Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28808427›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2017

Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.

Antonis Farmakas, Mamas Theodorou, Petros Galanis, Georgios Karayiannis, Stefanos Ghobrial, Nikos Polyzos, Evridiki Papastavrou, Eirini Agapidaki, Kyriakos Souliotis

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Antonis FarmakasDepartment of Life and Health Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Mamas TheodorouFaculty of Economics and Management, Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Petros GalanisResearch Associate Center for Health Services Management and Evaluation, Faculty of Nursing, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Georgios KarayiannisUniversity of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Stefanos GhobrialSchool of Medicine, East Anglia University, Norwich, UK.
Nikos PolyzosDepartment of Social Administration and Political Science, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece.
Evridiki PapastavrouDepartment of Nursing, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus.
Eirini AgapidakiCentre for Health Services Research, Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, University of Athens, 25 Alexandroupoleos st., Athens, Greece.
Kyriakos SouliotisFaculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Peloponnese, Corinth, Greece.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversity of Nicosia · CYCyprus University of Technology · CYDemocritus University of Thrace · GROpen University of Cyprus · CYUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Peloponnese · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn countries such as Cyprus the financial crisis and the recession have severely affected the funding and priority setting of the health care system. There is evidence highlighting the importance of population' preferences in designing priorities for health care settings. Although public preferences have been thorough analysed in many countries, there is a research gap in terms of simultaneously investigating the relative importance and the weight of differing and competing criteria for determining healthcare priority settings. The main objective of the study was tο investigate public preferences for the relative utility and weight of differing and competing criteria for health care priority setting in Cyprus.

methodsThe 'conjoint analysis' technique was applied to develop a ranking exercise. The aim of the study was to identify the preferences of the participants for alternative options. Participants were asked to grade in a priority order 16 hypothetical case scenarios of patients with different disease and of diverse socio-economic characteristics awaiting treatment. The sample was purposive and consisted of 100 Cypriots, selected from public locations all over the country.

resultsIt was revealed that the

conclusionIn Cyprus, public participation in health care priority setting is almost inexistent. Nonetheless, it seems that the public's participation in this process could lead to a wider acceptance of the healthcare system especially as a result of the financial crisis and the upcoming reforms implemented such as the establishment of the General System of Health Insurance.

Indexed as

Healthcare priority settingHealth policyPublic participationResources allocation

Identifiers

PMID28808427
PMCPMC5551077
OpenAlexW2742841127

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.