Applying priority-setting frameworks: A review of public and vulnerable populations' participation in health-system priority setting.

Health-system priority setting Priority-setting frameworks Public participation Vulnerable populations

Journal

Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
ISSN: 1872-6054
Titre abrégé: Health Policy
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8409431

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2020
Historique:
received: 19 07 2019
revised: 27 11 2019
accepted: 13 12 2019
pubmed: 26 12 2019
medline: 4 5 2021
entrez: 26 12 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

There is a growing body of literature that describes, applies, and evaluates applications of health-system priority-setting frameworks in different contexts. However, little explicit focus has been given to examining operationalization of the stakeholder participation component of these frameworks. The literature identifies the public as a stakeholder group and recommends their participation when applying the frameworks. We conducted a scoping review to search the PubMed, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, Medline, and PsycINFO databases for cases where priority-setting frameworks were applied (2000-2017). We aimed to synthesize current literature to examine the degree to which the public and vulnerable populations have been engaged through applications of these frameworks FINDINGS: The following stakeholders commonly participated: managers, administrators/coordinators, clinicians/physicians, non-physician health care providers, health economists, academics/researchers, experts, decision-makers, and policy-makers. Few papers reported on public participation, and even fewer identified vulnerable groups that participate. Stakeholders were most commonly reported to participate in identifying areas for prioritization. While the frameworks were developed with stakeholder participation in mind, in practice not all stakeholders are participating in priority-setting processes as envisioned by the frameworks. The public and vulnerable groups do not consistently participate, challenging the utility of the participation component of frameworks in guiding stakeholder participation in health-system priority setting. Frameworks can be more explicit about which stakeholders should participate and detailing how their participation should be operationalized.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
There is a growing body of literature that describes, applies, and evaluates applications of health-system priority-setting frameworks in different contexts. However, little explicit focus has been given to examining operationalization of the stakeholder participation component of these frameworks. The literature identifies the public as a stakeholder group and recommends their participation when applying the frameworks.
METHODS
We conducted a scoping review to search the PubMed, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, Medline, and PsycINFO databases for cases where priority-setting frameworks were applied (2000-2017). We aimed to synthesize current literature to examine the degree to which the public and vulnerable populations have been engaged through applications of these frameworks FINDINGS: The following stakeholders commonly participated: managers, administrators/coordinators, clinicians/physicians, non-physician health care providers, health economists, academics/researchers, experts, decision-makers, and policy-makers. Few papers reported on public participation, and even fewer identified vulnerable groups that participate. Stakeholders were most commonly reported to participate in identifying areas for prioritization.
CONCLUSIONS
While the frameworks were developed with stakeholder participation in mind, in practice not all stakeholders are participating in priority-setting processes as envisioned by the frameworks. The public and vulnerable groups do not consistently participate, challenging the utility of the participation component of frameworks in guiding stakeholder participation in health-system priority setting. Frameworks can be more explicit about which stakeholders should participate and detailing how their participation should be operationalized.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31874742
pii: S0168-8510(19)30299-4
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.12.005
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

133-142

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest None declared.

Auteurs

S Donya Razavi (SD)

Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Electronic address: razavisd@mccmaster.ca.

Lydia Kapiriri (L)

Department of Health, Aging and Society, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Michael Wilson (M)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster Health Forum, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Julia Abelson (J)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH