Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Commentary

Public attitudes and values in priority setting

Author: Stuart J Peacock

Published in: Israel Journal of Health Policy Research | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

There is growing recognition that critical decisions concerning investments in new health care technologies and services should incorporate society’s values along with the scientific evidence. From a normative perspective, public engagement can help realize the democratic ideals of legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. On a more pragmatic level, public engagement can help stakeholders understand the degree of popular support for policy options, and may enhance public trust in decision-making processes. To better understand public attitudes and values relating to priority setting in health care, researchers and decision-makers will have to employ a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches, drawing on different disciplines and methodological traditions.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kaplan G, Baron-Epel O. Personal needs versus national needs? Public attitudes regarding health care priorities at the personal and national levels. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015; 4:15.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Kaplan G, Baron-Epel O. Personal needs versus national needs? Public attitudes regarding health care priorities at the personal and national levels. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015; 4:15.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod C, Collins P, Forest P-G. Does deliberation make a difference? A citizens’ panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66(1):95–106.CrossRefPubMed Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod C, Collins P, Forest P-G. Does deliberation make a difference? A citizens’ panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66(1):95–106.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251–90.CrossRef Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251–90.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Obtaining public input for health-systems decision-making: Past experiences and future prospects. Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada. 2002;45:70–97.CrossRef Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Obtaining public input for health-systems decision-making: Past experiences and future prospects. Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada. 2002;45:70–97.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2000;25:3–29.CrossRef Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2000;25:3–29.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Gibson JL, Martin DK, Singer PA. Evidence, economics and ethics: resource allocation in health services organizations. Healthcare Quarterly. 2005;8(50–59):54. Gibson JL, Martin DK, Singer PA. Evidence, economics and ethics: resource allocation in health services organizations. Healthcare Quarterly. 2005;8(50–59):54.
7.
go back to reference Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health-care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):219–29.CrossRefPubMed Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health-care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):219–29.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, Black NA. The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:1811–24.CrossRefPubMed Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, Black NA. The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:1811–24.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Mitton C, Donaldson C. Setting priorities in Canadian regional health authorities: a survey of key decision makers. Health Policy. 2002;60:39–58.CrossRefPubMed Mitton C, Donaldson C. Setting priorities in Canadian regional health authorities: a survey of key decision makers. Health Policy. 2002;60:39–58.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155–63.CrossRefPubMed Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155–63.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Fishkin JS. The voice of the people : public opinion and democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1995. Fishkin JS. The voice of the people : public opinion and democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1995.
12.
go back to reference O'Doherty KC, Hawkins AK, Burgess MM. Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1604–11.CrossRefPubMed O'Doherty KC, Hawkins AK, Burgess MM. Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1604–11.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference O'Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(4):203–15.CrossRefPubMed O'Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(4):203–15.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Casebeer A, Martin E, Mackean G. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:2115–28.CrossRefPubMed Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Casebeer A, Martin E, Mackean G. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:2115–28.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Gross A. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Underst Sci. 1994;3:3–23.CrossRef Gross A. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Underst Sci. 1994;3:3–23.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Iredale R, Longley M. (1999). Public perspectives on the new genetics: the citizens' jury experiment. In A. Thompson and R. Chadwick, R (Eds.), Genetic information: acquisition, access and control. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing Ltd. Iredale R, Longley M. (1999). Public perspectives on the new genetics: the citizens' jury experiment. In A. Thompson and R. Chadwick, R (Eds.), Genetic information: acquisition, access and control. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing Ltd.
18.
go back to reference Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A. The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise. Public Underst Sci. 1998;7:41–60.CrossRefPubMed Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A. The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise. Public Underst Sci. 1998;7:41–60.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Wynne B. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values. 1991;16(1):111–21.CrossRef Wynne B. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values. 1991;16(1):111–21.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedure, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1997;26(4):303–50.CrossRefPubMed Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedure, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1997;26(4):303–50.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Dryzek J. Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 1990. Dryzek J. Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 1990.
22.
go back to reference Gutmann A, Thompson D. Deliberating about bioethics. Hast Cent Rep. 1997;27(3):38–42.CrossRef Gutmann A, Thompson D. Deliberating about bioethics. Hast Cent Rep. 1997;27(3):38–42.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Guttman N, Shalev C, Kaplan G, Abulafia A, Bin-Nun G, Goffer R, et al. What should be given a priority – costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? the health parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health Expect. 2008;11(2):177–88.CrossRefPubMed Guttman N, Shalev C, Kaplan G, Abulafia A, Bin-Nun G, Goffer R, et al. What should be given a priority – costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? the health parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health Expect. 2008;11(2):177–88.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Public attitudes and values in priority setting
Author
Stuart J Peacock
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 2045-4015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-015-0025-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 1/2015 Go to the issue