IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/gjhsjl/v8y2016i10p212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Priority Setting in Iran: Evaluating Against the Social Values Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Hakimeh Mostafavi
  • Arash Rashidian
  • Mohammad Arab
  • Mohammad Mahdavi
  • Kioomars Ashtarian

Abstract

BACKGROUND- Health systems, as part of the social system, consider public values. This study was conducted to examine the role of social values in the health priority setting in the Iranian health system.METHODS- In this qualitative case study, three main data sources were used- literature, national documents, and key informants who were purposefully selected from health care organizations and other related institutions. Data was analyzed and interpreted using the Clark-Weale Framework.RESULTS- According to our results, the public indirectly participates in decision-making. The public representatives participate in the meetings of the health priority setting as parliament members, representatives of some unions, members of the city council, and donors. The transparency of the decisions and the accountability of the decision makers are low. Decision makers only respond to complaints of the Audit Court and the Inspection Organization. Individual choice, although respected in hospitals and clinics, is limited in health care networks because of the referral system. Clinical effectiveness is considered in insurance companies and some hospitals. There are no technical abilities to determine the cost-effectiveness of health technologies; however, some international experiences are employed. Equity and solidarity are considered in different levels of the health system.CONCLUSION- Social values are considered in the health priority decisions in limited ways. It seems that the lack of an appropriate value-based framework for priority setting and also the lack of public participation are the major defects of the health system. It is recommended that health policymakers invite different groups of people and stakeholders for active involvement in health priority decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hakimeh Mostafavi & Arash Rashidian & Mohammad Arab & Mohammad Mahdavi & Kioomars Ashtarian, 2016. "Health Priority Setting in Iran: Evaluating Against the Social Values Framework," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(10), pages 212-212, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:8:y:2016:i:10:p:212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/download/53834/30820
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/53834
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adele Diederich & Joffre Swait & Norman Wirsik, 2012. "Citizen Participation in Patient Prioritization Policy Decisions: An Empirical and Experimental Study on Patients' Characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-10, May.
    2. Mitton, Craig & Patten, San & Waldner, Howard & Donaldson, Cam, 2003. "Priority setting in health authorities: a novel approach to a historical activity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1653-1663, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.
    3. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    4. Armstrong, Kristy & Mitton, Craig & Carleton, Bruce & Shoveller, Jean, 2008. "Drug formulary decision-making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 308-316, December.
    5. Rooshenas, Leila & Owen-Smith, Amanda & Hollingworth, William & Badrinath, Padmanabhan & Beynon, Claire & Donovan, Jenny L., 2015. "“I won't call it rationing…”: An ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 273-281.
    6. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "How important is severity for the evaluation of health services: new evidence using the relative social willingness to pay instrument," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 671-683, July.
    7. Goodwin, Elizabeth & Frew, Emma J., 2013. "Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) to set priorities: Reflections from a qualitative assessment in an English Primary Care Trust," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 162-168.
    8. Cornelissen, Evelyn & Mitton, Craig & Davidson, Alan & Reid, Colin & Hole, Rachelle & Visockas, Anne-Marie & Smith, Neale, 2014. "Determining and broadening the definition of impact from implementing a rational priority setting approach in a healthcare organization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-9.
    9. V. Meusel & E. Mentzakis & P. Baji & G. Fiorentini & F. Paolucci, 2023. "Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 411-431, September.
    10. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    11. Waldau, Susanne, 2015. "Bottom-up priority setting revised. A second evaluation of an institutional intervention in a Swedish health care organisation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(9), pages 1226-1236.
    12. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "Age Weights for Health Services Derived from the Relative Social Willingness-to-Pay Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 239-251, April.
    13. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    14. Gemma Lasseter & Hareth Al-Janabi & Caroline L Trotter & Fran E Carroll & Hannah Christensen, 2018. "The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    15. MacDonald, Jo-Anne & Edwards, Nancy & Davies, Barbara & Marck, Patricia & Guernsey, Judith Read, 2012. "Priority setting and policy advocacy by nursing associations: A scoping review and implications using a socio-ecological whole systems lens," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 31-43.
    16. Cornelissen, Evelyn & Mitton, Craig & Davidson, Alan & Reid, R. Colin & Hole, Rachelle & Visockas, Anne-Marie & Smith, Neale, 2014. "Changing priority setting practice: The role of implementation in practice change," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 266-274.
    17. Neale Smith & Craig Mitton & Stuart Peacock, 2009. "Qualitative methodologies in health‐care priority setting research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1163-1175, October.
    18. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    19. Xesfingi, Sofia & Vozikis, Athanassios, 2014. "Citizens’ Preferences on Health Care Expenditure Allocation: Evidence from Greece," MPRA Paper 63419, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Cristina Catallo & Karen Spalding & Roya Haghiri-Vijeh, 2014. "Nursing Professional Organizations," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:gjhsjl:v:8:y:2016:i:10:p:212. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.