ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2007
Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public preferences regarding the priority setting criteria of health interventions for budget allocation: results of a survey of Iranian adults.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Public and decision-maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions in Iran: an application of the discrete choice experiment.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2021Article
- Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia.PloS one · 2017Article
- Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2017Article
- Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers.The patient · 2016Review
- Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.PloS one · 2016Article
- The relevance of personal characteristics in allocating health care resources-controversial preferences of laypersons with different educational backgrounds.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2012Article
- Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view.PloS one · 2011Article
- Israeli lay persons' views on priority-setting criteria for Alzheimer's disease.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2009Article
- What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo gather information about views of members of the general public about access to High Cost Medications (HCMs) in public hospitals.
methodsA structured questionnaire was administered to members of the general public. Individuals were approached in train stations, shopping centres and different venues in the Sydney metropolitan area. People were eligible to answer the survey if they were: over 18 years of age, Australian permanent residents and able to complete the questionnaire in English.
resultsTwo hundred people completed the survey. Of these 56% were females, 47% were married, 84% spoke English at home, 88% were working either full-time or part-time, 61% had a university degree, 27% had a household annual income greater than 100,000 dollars and 68% had private health insurance. Participants considered factors such as treatment outcomes, quality of life and current health status when determining who should have access to HCMs. Participants wanted resources to be allocated to provide the 'greatest benefit to the greatest number of people'. Almost half the respondents did not want direct involvement in decision-making, however, 38% did.
conclusionsThe results offered support for indirect involvement through the development of a process to involve community members in discussion on policy on the provision of treatment and services within health-care institutions and specifically, to seek the views of members of the public on the provision of HCMs and expensive services within public hospitals.
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.