Conceptualising characteristics of resources withdrawal from medical services: a systematic qualitative synthesis.
Disinvestment
Priority-setting
Qualitative synthesis
Rationing
Resource withdrawal
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Oct 2020
28 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
28
05
2020
accepted:
07
09
2020
entrez:
29
10
2020
pubmed:
30
10
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Terms used to describe government-led resource withdrawal from ineffective and unsafe medical services, including 'rationing' and 'disinvestment', have tended to be used interchangeably, despite having distinct characteristics. This lack of descriptive precision for arguably distinct terms contributes to the obscurity that hinders effective communication and the achievement of evidence-based decision-making. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify the various terms used to describe resource withdrawal and (2) propose definitions for the key or foundational terms, which includes a clear description of the unique characteristics of each. This is a systematic qualitative synthesis of characteristics and terms found through a search of the academic and grey literature. This approach involved identifying commonly used resource withdrawal terms, extracting data about resource withdrawal characteristics associated with each term and conducting a comparative analysis by categorising elements as antecedents, attributes or outcomes. Findings from an analysis of 106 documents demonstrated that terms used to describe resource withdrawal are inconsistently defined and applied. The characteristics associated with these terms, mainly antecedents and attributes, are used interchangeably by many authors but are differentiated by others. Our analysis resulted in the development of a framework that organises these characteristics to demonstrate the unique attributes associated with each term. To enhance precision, these terms were classified as either policy options or patient health outcomes and refined definitions for rationing and disinvestment were developed. Rationing was defined as resource withdrawal that denies, on average, patient health benefits. Disinvestment was defined as resource withdrawal that results in, on average, improved or no change in health benefits. Agreement on the definition of various resource withdrawal terms and their key characteristics is required for transparent government decision-making regarding medical service withdrawal. This systematic qualitative synthesis presents the proposed definitions of resource withdrawal terms that will promote consistency, benefit public policy dialogue and enhance the policy-making process for health systems.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Terms used to describe government-led resource withdrawal from ineffective and unsafe medical services, including 'rationing' and 'disinvestment', have tended to be used interchangeably, despite having distinct characteristics. This lack of descriptive precision for arguably distinct terms contributes to the obscurity that hinders effective communication and the achievement of evidence-based decision-making. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify the various terms used to describe resource withdrawal and (2) propose definitions for the key or foundational terms, which includes a clear description of the unique characteristics of each.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a systematic qualitative synthesis of characteristics and terms found through a search of the academic and grey literature. This approach involved identifying commonly used resource withdrawal terms, extracting data about resource withdrawal characteristics associated with each term and conducting a comparative analysis by categorising elements as antecedents, attributes or outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Findings from an analysis of 106 documents demonstrated that terms used to describe resource withdrawal are inconsistently defined and applied. The characteristics associated with these terms, mainly antecedents and attributes, are used interchangeably by many authors but are differentiated by others. Our analysis resulted in the development of a framework that organises these characteristics to demonstrate the unique attributes associated with each term. To enhance precision, these terms were classified as either policy options or patient health outcomes and refined definitions for rationing and disinvestment were developed. Rationing was defined as resource withdrawal that denies, on average, patient health benefits. Disinvestment was defined as resource withdrawal that results in, on average, improved or no change in health benefits.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Agreement on the definition of various resource withdrawal terms and their key characteristics is required for transparent government decision-making regarding medical service withdrawal. This systematic qualitative synthesis presents the proposed definitions of resource withdrawal terms that will promote consistency, benefit public policy dialogue and enhance the policy-making process for health systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33115486
