Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eliciting Reasons: Empirical Methods in Priority Setting

  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I review empirical methods applied in recent analysis of decision-making on priorities in health care. I outline a number of discrete methods and discuss their applicability and efficacy in the field of bioethics. Three key methodological issues seem to be important: choice of subject group; choice of approach and the extent of background information given to respondents. I conclude that a combination method is needed to give a comprehensive representation of values in priority setting and thus to meet the overall objectives of empirical ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Abel-Smith, B. (1978) Minimum adequate levels of personal health care-history and justification. Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly, Health & Society 56(1), 7-21, reported by Mossialos and King, (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, P., Wailoo, A. (2000) Utilities versus Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health Care Rationing. Economica 67, 543-577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bech, M. (2002) Politicians' Preferences and hospital financing in a public integrated system unpublished discussion paper, University of Southern Denmark.

  • Bowie, C., et al. (1995) Consulting the public about health service priorities. British Medical Journal 311, 1155-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, A., et al. (1993) Exploration in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. Social Science & Medicine 37(7), 851-857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney, M.C. (1989) Choosing who should not be treated in the NHS. Social Science & Medicine 28(12), 1331-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cookson, R., Dolan, P. (1999) Public views on the health care rationing: A group discussion study. Health Policy 49, 63-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coote, A., Lenaghan, J. (1997) Citizens Juries: Theory into Practice. Institute for Public Policy Research, London, 13-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, R., et al. (1996) Rationing in general practice: The Asbury draft policy on ethical use of resources. British Medical Journal 312, 1528-1531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicker, A., Armstrong, D. (1995) Patients' views of priority setting in health care: An interview survey in one practice. British Medical Journal 311, 1137-1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Cookson, R. (1999) Effects of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: Focus group study. British Medical Journal 318, 916-919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Cookson, R. (2000) A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matter when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 51, 19-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, C., et al. (1999) Assessing Community Values in Health Care: Is the ‘Willingness to Pay’ Method Feasible? Health Care Analysis 5(1), 7-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrar, S., et al. (2000) Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: An application to clinical service developments. Social Science & Medicine 50, 63-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foy, R., et al. (1999) Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritising new cancer drugs: Impact of the evidence threshold. British Medical Journal 318, 456-459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup Survey (1994) The Daily Telegraph 12 April.

  • Haimes, E. (2002) What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics 16, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasman, A. (2002) Reasons and Decisions: Priorities in Health Care. Draft workingpaper, The Ethox Centre, University of Oxford.

  • Holm, S., et al. (1996) Ethical reasoning in mixed nurse-physician groups. Journal of Medical Ethics 22, 168-173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. (2000) Developments in the Nordic Countries—Goodbye to the easy solutions. In Coulter, A., Ham, C., The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing. Open University Press, Buckingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, B., Little, M.O. (eds). Moral Particularism. Clarendon Press (2000).

  • Hope, T., et al. (1998) Rationing and the health authority. British Medical Journal 317, 1067-1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornwille, G., Courtenay, G. (1979) Measuring consumer priorities. In O'Riordan, T., D'Arge, RC. (eds). Progress in Resource Management and Environmental Planning, Vol. 1, Chichester: Wiley,: 143-178, Reported by Mullen (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, P.B. (2002) Preferences of Danish county politicians and senior hospital administrators when new health care interventions are introduced. Unpublished discussion paper, University of Southern Denmark.

  • Johannesson, M., Johanson, P.O. (1996) The economics of ageing: on the attitude of Swedish people to the distribution of health care resources between the young and the old. Health Policy 37(3), 153-161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelson, M. (1995) Consumer Involvement in Clinical Audit and Outcomes: A Review of Developments. College of Health, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelson, M, (1997) User Involvement—A guide to developing effective user involvement strategies in the NHS. College of health, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneeshaw, J. (1997) What does the public think about rationing?—A review of the evidence. In New, B., (ed.). Rationing-Talk and action in Health Care. King's Fund: London, 58-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaghan, J., et al. (1996) Setting priorities: Is there a role for citizens' juries? British Medical Journal 312, 1591-1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaghan, J. (1999) Involving the public in rationing decisions—The experience of citizens juries. Health Policy 49, 45-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, L.D. (1992) Determining Community Priorities in Health Care: Report to East Surrey Health Authority. Reported by Mossialos and King (1999).

  • Martin, D.K., et al. (2001) Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: A qualitative case study. Lancet 358, 1676-1681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D.K., et al. (2002a) Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy 61, 279-290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D.K., et al. (2002b) Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 7(3), 222-229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C.W., Ripstein, A. (Eds.) (2001) Practical Rationality and Preferences: Essays for David Gauthier. Cambridge University Press.

  • Mossialos, E., King, D. (1999) Citizens and rationing: Analysis of a European Survey. Health Policy 49, 75-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, P.M (1999) Public involvement in health care priority setting: An overview of methods for eliciting values. Health Expectations 2, 222-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, P.M., Spurgeon, P., (2000) Priority Setting and the Public. Oxford, Radcliffe Medical Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, P.M. (2002) Should Priorities be Quantified. In Rauner, MS., Heidenberger, K. (eds), Quantitative Approaches in Health Care Management Peter Lang, Franfurt am Main/Berlin/New York/Vienna (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, E., et al. (1995a) Maximising Health Benefits vs Egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issues. Social Science & Medicine 41(10), 1429-1437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, E., et al. (1995b) Who cares about cost? Does economic analysis impose or reflect social values? Health Policy 34, 79-94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J.A., Donaldson, C. (1998) Helicopters, hearts and hips: Using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Social Science & Medicine 46(1), 1-12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickard, S. (1998) Citizenship and Consumerism in Health Care: A Critique of Citizens' Juries. Social Policy & Administration 32(3), 226-244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. (2000) Choices without reasons: Citizens' juries and policy evaluation. Journal of Medical Ethics 26, 272-276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., et al. (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5(5), 1-186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P.A., et al. (2000) Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: Qualitative case study. British Medical Journal 321, 1316-1318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulamsy, D.P. (1992) Physicians, cost-control and ethics. Annals of Internal Medicine 6, 920.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, D, Gosden, T. (2000) Priority setting in health care: Should we ask the tax payer? British Medical Journal 320:1679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T., et al. (1999) Public involvement in health care priority setting: An economic perspective. Health Expectations 2, 235-244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuen, P.P., et al. (2002) Rational hospital services in Hong Kong: Priority setting by clinicians using the Delphi method. Health Service Management Research 15(1), 1-13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom

    Andreas Hasman

Authors
  1. Andreas Hasman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hasman, A. Eliciting Reasons: Empirical Methods in Priority Setting. Health Care Analysis 11, 41–58 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025385929559

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025385929559

Search

Navigation