ReviewHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2003
Eliciting reasons: empirical methods in priority setting.
Review in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From classroom to workforce: a discrete choice analysis of Iranian nursing students' job preferences.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Job preferences of master of public health students in China: a discrete choice experiment.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Healthcare resource allocation decisions affecting uninsured services.Journal of health organization and management · 2016Article
- Hospital preferences of nursing students in Korea: a discrete choice experiment approach.Human resources for health · 2016Article
- Priority setting in Indigenous health: assessing priority setting process and criteria that should guide the health system to improve Indigenous Australian health.International journal for equity in health · 2014Article
- A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14510308What 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.