What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context
Internationally, there is an increasing focus on quality and sustainability measures oriented to reducing inefficiencies in health provision. The use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for older women represents a case study in this area. This paper analyses the constructions of evidence brought to bear by ART physicians in the context of deliberative stakeholder engagements (held 2010) around options for restricting public subsidy of ART in Australia. Physicians participated in two deliberative engagements during which they were presented with results of a systematic review of ART effectiveness, as well as ethical and cost analyses. These sessions were part of a broader research program of engagements held with policymakers, community members and consumers. Physicians deliberated around the data presented with a view to formulating an informed contribution to policy. The ensuing discussions were transcribed and subject to discourse analysis. Physicians questioned the evidence presented on the grounds of ‘currency’, ‘proximity’, ‘selectivity’ and ‘bias’. We outline physicians’ accounts of what should count as evidence informing ART policy, and how this evidence should be counted. These accounts reflect implicit decisions around both the inclusion of evidence (selection) and the status it is accorded (evaluation). Our analysis suggests that participatory policy processes do not represent the simple task of assessing the quality/effectiveness of a given technology against self-evident criteria. Rather, these processes involve the negotiation of different orders of evidence (empirical, contextual and anecdotal), indicating a need for higher-level discussion around ‘what counts and how to count it’ when making disinvestment decisions.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 75 (2012)
Issue (Month): 12 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mitton, Craig & Patten, San & Waldner, Howard & Donaldson, Cam, 2003. "Priority setting in health authorities: a novel approach to a historical activity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1653-1663, November.
- Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452.
- Devlin, N., 2003. "Does NICE have a cost effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A discrete choice analysis," Working Papers 03/01, Department of Economics, City University London.
- 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.
- Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 362-383, 06.
- Williams, Iestyn P. & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2116-2129, November.
- Watt, Amber M. & Elshaug, Adam G. & Willis, Cameron D. & Hiller, Janet E., 2011. "Assisted reproductive technologies: A systematic review of safety and effectiveness to inform disinvestment policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 200-213.
- Tritter, Jonathan Quetzal & McCallum, Alison, 2006. "The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 156-168, April.
- 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.
- Duthie, Tessa & Trueman, Paul & Chancellor, Jeremy & Diez, Lara, 1999. "Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom--Phase II: Is health economics `for good or evil'?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 143-157, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:12:p:2191-2199. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.