Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Care Analysis
Published in: Health Care Analysis 2/2008

01-06-2008 | Original Article

Who Should be Involved in Health Care Decision Making? A Qualitative Study

Authors: John McKie, Bradley Shrimpton, Rosalind Hurworth, Catherine Bell, Jeff Richardson

Published in: Health Care Analysis | Issue 2/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Most countries appear to believe that their health system is in a state of semi-crisis with expenditures rising rapidly, with the benefits of many services unknown and with pressure from the public to ensure access to a comprehensive range of services. But whose values should inform decision-making in the health area, and should the influence of different groups vary with the level of decision-making? These questions were put to 54 members of the public and health professionals in eight focus groups. Adopting a different perspective from other studies, participants were not asked if particular groups should be involved in decisions but rather through deliberation and discussion nominated their own potential decision makers. This delivered a clear message that participants saw a legitimate role for a broad range of stakeholders in priority-setting decisions so as to incorporate a diversity of expertise and opinion. Companion themes were the acknowledgment that decisions involve ethical judgments and are not purely technical, that the power of special interest groups (such as clinicians) should be kept in check, and that the process by which decisions are reached is important. The results suggest that qualitative methods of investigation have the potential to improve the legitimacy of policy decisions by contributing to a better understanding of the values of the public and health professionals, and by expanding the range of options available for further research.
Literature
1.
Abelson, J., Forest, P., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. (2003) Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2), 239–251.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Abelson, J., Lomas, J., Eyles, S., Birch, S., & Veenstra, G. (1995). Does the community want devolved authority? results of deliberative polling in Ontario. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 153(4), 403–412.PubMed
3.
4.
Bowling, A. (1996). Health care rationing: The public’s debate. British Medical Journal, 312(7032), 670–674.PubMed
5.
Church, J., Saunders, D., Wanke, M., & Pong, R. (2002). Citizen participation in health decision-making: Past experience and future prospects. Journal of Public Health Policy, 23(1), 12–32.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Frankish, J., Kwan, B., Ratner, P., Higgins, J., & Larsen, C. (2002). Challenges of citizen participation in regional health authorities. Social Science and Medicine, 54(10), 1471–1480.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Freeman, S. (2000). Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 28(4), 371–418.CrossRef
8.
Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. (1992). Choosing justice: An experimental approach to ethical theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
Gutmann, A. (1993). Democracy. In R. Goodin, P. Pettit (Eds.), A companion to contemporary political philosophy (pp. 411–421). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
10.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
11.
Hoppe, M., Wells, E., Morrison, D., Gilmore, M., & Wilsdon, A. (1995). Using focus groups to discuss sentitive topics with children. Evaluation Review, 19(1), 102–114.CrossRef
12.
Hurworth, R. (1996). Qualitative methodology: Common questions about running focus groups during evaluations. Evaluation News and Comments, 5(1), 48–52.
13.
Jordan, J., Dowswell, T., Harrison, S., Lilford, R., & Mort, M. (1998). Health needs-assessment: Whose priorities? Listening to users and the public. British Medical Journal, 316(7145), 1668–1670.PubMed
14.
Krueger, R. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage.
15.
Krueger, R., & Morgan, D. (1998). The focus group kit. California: Thousand Oaks.
16.
Lankshear, A. (1993). The use of focus groups in a study of attitudes to student nurse assessment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1986–1989.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Litva, A., Coast, J., Donovan, J., Eyles, J., Shepherd, M., Tacchi, J., Abelson, J., & Morgan, K. (2002). The public is too subjective: Public involvement at different levels of health-care decision-making. Social Science and Medicine, 4(12), 1825–1837.
18.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. California: Thousand Oaks.
19.
Morgan, D. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.
20.
Morse, J. (2006). Advances in qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 16(6), 739–740.CrossRef
21.
National Academy on an Aging Society (1999). Chronic conditions—a challenge for the 21st century. Challenges for the 21st century: Chronic and disabling conditions 1, 1–6.
22.
Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
Pigden, C. (1989). Logic and the autonomy of ethics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 67(2), 127–151.CrossRef
24.
Powell, R., & Single, H. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 8(5), 499–504.CrossRef
25.
Productivity Commission (2005). Economic implications of an ageing Australia. Research Report, Canberra.
26.
Richardson J. (2002) Age weighting and time discounting: Technical imperatives versus social choice. In C. Murray, J. Salomon, C. Mathers, A. Lopez (Eds.), Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications (pp. 663–76). Geneva: World Health Organisation.
27.
Richardson, A., Charny, M., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (1992). Public-opinion and purchasing. British Medical Journal, 304(6828), 680–684.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Singer P. (1988) Ethical experts in a democracy. In: Rosenthal D, Shehadi F, (Eds.), Applied ethics and ethical theory (pp. 149–161). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
29.
Stronks, K., Strijbis, M., Wendte, J., & Gunning-Schepers, L. (1997). Who should decide? qualitative analysis of panel data from public, patients, healthcare professionals, and insurers on priorities in health care. British Medical Journal, 315(7100), 92–96.PubMed
30.
Thompson, J. (1998). Discourse and knowledge: Defence of a collectivist ethics. London and New York: Routledge.
31.
Torgenson, D., & Gosden, T. (2000). Priority setting in health care: Should we ask the tax payer? British Medical Journal, 320(7250), 1699.
32.
Wailoo, A., & Anand, P. (2005). The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions. Social Sciences and Medicine, 60(2), 223–236.CrossRef
33.
Weale A. (2003). Democratic values, public consultation and health priorities: A political science perspective. In A. Oliver (Ed.), Equity in health and healthcare (pp. 41–51). London: The Nuffield Trust.
34.
White D. (2000) Consumer and community participation: A reassessment of process, impact and value. In G. Albrecht, R. Fitzpatrick, S. Scrimshaw (Eds.) Handbook of social studies in health and medicine (pp. 465–480). London: Sage.
35.
Wiseman, V. (2005). Comparing the preferences of health professionals and members of the public for setting healthcare priorities—experiences from Australia. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 4(2), 129–137.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Wiseman, V., Mooney, G., Berry, G., & Tang, K. (2004). Involving the general public in priority setting: Experiences from Australia. Social Sciences and Medicine, 56(5), 1001–1012.CrossRef
37.
Wroe, D., & Wood, L. (2005) This 50-year old takes pills worth $25,000 a year. As his generation grows old, a massive health crisis looms. The Age, p. 14.
38.
Zweifel, P., & Breyer, F. (1997). Health economics. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Metadata
Title
Who Should be Involved in Health Care Decision Making? A Qualitative Study
Authors
John McKie
Bradley Shrimpton
Rosalind Hurworth
Catherine Bell
Jeff Richardson
Publication date
01-06-2008
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Health Care Analysis / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 1065-3058
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3394
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-007-0051-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

Health Care Analysis 2/2008 Go to the issue

Original Article

An Ethical Analysis of International Health Priority-Setting

Original Article

Participatory Workshops are Not Enough to Prevent Policy Implementation Failures: An Example of a Policy Development Process Concerning the Drug Interferon-beta for Multiple Sclerosis

Original Article

Leaping “Out of the Doubt”—Nutrition Advice: Values at Stake in Communicating Scientific Uncertainty to the Public

Original Article

Empowerment: A Conceptual Discussion

Original Paper

Action Research—a Necessary Complement to Traditional Health Science?

Original Article

Well-Being and Health