Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29929516›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Resource allocation in NHS dentistry: recognition of societal preferences (RAINDROP): study protocol.

Christopher R Vernazza, Katherine Carr, John Wildman, Joanne Gray, Richard D Holmes, Catherine Exley, Robert A Smith, Cam Donaldson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. An Examination of Consistency in the Incremental Approach to Willingness to Pay: Evidence Using Societal Values for NHS Dental Services.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Christopher R VernazzaCentre for Oral Health Research, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4BW, UK. C.R.Vernazza@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6927-2974
Katherine CarrCentre for Oral Health Research, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4BW, UK.
John WildmanNewcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, Room 7.20, 7th Floor, 5 Barrack Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4SE, UK.
Joanne GrayNursing, Midwifery & Health, Northumbria University, Sutherland Building, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK.
Richard D HolmesCentre for Oral Health Research, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4BW, UK.
Catherine ExleyFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, NB266, 2nd Floor, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK.
Robert A SmithScHARR, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Cam DonaldsonYunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, M201, George Moore Building, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CS-2014-14-011Research Trainees Coordinating Centre CS-2014-14-011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResources in any healthcare systems are scarce relative to need and therefore choices need to be made which often involve difficult decisions about the best allocation of these resources. One pragmatic and robust tool to aid resource allocation is Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but there is mixed evidence on its uptake and effectiveness. Furthermore, there is also no evidence on the incorporation of the preferences of a large and representative sample of the general public into such a process. The study therefore aims to undertake, evaluate and refine a PBMA process within the exemplar of NHS dentistry in England whilst also using an established methodology (Willingness to Pay (WTP)) to systematically gather views from a representative sample of the public.

methodsStakeholders including service buyers (commissioners), dentists, dental public health representatives and patient representatives will be recruited to participate in a PBMA process involving defining current spend, agreeing criteria to judge services/interventions, defining areas for investment and disinvestment, rating these areas against the criteria and making final recommendations. The process will be refined based on participatory action research principles and evaluated through semi-structured interviews, focus groups and observation of the process by the research team. In parallel a representative sample of English adults will be recruited to complete a series of four surveys including WTP valuations of programmes being considered by the PBMA panel. In addition a methodological experiment comparing two ways of eliciting WTP will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: The project will allow the PBMA process and particularly the use of WTP within it to be investigated and developed. There will be challenges around engagement with the task by the panel undertaking it and with the outputs by stakeholders but careful relationship building will help to mitigate this. The large volume of data will be managed through careful segmenting of the analysis and the use of the well-established Framework approach to qualitative data analysis. WTP has various potential biases but the elicitation will be carefully designed to minimise these and some methodological investigation will take place.

Indexed as

Resource AllocationState MedicineAdultDelivery of Health CareDental Health ServicesEnglandEvidence-Based PracticeHealth Care RationingHumansQualitative ResearchHealth economicsOral healthPreference elicitationPriority setting

Identifiers

PMID29929516
PMCPMC6013861

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.