IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Qualitative methodologies in health-care priority setting research

  • Neale Smith

    (Faculty of Health and Social Development, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada)

  • Craig Mitton

    (Faculty of Health and Social Development, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada)

  • Stuart Peacock

    (Centre for Health Economics in Cancer, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

Registered author(s):

    Priority setting research in health economics has traditionally employed quantitative methodologies and been informed by post-positivist philosophical assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge. These approaches have been rewarded with well-developed and validated tools. However, it is now commonly noted that there has been limited uptake of economic analysis into actual priority setting and resource allocation decisions made by health-care systems. There seem to be substantial organizational and political barriers. The authors argue in this paper that understanding and addressing these barriers will depend upon the application of qualitative research methodologies. Some efforts in this direction have been attempted; however these are theoretically under-developed and seldom rooted in any of the established qualitative research traditions. Two such approaches - narrative inquiry and discourse analysis - are highlighted here. These are illustrated with examples drawn from a real-world priority setting study. The examples demonstrate how such conceptually powerful qualitative traditions produce distinctive findings that offer unique insight into organizational contexts and decision-maker behavior. We argue that such investigations offer untapped benefits for the study of organizational priority setting and thus should be pursued more frequently by the health economics research community. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    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.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1419
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 18 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 10 ()
    Pages: 1163-1175

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:10:p:1163-1175
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Joanna Coast, 1999. "The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 345-353.
    2. Stirling Bryan & Iestyn Williams & Shirley McIver, 2007. "Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 179-193.
    3. Michael Drummond, 2004. "Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Is It Really Useful or Are We Just Kidding Ourselves?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(1), pages 3-11, 03.
    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. Patten, San & Mitton, Craig & Donaldson, Cam, 2006. "Using participatory action research to build a priority setting process in a Canadian Regional Health Authority," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1121-1134, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Martin, Douglas K. & Hollenberg, Daniel & MacRae, Sue & Madden, Shannon & Singer, Peter, 2003. "Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: a qualitative case study and evaluation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 295-303, December.
    8. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    9. Bate, Angela & Donaldson, Cam & Murtagh, Madeleine J., 2007. "Managing to manage healthcare resources in the English NHS? What can health economics teach? What can health economics learn?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 249-261, December.
    10. Craig Mitton & San Patten & Cam Donaldson, 2004. "Listening to the Decision Makers: Sustainability of PBMA in Alberta," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer Healthcare | Adis, vol. 3(3), pages 143-151.
    11. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The relationship between reliability and size of willingness-to-pay values: a qualitative insight," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 211-216.
    12. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences 'well constructed'?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48.
    13. Madden, Shannon & Martin, Douglas K. & Downey, Sarah & Singer, Peter A., 2005. "Hospital priority setting with an appeals process: a qualitative case study and evaluation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 10-20, July.
    14. Wagner, Todd H. & Hu, Teh-wei & Duenas, Grace V. & Pasick, Rena J., 2000. "Willingness to pay for mammography: item development and testing among five ethnic groups," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 105-121, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:10:p:1163-1175. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

    or (Christopher F. Baum)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.