IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/150chedp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Performance indicators and health promition targets

Author

Listed:
  • David Buck
  • Christine Godfrey

    (Centre for Health Economics, The University of York)

  • Antony Morgan

Abstract

This paper discusses the usefulness of performance indicators in health promotion. Health promotion and target-setting in health have both risen to the fore in the light of the Health of the Nation White Paper. This coupled with increasing pressure on all sectors of health care to demonstrate their “value-for-money” have meant that health promotion activities are being scrutinised as never before. Performance indicators have been one suggested means of ensuring movement towards Health of the Nation targets and value-for-money in health promotion. The paper outlines the uses to which performance indicators have been put elsewhere in the NHS and argues that they are unlikely to be directly transferrable to health promotion. Criteria for successful performance indicators in health promotion are outlined. However, it is doubtful whether these criteria will be fulfilled to any useful extent at present. The theory of health promotion is characterised by many different views of what is an appropriate outcome measure of any health promotion intervention and therefore what will be an appropriate performance indicator. Consensus in theory is needed before any consensus on what is most suitable to measure is reached. In addition, any outcomes from health promotion, by its very nature, are likely to become apparent only over long periods of time, if at all. This reduces the likelihood of attribution and the feasibility of assigning responsibility for meeting targets. Nonetheless, there is some scope for performance indicators in health promotion and their use as an internal management tool and as mechanisms for reaching external micro and macro level health-related targets is discussed. A collection of suggested macro performance indicators from the Health Education Authority are evaluated according to the criteria developed earlier. It is argued that at present these do not qualify as performance indicators, although they are certainly useful as monitoring tools. The paper concludes with priorities for further research in this area. Despite the emphasis on target-setting brought about by the Health of the Nation, knowledge and expertise in performance indicators for health promotion is lacking. This is a matter of urgent concern. There are many complex conceptual and practical problems which will influence the future role and choice of performance indicators in health promotion. These range from the fundamental, differing views about the definition of health education and health promotion, to the practical, a lack of knowledge at the community level about how to start looking for indicators, and the technical, a lack of clear responsibility for meeting macro-level targets.

Suggested Citation

  • David Buck & Christine Godfrey & Antony Morgan, 1996. "Performance indicators and health promition targets," Working Papers 150chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:150chedp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/discussionpapers/CHE%20Discussion%20Paper%20150.pdf
    File Function: First version, 1996
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gooder, Pamela L., 1992. "Targets -- Are they sensible?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 223-231, July.
    2. Peter Smith, 1990. "The Use of Performance Indicators in the Public Sector," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 153(1), pages 53-72, January.
    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. Perera, Roshan & Dowell, Anthony & Crampton, Peter, 2012. "Painting by numbers: A guide for systematically developing indicators of performance at any level of health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 49-59.

    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. Paul Hewson & Keming Yu, 2008. "Quantile regression for binary performance indicators," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 401-418, September.
    2. Krzysztof Opolski & Piotr Modzelewski, 2009. "Quality and efficiency in the local government-methodological approach," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 22.
    3. Giovanni C. Porzio & Giancarlo Ragozini & Domenico Vistocco, 2008. "On the use of archetypes as benchmarks," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 419-437, September.
    4. Johnes, Jill, 1996. "Performance assessment in higher education in Britain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 18-33, February.
    5. Nicholas Longford & D. B. Rubin, 2006. "Performance assessment and league tables. Comparing like with like," Economics Working Papers 994, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    6. Virginia Rosales-López, 2008. "Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 231-251, June.
    7. Keirstead, James & Schulz, Niels B., 2010. "London and beyond: Taking a closer look at urban energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 4870-4879, September.
    8. Hezri, Adnan A. & Dovers, Stephen R., 2006. "Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 86-99, November.
    9. Corton, Maria Luisa, 2003. "Benchmarking in the Latin American water sector: the case of Peru," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 133-142, September.
    10. Wilding, Anna & Munford, Luke & Guthrie, Bruce & Kontopantelis, Evangelos & Sutton, Matt, 2022. "Family doctor responses to changes in target stringency under financial incentives," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    11. Antonio Giuffrida & Hugh Gravelle, 2001. "Measuring performance in primary care: econometric analysis and DEA," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 163-175.
    12. Schang, Laura & Morton, Alec & DaSilva, Philip & Bevan, Gwyn, 2014. "From data to decisions? Exploring how healthcare payers respond to the NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare in England," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 79-87.
    13. Cavalluzzo, Ken S. & Ittner, Christopher D., 2004. "Implementing performance measurement innovations: evidence from government," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 243-267.
    14. Carlos Alberto Barreto Nieto & William Orlando Prieto Bustos & Henry Antonio Mendoza, 2012. "Un índice de concentración del presupuesto público," Revista Equidad y Desarrollo, Universidad de la Salle, September.
    15. Noto, Guido & Belardi, Paolo & Vainieri, Milena, 2020. "Unintended consequences of expenditure targets on resource allocation in health systems," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(4), pages 462-469.
    16. Cook, Thomas J. & Vansant, Jerry & Stewart, Leslie & Adrian, Jamie, 1995. "Performance measurement: Lessons learned for development management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1303-1315, August.
    17. David Mason & Carola Hillenbrand & Kevin Money, 2014. "Are Informed Citizens More Trusting? Transparency of Performance Data and Trust Towards a British Police Force," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 122(2), pages 321-341, June.
    18. Mariam, Yohannes & Coffin, Garth & Eisemon, Thomas, 1993. "Production efficiency in Peasant Agriculture: The Case of Mixed Farming System in the Ethiopian Highlands," MPRA Paper 406, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 12 Aug 1994.
    19. Productivity Commission, 2002. "International benchmarking of the Australian waterfront," Microeconomics 0207010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Mihail Busu, 2020. "A Market Concentration Analysis of the Biomass Sector in Romania," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-10, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    performance indicators; targets;

    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:chy:respap:150chedp. 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: Gill Forder (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.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.