Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30078295›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2018

Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage.

Samia A Hurst, Mélinée Schindler, Susan D Goold, Marion Danis

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Samia A HurstInstitute for Ethics, History, and the Humanities, Geneva University Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mélinée SchindlerInstitute for Ethics, History, and the Humanities, Geneva University Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland.
Susan D GooldDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Marion DanisDepartment of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
University of Geneva · CHNational Institutes of Health · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Engaging the public in priorities for health through the CHAT exerciseZIACL010529 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI DANIS, MARION · 2009 to 2023
$0k
6 · The paper itself

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

AttitudeDecision MakingHealth PolicyHealth PrioritiesInsurance, HealthResource AllocationUniversal Health InsuranceAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunity ParticipationFemaleGroup ProcessesHumansMalePriority SettingPublic ParticipationResource AllocationUniversal Insurance System

Identifiers

PMID30078295
PMCPMC6077280
OpenAlexW2790580998

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.