Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: Outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Hodgetts, Katherine ^a   Hiller, Janet E ^a,b   Street, Jackie M ^a   Carter, Drew ^a   Braunack Mayer, Annette J ^a   Watt, Amber M ^a   Moss, John R ^a   Elshaug, Adam G ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^b SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Assisted reproductive technology; Australia; Deliberative methods; Discourse analysis; Disinvestment; Evidence based health policy

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MANAGEMENT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

AUSTRALIA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED;

EID: 84900469549     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-204     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: findings from research. Williams IP, Bryan S, Soc Sci Med 2007 65 2116 2129 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.06.009 17698271 (Pubitemid 47593038)
2. Priority setting in health authorities: a novel approach to a historical activity. Mitton C, Patten S, Waldner H, Donaldson C, Soc Sci Med 2003 57 1653 1663 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00549-X 12948574 (Pubitemid 37025819)
3. Health technology reassessment: the art of the possible. Mackean G, Noseworthy T, Elshaug AG, Leggett L, Littlejohns P, Berezanski J, Clement F, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013 29 418 423 10.1017/S0266462313000494 24290335
4. Gerdvilaite J, Nachtnebel A, Disinvestment: overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries Ludwig Boltzmann Institut fur Health Technology Assessment: HTA-Projektbericht 2011
5. Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making in health care: a systematic review. Polisena J, Clifford T, Elshaug AG, Mitton C, Russell E, Skidmore B, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013 20 1 11 Epub ahead of print
6. The ASTUTE health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Watt AM, Hiller JE, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Moss JR, Buchan H, Wale J, Riitano DE, Hodgetts K, Street JM, Elshaug AG, Implement Sci 2012 7 101 10.1186/1748-5908-7-101 23088222
7. Engaging clinicians in evidence-based disinvestment: role and perceptions of evidence. Watt AM, Willis CD, Hodgetts K, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, The ASTUTE Health Study Group, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012 28 211 219 10.1017/S0266462312000402 22980696
8. Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S, Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation 2005
9. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Elshaug AG, Moss J, Littlejohns P, Karnon J, Merlin T, Hiller JE, Med J Aust 2009 190 269 273 19296794
10. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Mundy L, Willis CD, Med J Aust 2012 197 556 560 10.5694/mja12.11083 23163685
11. Assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review of safety and effectiveness to inform disinvestment policy. Watt A, Elshaug A, Willis C, Hiller JE, The ASTUTE Health study group, Health Policy 2011 102 200 213 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.07.007 21868120
12. News and social media: windows into community perspectives on disinvestment. Street JM, Hennessy S, Watt A, Hiller JE, Elshaug AG, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011 27 376 383 10.1017/S026646231100033X 22004780
13. Should there be a female age limit on public funding for assisted reproductive technology? differing conceptions of justice in resource allocation. Carter D, Watt AM, Braunack-Mayer A, Elshaug AG, Moss JR, Hiller JE, The ASTUTE Health study group, J Bioeth Inq 2013 10 79 91 10.1007/s11673-012- 9415-6 23288441
14. A cost-effectiveness analysis of in-vitro fertilization by maternal age and number of treatment attempts. Griffiths A, Dyer S, Lord S, Pardy C, Fraser I, Eckermann S, Hum Reprod 2010 25 924 931 10.1093/humrep/dep418 20106837
15. Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Rhetoric, evidence and policymaking: a case study of priority setting in primary care London: Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL 2009
16. Consumer involvement in setting the health services research agenda: persistent questions of value. Entwhistle V, Calnan M, Dieppe P, J Health Serv Res Policy 2008 13 76 81 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007167 18806196
17. Involving the public in rationing decisions: the experience of citizens juries. Leneghan J, Health Policy 1999 49 45 61 10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00042-1 10827290 (Pubitemid 29516469)
18. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett F, Citizens at the centre: deliberative participation in healthcare decisions Bristol: Policy Press 2006
19. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Tritter JQ, McCallum A, Health Policy 2006 76 158 168
20. The appeal to nature implicit in certain restrictions on public funding for assisted reproductive technology. Carter D, Braunack-Mayer A, Bioethics 2011 25 463 471 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01925.x 21929706
21. Including the public in pandemic planning: a deliberative approach. Braunack-Mayer AJ, Street JM, Rogers WA, Givney R, Moss JR, Hiller JE, FluViews team, BMC Public Health 2010 10 501 10.1186/1471-2458-10-501 20718996
22. Development of clinical priority access criteria for assisted reproduction and its evaluation on 1386 infertile couples in New Zealand. Gillett WR, Peek JC, Herbison GP, Hum Reprod 2012 27 131 141 10.1093/humrep/der372 22081248
23. Turning up the heat: partisanship in deliberative innovation. Hendriks C, Dryzek JS, Hunold C, Polit Stud 2007 55 362 383 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00667. x
24. Shapiro I, The state of democratic theory Princeton University Press: Princeton 2003
25. Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy. Smith G, Wales C, Polit Stud 2000 48 51 65 10.1111/1467-9248.00250
26. Adapting and combining deliberative designs: Juries, Polls, and Forums. Carson L, Hartz-Karp J, The deliberative democracy handbook: strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Gastil J, Levine P, 2005
27. Deliberative democratic theory. Chambers S, Ann Rev Polit Sci 2003 6 307 326 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538 (Pubitemid 37395356)
28. Pandemic influenza communication: views from a deliberative forum. Rogers W, Street JM, Braunack-Mayer A, Hiller JE, TheFluViews team, Health Expect 2009 12 331 342 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00562.x 19754694
29. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Braun V, Clarke V, Qual Res Psychol 2006 3 77 101 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
30. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. O'Doherty K, Burgess M, Public Health Genomics 2009 12 203 221 10.1159/000167801 19367089
31. Who should pay for assisted reproductive techniques? answers from patients, professionals and the general public in Germany. Rauprich O, Berns E, Vollman J, Hum Reprod 2010 25 1225 1233 10.1093/humrep/deq056 20228390
32. What counts and how to count it: physicians' constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context. Hodgetts K, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Soc Sci Med 2012 75 2191 2199 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.016 22963922
33. The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Mansbridge J, Bohman J, Chambers S, Estlund D, Føllesdal A, Fung A, Lafont C, Manin B, Martí J, J Polit Philos 2010 18 64 100 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x
34. Individualization and inequalities in health: a qualitative study of class identity and health. Bolam B, Murphy S, Gleeson K, Soc Sci Med 2004 59 1355 1365 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.018 15246166 (Pubitemid 38891404)
35. The voice of the public in public health policy and planning: the role of public judgement. Scutchfield FD, Ireson C, Hall L, J Public Health Policy 2004 25 197 205 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3190018 15255385 (Pubitemid 38780420)
36. Why do couples refuse or discontinue ART? Dawson A, Diedrich K, Felberbaum R, Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005 273 3 11 10.1007/s00404-005-0010-5 16080011 (Pubitemid 41571160)
37. Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment. Haas MR, Hall JP, Viney RC, Gallego G, Aust Health Rev 2012 36 148 152 10.1071/AH11032 22624634