IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v121y2017i7p793-799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers

Author

Listed:
  • Parker, Lisa

Abstract

Values are an important part of evidence-based decision making for health policy: they guide the type of evidence that is collected, how it is interpreted, and how important the conclusions are considered to be. Experts in breast screening (including clinicians, researchers, consumer advocates and senior administrators) hold differing values in relation to what is important in breast screening policy and practice, and committees may find it difficult to incorporate the complexity and variety of values into policy decisions. The decision making tool provided here is intended to assist with this process. The tool is modified from more general frameworks that are intended to assist with ethical decision making in public health, and informed by data drawn from previous empirical studies on values amongst Australian breast screening experts. It provides a structured format for breast screening committees to consider and discuss the values of themselves and others, suggests relevant topics for further inquiry and highlights areas of need for future research into the values of the public. It enables committees to publicly explain and justify their decisions with reference to values, improving transparency and accountability. It is intended to act alongside practices that seek to accommodate the values of individual women in the informed decision making process for personal decision making about participation in breast screening.

Suggested Citation

  • Parker, Lisa, 2017. "Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 793-799.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:7:p:793-799
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851017300635
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Degeling, Chris & Carter, Stacy M. & Rychetnik, Lucie, 2015. "Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 114-121.
    2. Paul, Charlotte & Nicholls, Rachel & Priest, Patricia & McGee, Rob, 2008. "Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: The role of citizens' deliberation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 314-320, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schoemaker, Casper G. & van Loon, Jeanne & Achterberg, Peter W. & van den Berg, Matthijs & Harbers, Maartje M. & den Hertog, Frank R.J. & Hilderink, Henk & Kommer, Geertjan & Melse, Johan & van Oers, , 2019. "The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 252-259.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    2. Dale, Elina & Evans, David B. & Gopinathan, Unni & Kurowski, Christoph & Norheim, Ole F. & Ottersen, Trygve & Voorhoeve, Alex, 2023. "Open and inclusive: fair processes for financing universal health coverage," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119795, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.
    4. Ruben Andreas Sakowsky, 2021. "Disentangling the welfarism/extra‐welfarism distinction: Towards a more fine‐grained categorization," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 2307-2311, September.
    5. Peter Coals & Dawn Burnham & Paul J. Johnson & Andrew Loveridge & David W. Macdonald & Vivienne L. Williams & John A. Vucetich, 2019. "Deep Uncertainty, Public Reason, the Conservation of Biodiversity and the Regulation of Markets for Lion Skeletons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-15, September.
    6. Ruth Wouters & Bieke De Fraine & Maarten Simons, 2019. "What is at Stake in Deliberative Inquiry? A Review About a Deliberative Practice," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 193-217, April.
    7. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.
    8. Carman, Kristin L. & Mallery, Coretta & Maurer, Maureen & Wang, Grace & Garfinkel, Steve & Yang, Manshu & Gilmore, Dierdre & Windham, Amy & Ginsburg, Marjorie & Sofaer, Shoshanna & Gold, Marthe & Path, 2015. "Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 11-20.
    9. Jianming Wang & Tsung Piao Chou & Chia-Pin Chen & Xiangzhi Bu, 2020. "Leaders’ Future Orientation and Public Health Investment Intention: A Moderated Mediation Model of Self-Efficacy and Perceived Social Support," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Abelson, Julia & Tripp, Laura & Sussman, Jonathan, 2018. "‘I just want to be able to make a choice’: Results from citizen deliberations about mammography screening in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(12), pages 1364-1371.
    11. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.
    12. Mark Fabian & Anna Alexandrova & Yamini Cinamon Nair, 2023. "Coproducing Wellbeing Policy: A Theory of Thriving in Financial Hardship," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 2309-2330, October.
    13. Louise K Wiles & Debra Kay & Julie A Luker & Anthea Worley & Jane Austin & Allan Ball & Alan Bevan & Michael Cousins & Sarah Dalton & Ellie Hodges & Lidia Horvat & Ellen Kerrins & Julie Marker & Miche, 2022. "Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-26, January.
    14. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Schoemaker, Casper G. & van Loon, Jeanne & Achterberg, Peter W. & van den Berg, Matthijs & Harbers, Maartje M. & den Hertog, Frank R.J. & Hilderink, Henk & Kommer, Geertjan & Melse, Johan & van Oers, , 2019. "The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 252-259.
    16. Smith, K.E. & Macintyre, A.K. & Weakley, S. & Hill, S.E. & Escobar, O. & Fergie, G., 2021. "Public understandings of potential policy responses to health inequalities: Evidence from a UK national survey and citizens’ juries in three UK cities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    17. Ravensbergen, W.M. & Drewes, Y.M. & Hilderink, H.B.M. & Verschuuren, M. & Gussekloo, J. & Vonk, R.A.A., 2019. "Combined impact of future trends on healthcare utilisation of older people: A Delphi study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 947-954.
    18. Sobo, Elisa J., 2016. "What is herd immunity, and how does it relate to pediatric vaccination uptake? US parent perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 187-195.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:7:p:793-799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.