Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18021393›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2007

Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study.

Rebecca A Bruni, Andreas Laupacis, Wendy Levinson, Douglas K Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Referral Prioritization in Home Care Occupational Therapy: A Matter of Perspective.Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie · 2020
    Article
  7. Evaluation of a project to engage patients in the development of a patient-reported measure for HIV care (the I-Score Study).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
  8. Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation.International journal of health policy and management · 2015
    Review
  9. Article
  10. The surgical waiting time initiative: A review of the Nigerian situation.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association · 2014
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Public perceptions of ethical issues regarding adult predictive genetic testing.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2010
    Article
  15. 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 · 2009
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rebecca A BruniJoint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. rebecca.bruni@utoronto.ca
Andreas Laupacis
Wendy Levinson
Douglas K Martin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs no health system can afford to provide all possible services and treatments for the people it serves, each system must set priorities. Priority setting decision makers are increasingly involving the public in policy making. This study focuses on public engagement in a key priority setting context that plagues every health system around the world: wait list management. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting for the Ontario Wait Time Strategy, with special attention to public engagement.

methodsThis study was conducted at the Ontario Wait Time Strategy in Ontario, Canada which is part of a Federal-Territorial-Provincial initiative to improve access and reduce wait times in five areas: cancer, cardiac, sight restoration, joint replacements, and diagnostic imaging. There were two sources of data: (1) over 25 documents (e.g. strategic planning reports, public updates), and (2) 28 one-on-one interviews with informants (e.g. OWTS participants, MOHLTC representatives, clinicians, patient advocates). Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation.

resultsThe Ontario Wait Time Strategy partially meets the four conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'. The public was not directly involved in the priority setting activities of the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Study participants identified both benefits (supporting the initiative, experts of the lived experience, a publicly funded system and sustainability of the healthcare system) and concerns (personal biases, lack of interest to be involved, time constraints, and level of technicality) for public involvement in the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Additionally, the participants identified concern for the consequences (sustainability, cannibalism, and a class system) resulting from the Ontario Wait Times Strategy.

conclusionWe described and evaluated a wait time management initiative (the Ontario Wait Time Strategy) with special attention to public engagement, and provided a concrete plan to operationalize a strategy for improving public involvement in this, and other, wait time initiatives.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationHealth Care RationingHealth PrioritiesPolicy MakingRegional Health PlanningTime ManagementWaiting ListsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInterviews as TopicOntarioOrganizational Case StudiesPlanning TechniquesProcess Assessment, Health CareQualitative ResearchRisk Management

Identifiers

PMID18021393
PMCPMC2238747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.