia & Eyles, John & McLeod, Christopher B. & Collins, Patricia & McMullan, Colin & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier, 2003. "Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 95-106, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Werntoft, Elisabet & Edberg, Anna-Karin, 2009. "Decision makers' experiences of prioritisation and views about how to finance healthcare costs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(2-3), pages 259-267, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura J. Damschroder & Peter A. Ubel & Jason Riis & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 96-106, April.
    2. Madi, Banyana Cecilia & Hussein, Julia & Hounton, Sennen & D'Ambruoso, Lucia & Achadi, Endang & Arhinful, Daniel Kojo, 2007. "Setting priorities for safe motherhood programme evaluation: A participatory process in three developing countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 94-104, September.
    3. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.
    4. Carman, Kristin L. & Mallery, Coretta & Maurer, Maureen & Wang, Grace & Garfinkel, Steve & Yang, Manshu & Gilmore, Dierdre & Windham, Amy & Ginsburg, Marjorie & Sofaer, Shoshanna & Gold, Marthe & Path, 2015. "Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 11-20.
    5. Shane Doheny & Claire O'Neill, 2010. "Becoming Deliberative Citizens: The Moral Learning Process of the Citizen Juror," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 630-648, October.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:96-106 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Scutchfield, F. Douglas & Hall, Laura & Ireson, Carol L., 2006. "The public and public health organizations: Issues for community engagement in public health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 76-85, June.
    8. Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth & Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria & de Cock Buning, Tjard & Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy, 2012. "Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 231-242.
    9. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    10. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    11. France Légaré & Antoine Boivin & Trudy van der Weijden & Christine Pakenham & Jako Burgers & Jean Légaré & Sylvie St-Jacques & Susie Gagnon, 2011. "Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 45-74, November.
    12. Damien French & Michael Laver, 2009. "Participation Bias, Durable Opinion Shifts and Sabotage through Withdrawal in Citizens' Juries," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 422-450, June.
    13. Timotijevic, Lada & Raats, Monique Maria, 2007. "Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 302-319, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:87:y:2008:i:2:p:203-216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.