IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v128y2015icp301-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It takes a giraffe to see the big picture – Citizens' view on decision makers in health care rationing

Author

Listed:
  • Broqvist, Mari
  • Garpenby, Peter

Abstract

Previous studies show that citizens usually prefer physicians as decision makers for rationing in health care, while politicians are downgraded. The findings are far from clear-cut due to methodological differences, and as the results are context sensitive they cannot easily be transferred between countries. Drawing on methodological experiences from previous research, this paper aims to identify and describe different ways Swedish citizens understand and experience decision makers for rationing in health care, exclusively on the programme level. We intend to address several challenges that arise when studying citizens' views on rationing by (a) using a method that allows for reflection, (b) using the respondents' nomination of decision makers, and (c) clearly identifying the rationing level. We used phenomenography, a qualitative method for studying variations and changes in perceiving phenomena. Open-ended interviews were conducted with 14 Swedish citizens selected by standard criteria (e.g. age) and by their attitude towards rationing.

Suggested Citation

  • Broqvist, Mari & Garpenby, Peter, 2015. "It takes a giraffe to see the big picture – Citizens' view on decision makers in health care rationing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 301-308.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:128:y:2015:i:c:p:301-308
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615000696
    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. Wiseman, V. & Mooney, G. & Berry, G. & Tang, K. C., 2003. "Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1001-1012, March.
    2. Martin Bouchard & Chris Wilkins, 2009. "Introduction," Global Crime, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1-2), pages 1-5.
    3. Bowling, Ann & Jacobson, Bobbie & Southgate, Lesley, 1993. "Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 851-857, October.
    4. Litva, Andrea & Coast, Joanna & Donovan, Jenny & Eyles, John & Shepherd, Michael & Tacchi, Jo & Abelson, Julia & Morgan, Kieran, 2002. "'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1825-1837, June.
    5. Mossialos, Elias & King, Derek, 1999. "Citizens and rationing: analysis of a European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 75-135, September.
    6. Busse, Reinhard, 1999. "Priority-setting and rationing in German health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 71-90, December.
    7. King, Derek & Maynard, Alan, 1999. "Public opinion and rationing in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 39-53, December.
    8. Dobrow, Mark J. & Goel, Vivek & Upshur, R. E. G., 2004. "Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 207-217, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:socmed:v:128:y:2015:i:c:p:301-308. See general 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.