ArticleBMC health services research2007
Combining evidence and values in priority setting: testing the balance sheet method in a low-income country.
Article in BMC health services research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks.Health economics · 2016Pooled it
- 'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature.BMC health services research · 2015Pooled it
- Qualitative analysis of national documents on health care services and pharmaceuticals` purchasing challenges: evidence from Iran.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Scoping literature review on the basic health benefit package and its determinant criteria.Globalization and health · 2018Article
- Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research.F1000Research · 2017Article
- Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2017Article
- The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources--findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia.Health research policy and systems · 2014Article
- Public engagement in health priority setting in low- and middle-income countries: current trends and considerations for policy.PLoS medicine · 2013Article
- Challenges to fair decision-making processes in the context of health care services: a qualitative assessment from Tanzania.International journal for equity in health · 2012Article
- Risk perception and priority setting for intervention among hepatitis C virus and environmental risks: a cross-sectional survey in the Cairo community.BMC public health · 2010Article
- Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework: Perceptions of stakeholders.BMC health services research · 2010Article
- Identifying research priorities for health care priority setting: a collaborative effort between managers and researchers.BMC health services research · 2009Article
- Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules.PharmacoEconomics · 2009Review
- Setting priorities for the health care sector in Zimbabwe using cost-effectiveness analysis and estimates of the burden of disease.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2008Article
- Priority setting in developing countries health care institutions: the case of a Ugandan hospital.BMC health services research · 2006Article
- Bedside Rationing Under Resource Constraints-A National Survey of Ethiopian Physicians' Use of Criteria for Priority Setting.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProcedures for priority setting need to incorporate both scientific evidence and public values. The aim of this study was to test out a model for priority setting which incorporates both scientific evidence and public values, and to explore use of evidence by a selection of stakeholders and to study reasons for the relative ranking of health care interventions in a setting of extreme resource scarcity.
methodsSystematic search for and assessment of relevant evidence for priority setting in a low-income country. Development of a balance sheet according to Eddy's explicit method. Eight group interviews (n-85), using a modified nominal group technique for eliciting individual and group rankings of a given set of health interventions.
resultsThe study procedure made it possible to compare the groups' ranking before and after all the evidence was provided to participants. A rank deviation is significant if the rank order of the same intervention differed by two or more points on the ordinal scale. A comparison between the initial rank and the final rank (before deliberation) showed a rank deviation of 67%. The difference between the initial rank and the final rank after discussion and voting gave a rank deviation of 78%.
conclusionEvidence-based and deliberative decision-making does change priorities significantly in an experimental setting. Our use of the balance sheet method was meant as a demonstration project, but could if properly developed be feasible for health planners, experts and health workers, although more work is needed before it can be used for laypersons.
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.