Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia
Introduction
Limited resources, coupled with seemingly unlimited demand for health care, means that decisions have to be made regarding the allocation of scarce resources across competing health care interventions. During the past decade governments and health care systems in many parts of the world have witnessed initiatives to find more ways of transparently dealing with the problem of scarcity and giving the public a role in determining priorities (Dicker & Armstrong, 1995; Ham, 1993; Kitzhaber, 1993; Bowie, Richardson, & Sykes (1997), Leneghan (1999)).
Debates over public involvement in priority setting in health care occur at two key levels. First, there has been a methodological debate over the most effective means of consulting members of the general public about their preferences for different forms of health care and health services (Bowie, Richardson, & Sykes, 1995). Secondly, there has been an ethical debate over whether public preferences should be sought in the first place. A number of leading researchers have expressed reservations about public involvement in setting health care priorities (Hunter, 1993).
A few studies have helped to establish a fairly clear picture of how members of the general public choose to prioritise health services and treatments (Bowling, Jacobson, & Southgate, 1993; Bowling, 1996; Dixon & Welch, 1991; Richardson, Charny, & Hanmer-Lloyd, 1992; Stronks, Strijbis, Wendte, & Gunning-Schepers, 1997). It has consistently been revealed that life-saving technologies, and the care of people who are dying, are of a high priority. Some of these studies have also addressed the issue of who should make priority-setting decisions in health care (Bowling et al., 1993; Bowling, 1996; Richardson et al., 1992; Stronks et al., 1997). A common approach has been to ask about citizen involvement in priority setting without differentiating between levels of priority setting. For instance, it is often asked ‘should priority-setting decisions in health care be left to the doctors and other experts at the health authority?’ (Richardson et al., 1992) or ‘who should the responsibility of health care rationing rest with?’ (Bowling, 1996).
This study addresses a prior question; that is, whether the general public sees a legitimate role for their preferences in informing health care priorities. In other words, does the general public have a preference for the use of their preferences? If so, at what level of priority setting? In this study we have differentiated between three different levels of priority setting in an effort to examine whether support for using public preferences depends on what is actually being prioritised. The first involved setting priorities across health care programmes, the second across medical procedures, and the third concerned the type of principles or criteria that might be used to guide priority-setting decisions at a global level. Respondents were asked to assume that there was a fixed budget at each level. To assist respondents in understanding the complexities and trade-offs involved, they were given information concerning the way funds are currently allocated and the costs and effects associated with each alternative. Finally, we also investigated the question of whether there are any specific groups whose preferences should be given particular prominence. Most studies that have examined public preferences have bypassed such questions.
The paper begins with a brief exploration of some of the reasons for the growing call for public involvement in health care decision making and, in particular, priority setting. An outline of the survey methods used is given in Methods Section. This is followed by a presentation of the key results (Results Section). In Discussion Section the findings are discussed and future directions for research in this area are proposed.
Section snippets
Background: impetus for public involvement in priority setting
One of the key issues currently being debated in the Australian health care system is how to improve public participation and accountability activities at different decision-making levels of the system. Particular attention has been paid to public involvement in the development of health spending priorities (Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care (1999a), NSW Department of Health (1999b)). The NSW Health Department, for example, has called for a ‘public process of debate concerning the
Methods
A convenience sample of 373 citizens attending two central Sydney medical clinics was surveyed between September and November 2000. Every individual who met the eligibility criteria and attended the clinics between 9.00 am and 4.00 pm were invited to participate in the study. The average refusal rate across the two clinics was 18%. The main two reasons for not participating was feeling poorly and not enough time to complete the questionnaire. Participants were recruited from medical clinics
Results
The sociodemographic characteristics of those individuals who agreed to be surveyed are compared with the characteristics of the total Australian population in Appendix B. It can be seen that the sample population is not representative of the Australian population. Respondents in this study are more likely to be female, better educated, and have private health insurance.
The majority of citizens expressed a strong preference for using public preferences of the general public to inform
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that the public has a strong preference for the use of their preferences to inform priority setting in health care, with approximately three-quarters of participants advocating the use of citizen preferences. Similar (although not identical) questions have been asked in other public surveys with quite different results. In a local survey of 690 residents of Bath in the United Kingdom, the majority of respondents felt that ‘priority-setting decisions should be
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Stephen Jan for his valuable comments and the National Health and Medical Research Council for financial support. This paper has also benefited from the helpful recommendations made by two anonymous reviewers and by participants at the International Health Economics Association conferences in 2001. Special thanks also goes to Nicola Howard who administered the questionnaires and to the staff and patients at the two Sydney health care facilities for their time and
References (69)
- et al.
Priority settingLessons from Oregon
Lancet
(1991) - et al.
Community representativesRepresenting the “community”?
Social Science & Medicine
(1998) - et al.
Public opinion and rationing in the United Kingdom
Health Policy
(1999) - et al.
Ante-natal screeningWhat constitutes benefit?
Social Science & Medicine
(1993) - et al.
Public opinion and purchasing
British Medical Journal
(1992) - et al.
Who should decide—qualitative analysis of panel data from public, patients, healthcare professionals, and insurers on priorities in healthcare
British Medical Journal
(1997) Healthy cities, healthy participation
Health Education Journal
(1989)- Alma-Ata Declaration. (1978). The declaration of Alma-Ata. Word Health 1988, Aug–Sep,...
- et al.
Community participation and attitudes of decision-makers towards community involvement in health development in Saudi Arabia
Bulletin of the World Health Organisation
(1991) - Anderson, I. (1994). Powers of health. Arena, June–July,...
The challenges of medical practice variations
Community involvement in healthWhy is it necessary?
Tropical Doctor
Medical practice variations
Health Service Journal
Consulting the public about health service priorities
British Medical Journal
Health care rationingThe public's debate
British Medical Journal
Health service prioritiesExplorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district
Social Science & Medicine
Lay participation in health care decision makingA conceptual framework
Journal of Health, Politics, Policy and Law
Citizen's juriesTheory into practice
Community participation and national health policy
Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
Patients’ views of priority setting in health careAn interview survey in one practice
British Medical Journal
Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health careFocus group study
British Medical Journal
Citizen participationA review of the issues
Medicine misuse or drug abuse? A critical appraisal of current issues and research in the UK
Critical Public Health
Sri Lanka accuses drug company of flouting advertising rules
British Medical Journal
Priority setting in the NHSReports from six districts
British Medical Journal
Effect of discussion and deliberation on public's views of priority setting
British Medical Journal (Letter)
The condition of post-modernity
Closer to homeThe case for experiential participation in health reform
Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique
Patient involvement in health careA procedural justice viewpoint
Medical Care
Rationing health careThe political perspective
British Medical Bulletin
Cited by (117)
Development of an Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioner service specification
2021, Research in Social and Administrative PharmacyPatient, family and clinician preferences for the intensity and implementation of patient and family participation in healthcare design and delivery in psychiatry
2019, European Journal of PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :This can occur at the patient level (e.g. decisions about care for individual patients), the service level (e.g. decisions about planning services) and the national level (e.g. decisions about national health policy).2 Examples include patient or family inclusion in guideline development3 or consultation in setting priorities.4 The importance of participation in healthcare has been established globally.2