What reasons do those with practical experience use in deciding on priorities for healthcare resources? A qualitative study

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 34, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 658-663

  Hasman, A ^a   Mcintosh, E ^b   Hope, T ^b  

^a ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ORGANIZATION;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 56749105742     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2007.023366     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. New B. Rationing: talk and action in health care. London: BMJ Publishing Group and Kings Fund, 1997.
2. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff 1997;26:303-50.
3. Martin DK, Singer PA. Priority setting and health technology assessment: beyond evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Coulter A, Ham C, eds. The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000.
4. Hasman A, Holm S. Accountability for reasonableness: opening the black box of process. Health Care Anal 2005;13:261-73.
5. Williams A. QALYs and ethics: a health economists' perspective. Soc Sci Med 1996;43:1795-804.
6. Daniels N. Just health care: studies in philosophy and health policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
7. Harris J. The value of life. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.
8. Martin D, Abelson J, Singer P. Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of participants. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002;7:222-9.
9. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness: establishing fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles. BMJ 2000;321:1300-1.
10. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998.
11. Strauss A. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
12. Holm S, Gjers?e P, Grode G, et al. Ethical reasoning in mixed nurse-physician groups. J Med Ethics 1996;22:168-73.
13. Crisp R, Hope T, Ebbs D. Rationing in general practice: the Asbury draft policy on ethical use of resources. BMJ 1996;312:1528-31.
14. Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, et al. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:63-75.
15. Bowling A, Jacobson B, Southgate L. Exploration in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. Soc Sci Med 1993;37:851-7.
16. Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy 1999;49:63-74.
17. Foy R, So J, Rous E, et al. Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritising new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold. BMJ 1999;318:456-9.
18. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet 2001;358:1676-81.
19. Martin D, Hollenberg D, MacRae S, et al. Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: a qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy 2003;66:295-303.