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00630-9
pii: 10.1186/s12961-020-00630-9
pmc: PMC7592573
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
123Références
Health Policy. 2013 May;110(2-3):180-5
pubmed: 23375383
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001 Jul;6(3):163-9
pubmed: 11467274
Health Soc Care Community. 2013 Nov;21(6):614-22
pubmed: 23647622
Lancet. 1993 Dec 18-25;342(8886-8887):1558
pubmed: 7902935
J Adv Nurs. 2006 Feb;53(3):311-8
pubmed: 16441536
Int J Health Plann Manage. 1998 Jul-Sep;13(3):216-29
pubmed: 10187287
Value Health. 2017 Sep;20(8):1121-1130
pubmed: 28964444
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Winter;24(1):1-9
pubmed: 18218163
Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007 Oct 31;4:23
pubmed: 17973993
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Oct 14;10:288
pubmed: 20942972
Br Med Bull. 2007;81-82:51-64
pubmed: 17409119
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Oct;29(4):418-23
pubmed: 24290335
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Apr;29(2):174-84
pubmed: 23514665
J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 1997 Apr;7(2):119-36
pubmed: 11656682
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 08;9:1
pubmed: 24398253
BMJ. 2001 Aug 4;323(7307):275-9
pubmed: 11485961
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Jun;24(3):230-8
pubmed: 22457240
BMJ. 1995 Sep 23;311(7008):761-2
pubmed: 7580427
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Apr;72(8):1333-41
pubmed: 21439698
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999 Aug;24(4):715-58
pubmed: 10503155
Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Aug;88(8):790-8
pubmed: 23871230
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Mar;128:273-81
pubmed: 25635374
JAMA. 2012 Jan 4;307(1):37-8
pubmed: 22215160
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Sep 20;14:413
pubmed: 25240484
Health Policy. 2011 Oct;102(2-3):200-13
pubmed: 21868120
ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1995 Mar;17(3):31-46
pubmed: 7778889
Med J Aust. 2012 Nov 19;197(10):556-60
pubmed: 23163685
Soc Sci Med. 2000 May;50(10):1485-500
pubmed: 10741583
Health Policy. 2002 Apr;60(1):39-58
pubmed: 11879944
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Jul;28(3):203-10
pubmed: 22792877
Med J Aust. 2009 Mar 2;190(5):269-73
pubmed: 19296794
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Feb;67(2):144-51
pubmed: 24275500
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Jul 14;11:169
pubmed: 21756357
Healthc Policy. 2014 May;9(4):48-61
pubmed: 24973483
Health Aff (Millwood). 2001 May-Jun;20(3):116-31
pubmed: 11585159
Scand J Public Health. 2010 Aug;38(6):561-4
pubmed: 20693226
J Health Econ. 2008 Sep;27(5):1143-54
pubmed: 18468707
Health Policy. 1994 Feb;27(2):103-12
pubmed: 10133918
Fam Pract. 2012 Jun;29(3):264-71
pubmed: 22045931
Aust Health Rev. 2012 May;36(2):148-52
pubmed: 22624634
Health Aff (Millwood). 1997 Sep-Oct;16(5):83-92
pubmed: 9314678
Int J Qual Health Care. 2006 Sep;18 Suppl 1:5-13
pubmed: 16954510
Med Decis Making. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):228-31
pubmed: 15090107
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10
pubmed: 17302989
BMJ. 1993 Jun 5;306(6891):1521-4
pubmed: 8257491
Implement Sci. 2012 Oct 22;7:101
pubmed: 23088222
J Adv Nurs. 2009 Nov;65(11):2464-76
pubmed: 19686400
Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2005 Summer;19(2):197-208
pubmed: 16025698
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(1):1-9
pubmed: 19558190
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Oct;63(7):1811-24
pubmed: 16764980
Science. 1990 Jan 26;247(4941):418-22
pubmed: 2300804
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jan;58(1):207-17
pubmed: 14572932
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Apr;57(4):254-8
pubmed: 12646539
J Health Organ Manag. 2013;27(6):762-80
pubmed: 24422258
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2477-81
pubmed: 21142528
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2003 Aug;28(4):715-46
pubmed: 12956521
Br Med Bull. 1995 Oct;51(4):769-80
pubmed: 8556286
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Jul;28(3):220-7
pubmed: 22980697
Health Policy. 2010 May;95(2-3):137-43
pubmed: 20015568
Nurs Inq. 2002 Sep;9(3):141-55
pubmed: 12199878
QJM. 2010 Oct;103(10):801-7
pubmed: 20530539
Lancet. 1995 Apr 1;345(8953):840-2
pubmed: 7898234
JAMA. 1990 Jul 11;264(2):235-40
pubmed: 2355445
Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1974 Winter;52(1):39-50
pubmed: 4152950
Health Policy. 2010 Dec;98(2-3):218-26
pubmed: 20638745
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Dec;75(12):2386-93
pubmed: 23083894
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Jul;28(3):211-9
pubmed: 22980696
West J Nurs Res. 1989 Dec;11(6):694-702
pubmed: 2694617
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Jul;12(3):160-5
pubmed: 17716419