» Articles » PMID: 29929516

Resource Allocation in NHS Dentistry: Recognition of Societal Preferences (RAINDROP): Study Protocol

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2018 Jun 23
PMID 29929516
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Resources in any healthcare systems are scarce relative to need and therefore choices need to be made which often involve difficult decisions about the best allocation of these resources. One pragmatic and robust tool to aid resource allocation is Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but there is mixed evidence on its uptake and effectiveness. Furthermore, there is also no evidence on the incorporation of the preferences of a large and representative sample of the general public into such a process. The study therefore aims to undertake, evaluate and refine a PBMA process within the exemplar of NHS dentistry in England whilst also using an established methodology (Willingness to Pay (WTP)) to systematically gather views from a representative sample of the public.

Methods: Stakeholders including service buyers (commissioners), dentists, dental public health representatives and patient representatives will be recruited to participate in a PBMA process involving defining current spend, agreeing criteria to judge services/interventions, defining areas for investment and disinvestment, rating these areas against the criteria and making final recommendations. The process will be refined based on participatory action research principles and evaluated through semi-structured interviews, focus groups and observation of the process by the research team. In parallel a representative sample of English adults will be recruited to complete a series of four surveys including WTP valuations of programmes being considered by the PBMA panel. In addition a methodological experiment comparing two ways of eliciting WTP will be undertaken.

Discussion: The project will allow the PBMA process and particularly the use of WTP within it to be investigated and developed. There will be challenges around engagement with the task by the panel undertaking it and with the outputs by stakeholders but careful relationship building will help to mitigate this. The large volume of data will be managed through careful segmenting of the analysis and the use of the well-established Framework approach to qualitative data analysis. WTP has various potential biases but the elicitation will be carefully designed to minimise these and some methodological investigation will take place.

Citing Articles

Resource Allocation in a National Dental Service Using Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis.

Vernazza C, Carr K, Holmes R, Wildman J, Gray J, Exley C JDR Clin Trans Res. 2021; :23800844211056241.

PMID: 34844457 PMC: 9772892. DOI: 10.1177/23800844211056241.


An Examination of Consistency in the Incremental Approach to Willingness to Pay: Evidence Using Societal Values for NHS Dental Services.

Carr K, Donaldson C, Wildman J, Smith R, Vernazza C Med Decis Making. 2021; 41(4):465-474.

PMID: 33733897 PMC: 8107443. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21996329.


Reorienting Oral Health Services to Prevention: Economic Perspectives.

Vernazza C, Birch S, Pitts N J Dent Res. 2021; 100(6):576-582.

PMID: 33478327 PMC: 8138330. DOI: 10.1177/0022034520986794.


How does priority setting for resource allocation happen in commissioning dental services in a nationally led, regionally delivered system: a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with NHS England dental commissioners.

Vernazza C, Taylor G, Donaldson C, Gray J, Holmes R, Carr K BMJ Open. 2019; 9(3):e024995.

PMID: 30904857 PMC: 6475363. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024995.

References
1.
Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, de Koning K . Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2002; 5(23):iii-157. View

2.
Donaldson C . Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does 'ability to pay' preclude the use of 'willingness to pay'?. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 49(4):551-63. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00173-2. View

3.
van Velden M, Severens J, Novak A . Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making: the influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision-making levels. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005; 23(11):1075-82. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200523110-00002. View

4.
Smith R . It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Econ. 2005; 15(3):281-93. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1055. View

5.
Tsourapas A, Frew E . Evaluating 'success' in programme budgeting and marginal analysis: a literature review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011; 16(3):177-83. DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009053. View