» Articles » PMID: 19265518

Priority Setting: What Constitutes Success? A Conceptual Framework for Successful Priority Setting

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2009 Mar 7
PMID 19265518
Citations 90
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide is threatened by a growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies. Decision makers struggle in this environment to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions. One way to approach this problem is to determine what all relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean. The goal of this research was to develop a conceptual framework for successful priority setting.

Methods: Three separate empirical studies were completed using qualitative data collection methods (one-on-one interviews with healthcare decision makers from across Canada; focus groups with representation of patients, caregivers and policy makers; and Delphi study including scholars and decision makers from five countries).

Results: This paper synthesizes the findings from three studies into a framework of ten separate but interconnected elements germane to successful priority setting: stakeholder understanding, shifted priorities/reallocation of resources, decision making quality, stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction, positive externalities, stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process, information management, consideration of values and context, and revision or appeals mechanism.

Conclusion: The ten elements specify both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of priority setting and relate to both process and outcome components. To our knowledge, this is the first framework that describes successful priority setting. The ten elements identified in this research provide guidance for decision makers and a common language to discuss priority setting success and work toward improving priority setting efforts.

Citing Articles

Deliberative dialogue for co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation of health-promoting interventions: a scoping review protocol.

Godhwani K, Saka A, Ramasamy V, Soh B, Lingam M, Lofters A Res Involv Engagem. 2025; 11(1):16.

PMID: 40022206 PMC: 11869413. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-025-00680-9.


[Prioritization of research questions in health crises-presentation of a concept developed during the COVID-19 pandemic].

Ziegler A, Kunzler A, Voigt-Radloff S, Schmitt J, Moerer O, Scheithauer S Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2024; 68(1):97-104.

PMID: 39636443 PMC: 11732861. DOI: 10.1007/s00103-024-03985-4.


A PROGRESS-driven approach to cognitive outcomes after traumatic brain injury: A study protocol for advancing equity, diversity, and inclusion through knowledge synthesis and mobilization.

Tylinski SantAna T, Hanafy S, Fuller-Thomson E, McDonald M, Colantonio A, Cee D PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0307418.

PMID: 39037993 PMC: 11262676. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307418.


Using a priority setting exercise to identify priorities for guidelines on newborn and child health in South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria.

Durao S, Effa E, Mbeye N, Mthethwa M, McCaul M, Naude C Health Res Policy Syst. 2024; 22(1):48.

PMID: 38627761 PMC: 11020907. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-024-01133-7.


Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia.

Hendrieckx C, Russell-Green S, Skinner T, Ng A, Lee C, Barlow S Patient. 2024; 17(4):441-455.

PMID: 38582797 PMC: 11189946. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00688-5.


References
1.
Menon D, Stafinski T, Martin D . Priority-setting for healthcare: who, how, and is it fair?. Health Policy. 2007; 84(2-3):220-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.009. View

2.
De Coster C, McMillan S, Brant R, McGurran J, Noseworthy T . The Western Canada Waiting List Project: development of a priority referral score for hip and knee arthroplasty. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007; 13(2):192-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00671.x. View

3.
Gauld R, Derrett S . Solving the surgical waiting list problem? New Zealand's 'booking system'. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2001; 15(4):259-72. DOI: 10.1002/hpm.596. View

4.
Williams I, Bryan S . Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: a conceptual framework. Health Policy. 2006; 80(1):135-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.03.006. View

5.
Reeleder D, Martin D, Keresztes C, Singer P . What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005; 5(1):8. PMC: 548272. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-8. View