Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think?

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Resource scarcity dictates the need for health organisations to set priorities. Although such activity should be based, at least in part, on evidence, there are limited examples in the literature of decision-makers reflecting on their use of evidence in priority-setting. METHODS: A participatory action-research project was conducted in a single health authority in Alberta. It included in-depth interviews and focus groups with senior decision-makers both before and after development and implementation of a macro-level priority-setting framework (programme budgeting and marginal analysis, PBMA). Data were thematically coded and information on the use of evidence in priority-setting is reported. RESULTS: Barriers to the use of evidence in priority-setting identified by decision-makers included crisis-orientated management, time constraints and a lack of skills. Decision-makers suggested using a mix of 'soft' and 'hard' forms of evidence in priority-setting. Following PBMA implementation, decision-makers wanted better information on capacity to benefit, but preferred to do this pragmatically from multiple sources of information rather than using a single metric. CONCLUSION: In examining the perspectives of decision-makers in using evidence to support priority-setting, valuable information was derived which should provide insight for such processes in other jurisdictions. The main finding of a desire for pragmatic assessment of benefit is informative for those involved in both decision-making and research.