Search results

Current conditions have intensified the need for health systems to engage in the difficult task of priority setting. As the search for a “magic bullet” is replaced by an appreciation for the interplay between evidence, interests, culture, and outcomes, progress in relation to these dimensions requires assessment of achievements to date and identification of areas where knowledge and practice require attention most urgently. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

An international survey was administered to experts in the area of priority setting. The survey consisted of open-ended questions focusing on notable achievements, policy and practice challenges, and areas for future research in the discipline of priority setting. It was administered online between February and March of 2015.

“Decision-making frameworks” and “Engagement” were the two most frequently mentioned notable achievements. “Priority setting in practice” and “Awareness and education” were the two most frequently mentioned policy and practical challenges. “Priority setting in practice” and “Engagement” were the two most frequently mentioned areas in need of future research.

Sampling bias toward more developed countries. Future study could use findings to create a more concise version to distribute more broadly.

Globally, these findings could be used as a platform for discussion and decision making related to policy, practice, and research in this area.

Whilst this study reaffirmed the continued importance of many longstanding themes in the priority setting literature, it is possible to also discern clear shifts in emphasis as the discipline progresses in response to new challenges.

The United States devotes a larger share of its GDP to health care and spends more on health care per capita than any other country. The sheer size of the total spending on health care, at approximately $3.5 trillion in 2017, puts significant pressure on all payers and crowds out other forms of public and private spending.

In this brief commentary the authors suggest that, as part of the effort to deal with this pressure, the United States should look at borrowing a cost containment strategy from other countries: the use of hard caps on spending growth. The authors draw on our their experience of working with decision-makers over the last 20 years on the topic of priority setting to put forward some ideas on whether there is potential for application of trade-offs in the United States.

As hard caps force choices to be made, a necessary condition for successful implementation of this policy is the presence of an effective priority-setting framework to ensure that the right choices are made in operationalizing spending limitations. Work on this topic elsewhere can provide some insight into the use of a criteria-based framework for priority setting that purports transparency in decision-making to achieve value-based decisions.

Other countries still have much work to do, but there is a substantial track record of using formal priority-setting approaches that could potentially inform practice in the United States. We suggest that there are key segments of the US healthcare system where the adoption of formal priority-setting frameworks to guide trade-off decisions is feasible. Piloting such activity in these contexts is the next natural step in this line of inquiry.

The purpose of this paper is to present a detailed case study of the evaluation strategies of a complex, multi-faceted response to a public health emergency: drug-related overdose deaths. It sets out the challenges of evaluating such a complex response and how they were overcome. It provides a pragmatic example of the rationale and issues faced to address the what, the why and particularly the how of the evaluation.

The case study overviews British Columbia’s Provincial Response to the Overdose Public Health Emergency, and the aims and scope of its evaluation. It then outlines the conceptual approach taken to the evaluation, setting out key methodological challenges in evaluating large-scale, multi-level, multisectoral change.

The evaluation is developmental and summative, utilization focused and system informed. Defining the scope of the evaluation required a strong level of engagement with government leads, grantees and other evaluation stakeholders. Mixed method evaluation will be used to capture the complex pattern of relationships that have informed the overdose response. Working alongside people with drug use experience to both plan and inform the evaluation is critical to its success.

This case study builds on a growing literature on evaluating large-scale and complex service transformation, providing a practical example of this.

Despite growing attention to physician engagement there is a lack of literature to guide the development of physician-led interventions. A scoping review was conducted to describe physician-led strategies that have been implemented to promote increased physician engagement in acute care settings. Strategies are viewed through the theoretical lens of institutional work to advance the understanding about how the theory can be applied. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Searches were conducted in English-language publications (2012–2017). Of 35 retained articles, 15 were from the gray literature; and 20 were peer reviewed. The review was guided by Arskey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-stage process.

Five themes reflecting different foci of physician-led activity were examined from the perspective of institutional work: systematically analyze context using participatory methods; work collaboratively toward locally defined, shared targets and build in processes to monitor progress; expand physicians’ role and capacity to include leadership toward shared organizational goals; promote appropriate rewards and incentives for work that builds engagement; and invest in opportunities for formal and informal communication and interaction.

Physicians considering action to increase their engagement in system improvement may benefit from analysis of local opportunities and barriers in selecting context-relevant activities that will motivate participation and build engagement through a balance of institutional work.

The paper considers the potential for physicians to initiate and support activity that will increase their engagement. It provides pragmatic strategies for designing intervention and research using the theoretical lens of institutional work.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe a method for priority setting that can be used to identify options for disinvestment, and is also meant to serve as a tool for re-allocation of resources to achieve better outcomes with a given pot of resources.

