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

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2002

Open Access 01-12-2002 | Debate

Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: A transdisciplinary study

Authors: Jennifer L Gibson, Douglas K Martin, Peter A Singer

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2002

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Decision makers in health care organizations struggle with how to set priorities for new technologies in medicine. Traditional approaches to priority setting for new technologies in medicine are insufficient and there is no widely accepted model that can guide decision makers.

Discussion

Daniels and Sabin have developed an ethically based account about how priority setting decisions should be made. We have developed an empirically based account of how priority setting decisions are made. In this paper, we integrate these two accounts into a transdisciplinary model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine that is both ethically and empirically based.

Summary

We have developed a transdisciplinary model of priority setting that provides guidance to decision makers that they can operationalize to help address priority setting problems in their institution.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Scott A, Currie N, Donaldson C: Evaluating innovation in general practice: a pragmatic framework using programme budgeting and marginal analysis. Family Practice. 1998, 15: 216-22. 10.1093/fampra/15.3.216.CrossRefPubMed
2.
PausJenssen A, Singer PA, Detsky AS: How Ontario's Formulary Committee Makes Recommendations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002.
3.
Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA: Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet. 2001, 358: 1676-81. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06714-9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ham C, Coulter A: Explicit and implicit rationing: taking responsibility and avoiding blame for health care choices. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2001, 6: 163-9. 10.1258/1355819011927422.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Loughlin M: Rationing, barbarity, and the economist's perspective. Health Care Analysis. 1996, 4: 146-156. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1042(199605)4:2<146::AID-HCA174>3.3.CO;2-L.PubMed
6.
van der Wilt GJ: Cost-effectiveness analysis of health care services, and concepts of distributive justice. Health Care Analysis. 1994, 2: 296-305.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
9.
Drummond M, Torrance G, Mason J: Cost-effectiveness league tables: More harm than good?. Social Science & Medicine. 1993, 37: 33-40. 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90315-U.CrossRef
10.
Russel LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC, for the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: Journal of the American Medical Association. 1996, 276: 1172-7. 10.1001/jama.276.14.1172.CrossRef
11.
12.
Daniels N, Sabin J: Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1997, 26: 303-50.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Rosenfield PL: The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine. 1992, 35 (11): 1343-1357. 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90038-R.CrossRef
14.
Strauss A, Corbin J: Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 278.
15.
Daniels N, Sabin JE: Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1997, 26 (4): 303-502.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, Purdy L: Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: A Qualitative Study. British Medical Journal. 2000, 321: 1316-8. 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA: Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet. 2001, 358: 1676-81. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06714-9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Daniels N, Sabin JE: The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Affairs. 1998, 17 (5): 50-64. 10.1377/hlthaff.17.5.50.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Daniels N: Accountability for reasonableness in private and public health insurance. In The global challenge of health care rationing. Edited by: A. Coulter and C. Ham. 2000, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 89-106.
20.
Metadata
Title
Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: A transdisciplinary study
Authors
Jennifer L Gibson
Douglas K Martin
Peter A Singer
Publication date
01-12-2002
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2002
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-2-14

Other articles of this Issue 1/2002

BMC Health Services Research 1/2002 Go to the issue

Debate

Outcomes research in the development and evaluation of practice guidelines

Research article

Low agreement for assessing the risk of postoperative deep venous thrombosis when deciding prophylaxis strategies: a study using clinical vignettes

Research article

Hospital competition, resource allocation and quality of care

Research article

Organization specific predictors of job satisfaction: findings from a Canadian multi-site quality of work life cross-sectional survey

Research article

Patient attitudes toward using computers to improve health services delivery

Research article

Inter-rater agreement in the scoring of abstracts submitted to a primary care research conference