ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
The rationing agenda in the NHS. Rationing Agenda Group.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- The NHS at 60: the next 60 years.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008Article
- Beta interferon, NICE, and rationing.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- Defining and cultivating the virtues.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- An oral history of general practice 4: changing practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- RCGP 'virtual genetics' group meeting: 'the use of the family history in primary care'.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- The end of the affair--public health medicine 1974-2002.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- Are GP leaders scared of sex?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- Who wants to know if their care is rationed? Views of citizens and service informants.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2001Article
- Limits to demand for health care. Rationing is needed in a national health service.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
- Developing a prioritisation framework: experiences from a Scottish Health Authority.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2001Article
- Ageing Britain--challenges and opportunities for general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2001Article
- Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 1999Article
- Healthcare rationing-are additional criteria needed for assessing evidence based clinical practice guidelines?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999Review
- Can primary care groups learn how to manage demand from fundholders? A study of fundholders in Nottingham.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999Article
- [Rationing in medicine from the economic viewpoint].Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983) · 1999Review
- "If a patient is too costly they tend to get rid of you:" the impact of people's perceptions of rationing on the use of primary care.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 1999Article
- Rationing and the health authority.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Article
- Viagra and rationing. Let the sunlight in, let the people speak.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Article
- Drug rationing in the UK National Health Service. Current status and future prospects.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Review
- Prioritising the cardiac surgery waiting list: the angina patient's perspective.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 1997Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Comment on
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Rationing Agenda Group has been founded to deepen the British debate on rationing health care. It believes that rationing in health care is inevitable and that the public must be involved in the debate about issues relating to rationing. The group comprises people from all parts of health care, none of whom represent either their group or their institutions. RAG has begun by producing this document, which attempts to set an agenda of all the issues that need to be considered when debating the rationing of health care. We hope for responses to the document. The next stage will be to incorporate the responses into the agenda. Then RAG will divide the agenda into manageable chunks and commission expert, detailed commentaries. From this material a final paper will be published and used to prompt public debate. This stage should be reached early in 1997. While these papers are being prepared RAG is developing ways to involve the public in the debate and evaluate the whole process. We present as neutrally as possible all the issues related to rationing and priority setting in the NHS. We focus on the NHS for two reasons. Firstly, for those of us resident in the United Kingdom the NHS is the health care system with which we are most familiar and most concerned. Secondly, focusing on one system alone allows more coherent analysis than would be possible if issues in other systems were included as well. Our concern is with the delivery of health care, not its finance, though we discuss the possible effects of changing the financing system of the NHS. Finally, though our position is neutral, we hold two substantive views--namely, that rationing is unavoidable and that there should be more explicit debate about the principles and issues concerned. We consider the issues under four headings: preliminaries, ethics, democracy, and empirical questions. Preliminaries deal with the semantics of rationing, whether rationing is necessary, and with the range of services to which rationing relates. Under ethics and democracy are the substantive issues of principle and theory. The final section deals with empirical questions and those relating to the practicality of various strategies.
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.