ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2001
Developing a prioritisation framework: experiences from a Scottish Health Authority.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2006Article
- Deciding how NHS money is spent: a survey of general public and medical views.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the development of the Prioritisation Scoring Index (PSI) and its use in a prioritisation framework, providing examples where it has been used to prioritise between bids from different specialities and to assist in decision-making regarding funding of service developments. To outline lessons learned for other health authorities when developing their own prioritisation methodologies.
backgroundThe PSI was designed for prioritising: investments and dis-investments; non-recurring and recurring monies as well as differing specialities, care groups and types of intervention.
methodsThe PSI consists of a 'basket' of utility criteria and takes account of the numbers of people that would receive the proposed intervention and the marginal cost for each additional person receiving the intervention. A multidisciplinary panel scored and ranked the bids. Two rankings were produced for each intervention according to (1) the average panel score for the utility criteria and (2) the cost per additional person receiving the intervention. An average of these two rankings produced the overall PSI rankings.
resultsAlmost 200 bids, with a total value of pound 50 million, were ranked, using the PSI, to prioritise developments worth approximately pound 17.5 million that could be funded in a phased implementation through the Health Improvement Programme.
conclusionsUse of the PSI has allowed explicit prioritisation of development bids in substantial exercises for both non-recurring and recurring funding. We describe steps to be considered when other health authorities are developing their own prioritisation frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.