This chapter draws on findings from the application of a priority setting and resource allocation framework known as Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA). Case studies are used to illustrate key points around implementation including factors for success and guidelines for improving priority setting in practice.

PBMA has been applied in over 150 settings over the last 30 years. Purposes varied from focusing strictly on disinvestment to examining opportunities for re-allocation. Many organizations report continued use of the framework and decision makers typically express a desire to not revert to historical allocation or political negotiation in deciding on the funding for programs.

Practical implications of this body of work on priority setting abound in that there are significant opportunities to improve resource allocation practice including better engagement of staff, clinicians and public members, greater use of evidence in decision making and improving process transparency.

As healthcare resources are limited, particularly in predominantly publicly funded health systems, prudent use of resources is critical. Actually applying the appropriate tools to ensure that funding aligns with organizational and system objectives is paramount.

Although there is a large body of literature on priority setting particularly in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, this chapter serves to highlight key messages specifically in the context of fiscal constraint and in relation to the concept of disinvestment or service reduction.

Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers with allocating resources. Previous PBMA work establishes its efficacy and indicates that contextual factors complicate priority setting, which can hamper PBMA effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to gain qualitative insight into PBMA effectiveness.

A Canadian case study of PBMA implementation. Data consist of decision-maker interviews pre (n=20), post year-1 (n=12) and post year-2 (n=9) of PBMA to examine perceptions of baseline priority setting practice vis-à-vis desired practice, and perceptions of PBMA usability and acceptability.

Fit emerged as a key theme in determining PBMA effectiveness. Fit herein refers to being of suitable quality and form to meet the intended purposes and needs of the end-users, and includes desirability, acceptability, and usability dimensions. Results confirm decision-maker desire for rational approaches like PBMA. However, most participants indicated that the timing of the exercise and the form in which PBMA was applied were not well-suited for this case study. Participant acceptance of and buy-in to PBMA changed during the study: a leadership change, limited organizational commitment, and concerns with organizational capacity were key barriers to PBMA adoption and thereby effectiveness.

These findings suggest that a potential way-forward includes adding a contextual readiness/capacity assessment stage to PBMA, recognizing organizational complexity, and considering incremental adoption of PBMA’s approach.

These insights help us to better understand and work with priority setting conditions to advance evidence-informed decision making.

Public sector interest in methods for priority setting and program or policy evaluation has grown considerably over the last several decades, given increased expectations for accountable and efficient use of resources and emphasis on evidence‐based decision making as a component of good management practice. While there has been some occasional effort to conduct evaluation of priority setting projects, the literatures around priority setting and evaluation have largely evolved separately. In this paper, the aim is to bring them together.

The contention is that evaluation theory is a means by which evaluators reflect upon what it is they are doing when they do evaluation work. Theories help to organize thinking, sort out relevant from irrelevant information, provide transparent grounds for particular implementation choices, and can help resolve problematic issues which may arise in the conduct of an evaluation project.

A detailed review of three major branches of evaluation theory – methods, utilization, and valuing – identifies how such theories can guide the development of efforts to evaluate priority setting and resource allocation initiatives. Evaluation theories differ in terms of their guiding question, anticipated setting or context, evaluation foci, perspective from which benefits are calculated, and typical methods endorsed.

Choosing a particular theoretical approach will structure the way in which any priority setting process is evaluated. The paper suggests that explicitly considering evaluation theory makes key aspects of the evaluation process more visible to all stakeholders, and can assist in the design of effective evaluation of priority setting processes; this should iteratively serve to improve the understanding of priority setting practices themselves.

When introducing new health technologies, decision makers must integrate research evidence with local operational management information to guide decisions about whether and under what conditions the technology will be used. Multi‐criteria decision analysis can support the adoption or prioritization of health interventions by using criteria to explicitly articulate the health organization's needs, limitations, and values in addition to evaluating evidence for safety and effectiveness. This paper seeks to describe the development of a framework to create agreed‐upon criteria and decision tools to enhance a pre‐existing local health technology assessment (HTA) decision support program.

The authors compiled a list of published criteria from the literature, consulted with experts to refine the criteria list, and used a modified Delphi process with a group of key stakeholders to review, modify, and validate each criterion. In a workshop setting, the criteria were used to create decision tools.

A set of user‐validated criteria for new health technology evaluation and adoption was developed and integrated into the local HTA decision support program. Technology evaluation and decision guideline tools were created using these criteria to ensure that the decision process is systematic, consistent, and transparent.

This framework can be used by others to develop decision‐making criteria and tools to enhance similar technology adoption programs.

The development of clear, user‐validated criteria for evaluating new technologies adds a critical element to improve decision‐making on technology adoption, and the decision tools ensure consistency, transparency, and real‐world relevance.