ArticleJournal of health organization and management2019
Creating sustainable health care systems.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Delivering Patient Education in Healthcare Organizations: An Integrative Review of the Nursing Administrative Actions.Journal of nursing management · 2024Pooled it
- Immediate admission to the surgery hospital significantly optimises quality indicators in older patients with hip fractures: A before-and-after study.The Journal of frailty & aging · 2025Article
- What are the Revealed and Stated Population Preferences for Environmental Sustainability in Healthcare? A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- The complexities of integrating evidence-based preventative health into England's NHS: lessons learnt from the case of PrEP.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- The Roles of Trust and Its Antecedent Variables in Healthcare Consumers' Acceptance of Online Medical Consultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Supporting efficiency improvement in public health systems: a rapid evidence synthesis.BMC health services research · 2022Review
- Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Impact of Trust and Privacy Concerns on Technology Acceptance in Healthcare: An Indian Perspective.International journal of medical informatics · 2020Article
- Patient and public involvement in priority-setting decisions in England's Transforming NHS: An interview study with Clinical Commissioning Groups in South London sustainability transformation partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- Implementation of Health Systems Science Curriculum in Radiation Oncology Resident Education.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.