Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30859907›Full record

ArticleJournal of health organization and management2019

Creating sustainable health care systems.

Peter Littlejohns, Katharina Kieslich, Albert Weale, Emma Tumilty, Georgina Richardson, Tim Stokes, Robin Gauld, Paul Scuffham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health organization and management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Performance of Thailand's universal health coverage scheme: Evaluating the effectiveness of annual public hearings.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Peter LittlejohnsDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Katharina KieslichDepartment of Political Science, University of Vienna , Vienna, Austria.
Albert WealeSchool of Public Policy, University College London , London, UK.
Emma TumiltyDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, University of Otago , Dunedin, New Zealand.
Georgina RichardsonDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, University of Otago , Dunedin, New Zealand.
Tim StokesDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, University of Otago , Dunedin, New Zealand.
Robin GauldSchool of Business, University of Otago , Dunedin, New Zealand.
Paul ScuffhamCentre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University , Southport, Australia.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn order to create sustainable health systems, many countries are introducing ways to prioritise health services underpinned by a process of health technology assessment. While this approach requires technical judgements of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness, these are embedded in a wider set of social (societal) value judgements, including fairness, responsiveness to need, non-discrimination and obligations of accountability and transparency. Implementing controversial decisions faces legal, political and public challenge. To help generate acceptance for the need for health prioritisation and the resulting decisions, the purpose of this paper is to develop a novel way of encouraging key stakeholders, especially patients and the public, to become involved in the prioritisation process. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Through a multidisciplinary collaboration involving a series of international workshops, ethical and political theory (including accountability for reasonableness) have been applied to develop a practical way forward through the creation of a values framework. The authors have tested this framework in England and in New Zealand using a mixed-methods approach.

findingsA social values framework that consists of content and process values has been developed and converted into an online decision-making audit tool. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The authors have developed an easy to use method to help stakeholders (including the public) to understand the need for prioritisation of health services and to encourage their involvement. It provides a pragmatic way of harmonising different perspectives aimed at maximising health experience. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: All health care systems are facing increasing demands within finite resources. Although many countries are introducing ways to prioritise health services, the decisions often face legal, political, commercial and ethical challenge. The research will help health systems to respond to these challenges. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This study helps in increasing public involvement in complex health challenges. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: No other groups have used this combination of approaches to address this issue.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansSocial ResponsibilitySocial ValuesEvidence-based practiceHealth services sectorHospital managementInequalityNational Health ServiceNew Zealand

Identifiers

PMID30859907
PMCPMC7068726

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.