IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v90y2009i1p81-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priority setting for technology adoption at a hospital level: Relevant issues from the literature

Author

Listed:
  • Lettieri, Emanuele
  • Masella, Cristina

Abstract

Objectives The increasing pace of development of healthcare technologies obliges hospitals to increase both the rationality and the accountability of priority setting for technology adoption. This paper aims at identifying which are the relevant issues for technology assessment and selection at a hospital level and at grouping them in a reference framework.Methods An electronic search from January 1990 onwards, covering PubMed, Medline and CILEA, has been carried out in order to collect the relevant contributions. A total of 20 studies were selected from the fields of health policy, management of technology and biomedical engineering.Results Two main assessment perspectives have been identified and detailed: value generation at a hospital level and level of sustainability in the implementation stage. Four types of investment in technology at a hospital level have been identified combining the perspectives. Moreover, the two perspectives have been deployed in a list of 19 relevant issues that should be reviewed during the budget process.Conclusion The proposed framework can aid priority setting for technology adoption at a hospital level and contribute to increase both the rationality and the accountability of technology assessment and selection in the budget process.

Suggested Citation

  • Lettieri, Emanuele & Masella, Cristina, 2009. "Priority setting for technology adoption at a hospital level: Relevant issues from the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 81-88, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:90:y:2009:i:1:p:81-88
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00176-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Madden, Shannon & Martin, Douglas K. & Downey, Sarah & Singer, Peter A., 2005. "Hospital priority setting with an appeals process: a qualitative case study and evaluation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 10-20, July.
    2. Sendi, Pedram & Al, Maiwenn J. & Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 2003. "Optimizing a portfolio of health care programs in the presence of uncertainty and constrained resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(11), pages 2207-2215, December.
    3. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2006. "Responsibility, fairness and rationing in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 312-319, May.
    4. Adang, Eddy M.M. & Wensing, Michel, 2008. "Economic barriers to implementation of innovations in health care: Is the long run-short run efficiency discrepancy a paradox?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 236-242, December.
    5. Reeleder, David & Goel, Vivek & Singer, Peter A. & Martin, Douglas K., 2006. "Leadership and priority setting: The perspective of hospital CEOs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 24-34, November.
    6. Farrar, Shelley & Ryan, Mandy & Ross, Donald & Ludbrook, Anne, 2000. "Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 63-75, January.
    7. Keen, Justin & Bryan, Stirling & Muris, Nicole & Weatherburn, Gwyn & Buxton, Martin, 1995. "Evaluation of diffuse technologies: the case of digital imaging networks," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 153-166, December.
    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. Lettieri, Emanuele, 2009. "Uncertainty inclusion in budgeting technology adoption at a hospital level: Evidence from a multiple case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 128-136, December.

    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. Lettieri, Emanuele, 2009. "Uncertainty inclusion in budgeting technology adoption at a hospital level: Evidence from a multiple case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 128-136, December.
    2. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    3. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    4. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    5. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    6. Januleviciute, Jurgita & Askildsen, Jan Erik & Holmås, Tor Helge & Kaarbøe, Oddvar & Sutton, Matt, 2010. "The Impact of Different Prioritisation Policies on Waiting Times: A Comparative Analysis of Norway and Scotland," Working Papers in Economics 07/10, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    7. Robinson, Suzanne & Williams, Iestyn & Dickinson, Helen & Freeman, Tim & Rumbold, Benedict, 2012. "Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: Evidence from the English experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2386-2393.
    8. Jennifer Priaulx & Marcell Csanádi & Harry J. de Koning & Martin McKee, 2019. "A choice experiment to identify the most important elements of a successful cancer screening program according to those who research and manage such programs," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 34-45, January.
    9. Angelina L�zaro Alqu�zar & Bego�a �lvarez Farizo, 2006. "Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists: a community workshop approach," Documentos de Trabajo dt2006-08, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Zaragoza.
    10. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    11. Pérez Odeh, Rodrigo & Watts, David & Flores, Yarela, 2018. "Planning in a changing environment: Applications of portfolio optimisation to deal with risk in the electricity sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3808-3823.
    12. Christine Le Clainche & Jerome Wittwer, 2015. "Responsibility‐Sensitive Fairness in Health Financing: Judgments in Four European Countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 470-480, April.
    13. van der Star, Sanne M. & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Individual responsibility and health-risk behaviour: A contingent valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 300-311, August.
    14. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    15. Baines, Darrin & Disegna, Marta & Hartwell, Christopher A., 2021. "Portfolio frontier analysis: Applying mean-variance analysis to health technology assessment for health systems under pressure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    16. Tima Mohammadi & Wei Zhang & Julie Sou & Sylvie Langlois & Sarah Munro & Aslam H. Anis, 2020. "A Hierarchical Bayes Approach to Modeling Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Public Preferences for Prenatal Screening," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 211-223, April.
    17. David L.B. Schwappach, 2003. "Does it matter who you are or what you gain? an experimental study of preferences for resource allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 255-267, April.
    18. Qiuzhuo Ma & Krishna P Paudel & Liting Gu & Xiaowei Wen, 2018. "An application of a cardinality-constrained multiple benchmark tracking error model on a plant enterprise selection problem," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(5), pages 677-721.
    19. Maricianah Atieno Onono & Claire D Brindis & Justin S White & Eric Goosby & Dan Odhiambo Okoro & Elizabeth Anne Bukusi & George W Rutherford, 2019. "Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Kapiriri, Lydia & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Martin, Douglas K., 2007. "Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 78-94, June.

    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:90:y:2009:i:1:p:81-88. 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.