ArticleBMJ open2025
What should be publicly funded in the Colombian health system? A mixed methods study of citizens' perceptions.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring impacts of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE): a narrative review synthesis of review evidence.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, citizens have become more interested and willing to influence health policy decision-making, and governments worldwide are more prone to citizen engagement in such processes. Prioritising which health technologies should be publicly funded is one decision that requires prudence and consideration of the values and expectations of the people who will be affected by it.
objectiveTo identify and understand the citizens' perceptions about which health technologies should be publicly funded in Colombia.
designSequential exploratory mixed methods study; the first was a qualitative embedded case study, and the second was a Q methodology study.
participants46 citizens were interviewed, and 30 citizens ordered a Q-sample of 45 statements. ANALYSIS: Interviews were content analysed. We performed a content analysis of the interviews, and, for the quantitative strand, we performed a principal component analysis and varimax rotation to identify view patterns. We also estimated the z-scores of each statement and the load to each factor. We jointly interpreted both sets of findings.
resultsWe identified two general approaches citizens used to consider public funding of healthcare technologies. One approach endorsed full coverage of all health technologies required by every Colombian. In the second approach, public funding is conditional on the characteristics of the person who needs the technology, their disease/condition, the kind of technology required and the expectation of efficient health system performance. When integrating the results of the Q methodology, we found five patterns of points of view about the public funding of health technologies.
conclusionColombian citizens consider and balance a range of different factors when making decisions about which health technologies are publicly funded. Citizens not only use technical criteria to decide but also provide the perspective and values of those affected by the decision.
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.