IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v37y1993i7p851-857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district

Author

Listed:
  • Bowling, Ann
  • Jacobson, Bobbie
  • Southgate, Lesley

Abstract

The methodology for eliciting the public's priorities for health services is in its infancy. The paper presents the results from a series of exploratory exercises on priorities in City and Hackney. The authors surveyed the opinions of members of community groups and tenants' associations, and compared their responses with those of a random sample of the public as well as general practitioners, consultants and public health doctors. This revealed some disagreement on priorities between these groups. The public, in consistency with the results from other studies, prioritised perceived life saving technologies as high, in contrast to community services and services for people with mental illnesses, which they prioritised as medium to low, in contrast to all the samples of doctors; the public also prioritised health education and family planning as fairly low, as did the GPs and consultants, in contrast to the public health doctors who prioritised them as high. Before DHAs embark on these studies as part of priority setting, they must answer the question: "what will they do if they disagree with the results?"

Suggested Citation

  • Bowling, Ann & Jacobson, Bobbie & Southgate, Lesley, 1993. "Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 851-857, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:37:y:1993:i:7:p:851-857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(93)90138-T
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gold, Marthe Rachel & Franks, Peter & Siegelberg, Taryn & Sofaer, Shoshanna, 2007. "Does providing cost-effectiveness information change coverage priorities for citizens acting as social decision makers?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 65-72, September.
    2. L. Sampietro-Colom & M. Espallargues & E. Rodríguez & M. Comas & J. Alonso & X. Castells & J.L. Pinto, 2008. "Wide Social Participation in Prioritizing Patients on Waiting Lists for Joint Replacement: A Conjoint Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 554-566, July.
    3. Menon, Devidas & Stafinski, Tania & Martin, Douglas, 2007. "Priority-setting for healthcare: Who, how, and is it fair?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 220-233, December.
    4. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Broqvist, Mari & Garpenby, Peter, 2015. "It takes a giraffe to see the big picture – Citizens' view on decision makers in health care rationing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 301-308.
    7. Rosen, Per, 2006. "Public dialogue on healthcare prioritisation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 107-116, November.
    8. Mossialos, Elias & King, Derek, 1999. "Citizens and rationing: analysis of a European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 75-135, September.
    9. Anabela Botelho & Micaela M. Pinho & Paula Veiga, 2011. "Who and how should participate in health care priority setting? Evidence from a Portuguese survey," NIMA Working Papers 43, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    10. Susan Halford & Alison Fuller & Kate Lyle & Rebecca Taylor, 2019. "Organizing Health Inequalities? Employee-Driven Innovation and the Transformation of Care," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 24(1), pages 3-20, March.
    11. Soderlund, Neil, 1998. "Possible objectives and resulting entitlements of essential health care packages," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 195-208, September.
    12. Abelson, Julia & Eyles, John & McLeod, Christopher B. & Collins, Patricia & McMullan, Colin & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier, 2003. "Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 95-106, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    rationing prioritisation purchasing;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:socmed:v:37:y:1993:i:7:p:851-857. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.