IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v40y1995i10p1365-1370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dealing with uncertainty: Will science solve the problems of resource allocation in the U.K. NHS?

Author

Listed:
  • Freemantle, Nick

Abstract

In spite of the huge efforts which internationally address the development and assessment of health technologies, the majority of health care interventions have not been formally evaluated for their effectiveness and their likely impact upon health status is largely unknown. This has led to a situation where it is unclear on what basis a health care system might be judged, or for that matter on what basis decisions on the specification of individual services might be made. It has frequently been argued that the only way to build an adequate understanding of the effectiveness of different interventions is through systematically locating and synthesising the available evidence from research, and such systematic overviews are increasingly available in many areas. However, such overviews produce few clear conclusions, and even when the results of systematic overviews show unequivocal benefits for patients, implementing the findings of such reviews remains problematic. Research evidence provides useful information on marginal benefits for patients, though areas where the absolute benefit is high appear to be very rare. The most common finding appears to be uncertainty. Interpreting research evidence is complex, and even very clear findings may prove hard to operationalise. Good quality research will help, but will not solve, the problems of resource allocation in the NHS or in other health systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Freemantle, Nick, 1995. "Dealing with uncertainty: Will science solve the problems of resource allocation in the U.K. NHS?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1365-1370, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:10:p:1365-1370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)00272-U
    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. Freemantle, Nick, 1996. "Are decisions taken by health care professionals rational? A non systematic review of experimental and quasi experimental literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 71-81, November.
    2. Alejandro R. Jadad & R. Brian Haynes, 1998. "The Cochrane Collaboration-Advances and Challenges in Improving Evidence-based Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 2-9, January.

    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:40:y:1995:i:10:p:1365-1370. 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.