IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fan/mesame/vhtml10.3280-mesa2015-023004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Bini
  • Milena Vainieri
  • Sabina Nuti

Abstract

La maggiore responsabilizzazione degli enti locali e i crescenti limiti di budget hanno determinato in ambito sanitario un maggiore interesse per l?applicazione di approcci socio-tecnici, come il PBMA e lo STAR per la definizione delle priorita d?intervento. In questo articolo si confrontano le tecniche utilizzate e il processo decisionale (fasi, attori coinvolti e durata del processo) di questi approcci, tramite l?utilizzo di esempi di applicazione in diverse realta nazionali e internazionali (Canada, UK e Toscana). Tale analisi fornisce indicazioni utili per strutturare nel contesto sanitario italiano processi di allocazione delle risorse e diffusione di strategie piu appropriati ed efficaci, tramite una maggiore collaborazione tra decisori, professionisti e manager.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Bini & Milena Vainieri & Sabina Nuti, 2015. "Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(93), pages 49-73.
    • Handle: RePEc:fan:mesame:v:html10.3280/mesa2015-023004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_Rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=54072&Tipo=ArticoloPDF
    Download Restriction: Single articles can be downloaded buying download credits, for info: https://www.francoangeli.it/DownloadCredit
    ---><---

    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. Ciani, Oriana & Tarricone, Rosanna & Torbica, Aleksandra, 2012. "Diffusion and use of health technology assessment in policy making: What lessons for decentralised healthcare systems?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 194-202.
    2. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    3. Abernethy, Margaret A. & Stoelwinder, Johannes U., 1995. "The role of professional control in the management of complex organizations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    5. Mitton, Craig & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Setting priorities in Canadian regional health authorities: a survey of key decision makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 39-58, April.
    6. Martin S. Schilling & Nadine Oeser & Cornelius Schaub, 2007. "How Effective Are Decision Analyses? Assessing Decision Process and Group Alignment Effects," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 227-242, December.
    7. Lawrence Phillips & Carlos Bana e Costa, 2007. "Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 51-68, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    2. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    3. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    4. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    5. Ben Ewing & Erin Baker, 2009. "Development of a Green Building Decision Support Tool: A Collaborative Process," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 172-185, September.
    6. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    7. G Montibeller & L A Franco, 2011. "Raising the bar: strategic multi-criteria decision analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 855-867, May.
    8. Abdullah M. Alsabah & Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli & Jolene Skordis-Worrall, 2020. "Hospital Managers’ Perceptions Regarding Setting Healthcare Priorities in Kuwait," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(10), pages 1-79, September.
    9. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: A qualitative investigation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 261-270, March.
    10. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Vieira, Ana C.L. & Freitas, Liliana & Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Bana e Costa, João & Freitas, Ângela & Santana, Paula, 2023. "Collaborative development of composite indices from qualitative value judgements: The EURO-HEALTHY Population Health Index model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 475-492.
    11. Abernethy, Margaret A. & Vagnoni, Emidia, 2004. "Power, organization design and managerial behaviour," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 207-225.
    12. Pascale Amans & Sylvie Rascol-Boutard, 2006. "Controlling Complex Organizations on the Basis of an Operational Performance Measure," Post-Print hal-01659071, HAL.
    13. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale & Rac, Valeria E. & Bytautas, Jessica P. & Krahn, Murray & Peacock, Stuart, 2020. "Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    14. Hugo Herrera & Nuno Videira & Hubert P.L.M. Korzilius & Kathya Lorena Cordova‐Pozo & Marleen H.F. McCardle‐Keurentjes, 2022. "Reflecting on factors influencing long‐lasting organisational effects of group model‐building interventions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 190-209, April.
    15. Szukits, Ágnes, 2019. "Controllers’ profession in contemporary organisations – Evidence from Hungary," Journal of East European Management Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 24(1), pages 8-31.
    16. Gomes, Luís S. & Santos, Sérgio P. & Coelho, Luís Serra & Rebelo, Efigénio L., 2023. "Using MCDA to assist an Intermunicipal community develop a resilience strategy in face of the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    17. Yeawon Yoo & Adolfo R. Escobedo, 2021. "A New Binary Programming Formulation and Social Choice Property for Kemeny Rank Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 296-320, December.
    18. Henk Broekhuizen & Maarten J. IJzerman & A. Brett Hauber & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2017. "Weighing Clinical Evidence Using Patient Preferences: An Application of Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 259-269, March.
    19. Bernhard Ultsch & Oliver Damm & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke & Bernd Brüggenjürgen & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Wolfgang Greiner & Germaine Hanquet & Raymond Hutubessy & Mark Jit & Mirjam Knol & Rüdiger, 2016. "Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 227-244, March.
    20. Michael E. Otim & Augustine D. Asante & Margaret Kelaher & Ian P. Anderson & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Acceptability of programme budgeting and marginal analysis as a tool for routine priority setting in Indigenous health," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 277-295, July.

    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:fan:mesame:v:html10.3280/mesa2015-023004. 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: Stefania Rosato (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=180 .

    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.