PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11090513

Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.

P A Singer·D K Martin·M Giacomini·L Purdy
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine. DESIGN: Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory. SETTING: Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: The two committees and their 26 members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings. RESULTS: Six interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions. CONCLUSION: These domains constitute a model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made.

Explore related subjects

Costs and Cost AnalysisDecision Making, OrganizationalEmpirical ResearchHealth ExpendituresHealth PolicyHealth PrioritiesHeart DiseasesHumansNeoplasmsOntarioOrganizational Case StudiesProfessional Staff CommitteesQualitative ResearchTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalEmpirical ApproachHealth Care and Public HealthJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P A Singer, D K Martin, M Giacomini, L Purdy. 2000-11-25. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Predicting costs of mental health care: a critical literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cost evaluation research in the mental health field is being increasingly recognized as a way to achieve a more effective deployment of scarce resources. However, there is a paucity of studies that seek to identify predictors of psychiatric service utilization and costs. This paper aims to critically review the published research in the field of psychiatric service utilization and costs, and discusses current methodological developments in this field. METHOD: Sixteen studies were identified and are critically reviewed. RESULTS: No single variable alone can explain variations in costs between patients; instead, a range of different clinical and non-clinical variables provides a greater explanation of cost variations. Having a history of previous psychiatric service use is the most consistent predictor of higher psychiatric costs. Only one study considers indirect costs incurred by users, their families and friends and society as a whole, with the remaining 15 studies focusing on direct mental health care costs. There is a lack of studies that consider the future psychiatric service utilization and costs of care of children and older people. The cross-validation of predictive models is not yet routine, with only four of the studies including a cross-validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive approach in mental health cost evaluation has relevance for both mental health policy and practice. However, there is a paucity of studies that focus on children, older people and indirect costs. Furthermore, there remain a number of methodological challenges to address.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed2007

The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland over time. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A series of four cross-sectional surveys (in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004) describing the cost and availability of foods in the HFAB over time. In the latest survey, 97 Queensland food stores across the five Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness categories were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost comparisons for HFAB items by remoteness category for the 97 stores surveyed in 2004; changes in cost and availability of foods in the 81 stores surveyed since 2000; comparisons of food prices in the 56 stores surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004. RESULTS: In 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB was $395.28 a fortnight. The cost of the HFAB was 29.6% ($113.89) higher in "very remote" areas than in "major cities" (P < 0.001). Between 2001 and 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB increased by 14.0% ($48.45), while in very remote areas the cost increased by 18.0% ($76.93) (P < 0.001). Since 2000, the annualised per cent increase in cost of the HFAB has been higher than the increase in Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane. The cost of healthy foods has risen more than the cost of some less nutritious foods, so that the latter are now relatively more affordable. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers, particularly those in very remote locations, need to pay substantially more for basic healthy foods than they did a few years ago. Higher prices are likely to be a barrier to good health among people of low socioeconomic status and other vulnerable groups. Interventions to make basic healthy food affordable and accessible to all would help reduce the high burden of chronic disease.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