ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2018
Stakeholder Participation for Legitimate Priority Setting: A Checklist.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the national essential medicines list selection processes: Instrument development and testing.PloS one · 2026Article
- A 10-Step Method for Fair Priority-Setting Processes: A Qualitative Case Study from Zanzibar.Health systems and reform · 2025Article
- Procedural fairness in benefit package design: inclusion of pre-exposure prophylaxis of HIV in Universal Coverage Scheme in Thailand.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM): A Decade of Advancing Knowledge and Influencing Global Health Policy (2013-2023).International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Considering equity in priority setting using transmission models: Recommendations and data needs.Epidemics · 2022Review
- Article
- Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2022Article
- Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022Article
- Article
- A mapping and synthesis of tools for stakeholder and community engagement in quality improvement initiatives for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Review
- A Scoping Review of Different Methods of Assessing the Impact of New Medical Technologies at Early Stages of Development.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2021Article
- Difficult trade-offs in response to COVID-19: the case for open and inclusive decision making.Nature medicine · 2021Article
- How to achieve trustworthy artificial intelligence for health.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020Article
- Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe.International journal of health policy and management · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accountable decision-makers are required to legitimize their priority setting decisions in health to members of society. In this perspective we stress the point that fair, legitimate processes should reflect efforts of authorities to treat all stakeholders as moral equals in terms of providing all people with well-justified, reasonable reasons to endorse the decisions. We argue there is a special moral concern for being accountable to those who are potentially adversely affected by decisions. Health authorities need to operationalize this requirement into real world action. In this perspective, we operationalize five key steps in doing so, in terms of (i) proactively identifying potentially adversely affected stakeholders; (ii) comprehensively including them in the decision-making process; (iii) ensuring meaningful participation; (iv) communication of recommendations or decisions; and (v) the organization of evaluation and appeal mechanisms. Health authorities are advised to use a checklist in the form of 29 reflective questions, aligned with these five key steps, to assist them in the practical organization of legitimate priority setting in healthcare.
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.