Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting
- PMID: 19265518
- PMCID: PMC2655292
- DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-43
Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting
Abstract
Background: The sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide is threatened by a growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies. Decision makers struggle in this environment to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions. One way to approach this problem is to determine what all relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean. The goal of this research was to develop a conceptual framework for successful priority setting.
Methods: Three separate empirical studies were completed using qualitative data collection methods (one-on-one interviews with healthcare decision makers from across Canada; focus groups with representation of patients, caregivers and policy makers; and Delphi study including scholars and decision makers from five countries).
Results: This paper synthesizes the findings from three studies into a framework of ten separate but interconnected elements germane to successful priority setting: stakeholder understanding, shifted priorities/reallocation of resources, decision making quality, stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction, positive externalities, stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process, information management, consideration of values and context, and revision or appeals mechanism.
Conclusion: The ten elements specify both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of priority setting and relate to both process and outcome components. To our knowledge, this is the first framework that describes successful priority setting. The ten elements identified in this research provide guidance for decision makers and a common language to discuss priority setting success and work toward improving priority setting efforts.
Similar articles
-
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003. PMID: 14698953 Review.
-
Priority setting in the provincial health services authority: survey of key decision makers.BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Jun 12;7:84. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-84. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007. PMID: 17565691 Free PMC article.
-
Research funding impact and priority setting - advancing universal access and quality healthcare research in Malaysia.BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Apr 24;19(1):248. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4072-7. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019. PMID: 31018843 Free PMC article.
-
Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?Soc Sci Med. 2009 Feb;68(4):766-73. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.011. Epub 2008 Dec 11. Soc Sci Med. 2009. PMID: 19070414
-
Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation.Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Sep 16;4(11):719-32. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.167. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015. PMID: 26673332 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Priority setting to support a public health research agenda: a modified Delphi study with public health stakeholders in Germany.Health Res Policy Syst. 2023 Aug 28;21(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-01039-w. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023. PMID: 37641128 Free PMC article.
-
A clinical research priority setting study for issues related to the use of methamphetamine and emerging drugs of concern in Australia.Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022 Feb;41(2):309-319. doi: 10.1111/dar.13350. Epub 2021 Jul 8. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022. PMID: 34237176 Free PMC article.
-
Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist as a tool for evaluating the research priority setting process of a provincial research and program evaluation program.Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Mar 23;14:22. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0092-5. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016. PMID: 27006075 Free PMC article.
-
Ethics education and moral decision-making in clinical commissioning: an interview study.Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Dec 26;70(690):e45-e54. doi: 10.3399/bjgp19X707129. Print 2020 Jan. Br J Gen Pract. 2019. PMID: 31848203 Free PMC article.
-
Communicable diseases prioritized for surveillance and epidemiological research: results of a standardized prioritization procedure in Germany, 2011.PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025691. Epub 2011 Oct 4. PLoS One. 2011. PMID: 21991334 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Martin D, Singer P. Priority Setting and health care technology assessment: beyond evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Ham C, Coulter A, editor. The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2000. pp. 135–145.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources