Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2001 Apr;56(1):65-79.
doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(00)00135-4.

Adoption of new health care services in Norway (1993-1997): specialists' self-assessment according to national criteria for priority setting

Affiliations

Adoption of new health care services in Norway (1993-1997): specialists' self-assessment according to national criteria for priority setting

O F Norheim et al. Health Policy. 2001 Apr.

Abstract

Objectives: To identify health care services adopted in Norway in the period 1993-1997, and examine them according to proposed national guidelines for priority setting. These guidelines define core services.

Design: Two-stage self-administered questionnaire.

Setting: The Norwegian public healthcare system.

Subjects: Presidents of all relevant specialist and sub-specialist associations in the Norwegian Medical Association (n=56).

Outcome measures: Number of adopted services satisfying the priority criteria of core services, according to physician's self-assessment. Number and type of interventions suited for the priority-setting criteria.

Results: Thirty-two percent of new technologies satisfied the definition of core services according to specialists' own assessment. Of the 88 responses analysed for the second stage of our survey, fifteen answers (17%) indicated lack of applicability of the priority setting criteria. Loss of applicability was related to diagnostic and procedure-related technologies.

Conclusions: Less than one-half of the assessed technologies adopted in Norway in the period 1993-1997 satisfy proposed national criteria for priority setting. The guidelines are applicable for most interventions, but fail in most evaluations of diagnostic and procedure-related improvements. Independent and systematic evaluations of new technologies are needed within the context of priority setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources