ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2018
Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Civic participation among young people in Chile: an association analysis in times of COVID-19.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Article
- Oral health approach in universal health coverage.BMC public health · 2024Review
- Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- The Dutch Citizen Forum on Public Reimbursement of Healthcare: A Qualitative Analysis of Opinion Change.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- CHAT SA: Modification of a Public Engagement Tool for Priority Setting for a South African Rural Context.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Engaging community members in setting priorities for nutrition interventions in rural northern Ghana.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- The long shadow of childhood cancer: a qualitative study on insurance hardship among survivors of childhood cancer.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Hidden bedside rationing in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey among physicians in internal medicine.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- The Value of Engaging the Public in CHATing About Healthcare Priorities: A Response to Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2019Article
- Tradeoff Negotiation: The Importance of Getting in the Game Comment on "Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage".International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
- Healthcare Priority-Setting: Chat-Ting Is Not Enough Comment on "Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage".International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs universal health coverage becomes the norm in many countries, it is important to determine public priorities regarding benefits to include in health insurance coverage. We report results of participation in a decision exercise among residents of Switzerland, a high-income country with a long history of universal health insurance and deliberative democracy.
methodsWe adapted the Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT) tool, an exercise developed to transform complex healthcare allocation decisions into easily understandable choices, for use in Switzerland. We conducted CHAT exercises in twelve Swiss cities with recruitment from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, taking into account differences in language and culture.
resultsCompared to existing coverage, a majority of 175 participants accepted greater general practice gatekeeping (94%), exclusion of invasive life-sustaining measures in dying patients (80%), longer waiting times for non-urgent episodic care (78%), greater adherence to cost-effectiveness guidelines in chronic care (66%), and lower premium subsidies (51%). Most initially chose greater coverage for dental care (59%), quality of life (57%), and long-term care (90%). During group deliberations, participants increased coverage for out-of-pocket costs (58%) and mental health to current levels (41%) and beyond current levels for rehabilitation (50%), and decreased coverage for quality of life to current levels (74%). Following group deliberation, they tended to change their views back to below current coverage for help with out-of-pocket costs, and back to current levels for rehabilitation. Most participants accepted the plan as appropriate and fair. A significant number would have added nothing.
conclusionSwiss participants who have engaged in a priority setting exercise accept complex resource allocation trade-offs in healthcare coverage. Moreover, in the context of a well-funded healthcare system with universal coverage centered on individual choice, at least some of our participants believed a fully sufficient threshold of health insurance coverage was achieved.
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.