IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A focus group study of health care priority setting at the individual patient, program and health system levels


  • Bradley Shrimpton

    (Centre for Program Evaluation, University of Melbourne)

  • John McKie

    () (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University)

  • Rosalind Hurworth

    (Centre for Program Evaluation, University of Melbourne)

  • Catherine Bell

    (Centre for Program Evaluation, University of Melbourne)

  • Jeff Richardson

    () (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University)


Faced with an ageing population and newspaper warnings that escalating costs are leading to a health crisis, debate has intensified in Australia and elsewhere on the allocation of limited health resources. But whose values should inform decision-making in the health area, and should the influence of different groups vary with the level of decision-making? These questions were put to 54 members of the public and health professionals in eight focus groups. Unlike previous studies, participants were not asked if particular groups should be involved in decisions but rather through deliberation and discussion nominated their own potential decision makers. This delivered a clear message that participants saw a legitimate role for a broad range of stakeholders in priority setting decisions. The results suggest that qualitative methods of investigation have the potential to improve the legitimacy and accountability of policy decisions by contributing to a better understanding of the values of the public and health professionals.

Suggested Citation

  • Bradley Shrimpton & John McKie & Rosalind Hurworth & Catherine Bell & Jeff Richardson, 2007. "A focus group study of health care priority setting at the individual patient, program and health system levels," Centre for Health Economics Research Papers 16/07, Monash University, Centre for Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:mhe:cherps:2007-16

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:mhe:cherps:2007-16. 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: (Teresa Cheong). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.