“Evidence-informed” priority-setting in healthcare has become increasingly important in most health systems around the world. This paper presents the results of a two-part study of the role of academic health services research in healthcare priority-setting. First, a review of peer-reviewed literature was done to elicit the factors important to priority-setting. Second, a survey of authors of this literature was conducted to determine the value of relevant academic work to decision-making.
MullenPM. Quantifying priorities in healthcare: Transparency or illusion?Health Services Management Research2004; 17(1): 47–58.
5.
WhiteHDBatesMJWilsonP. Tactics and vocabularies in online searching. In: For information specialists: Interpretations of reference and bibliographic work. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1992.
6.
CooperHHedgesL. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994.
NeutensJRubinsonL. Research techniques for the health sciences (2nd ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1997.
9.
CrabtreeBFMillerWL (Editors). Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1992.
10.
GiacominiMKCookDJ. Users' guides to the medical literature XXIII. Qualitative research in healthcare: Are the results of the study valid? JAMA2000; 284(3): 357–362.
11.
MurphyEDingwallRGreatbatchDParkerSWatsonP. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technol Assess1998; 2.
12.
MaysNPopeC. Rigour in qualitative research. In: Qualitative research in healthcare. London: BMJ Books; 1996.
13.
StraussACorbinJ. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures of developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.
14.
MittonCDonaldsonC. Twenty-five years of programme budgeting and marginal analysis in the health sector, 1974–1999. J Health Serv Res Policy2001; 6(4): 239–248.
15.
KuzelALikeRC. Standards of trustworthiness for qualitative studies in primary care. In NortonPStewartMTudiverFBassMDunnE, editors. Primary care research: Traditional and innovative approaches. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
16.
StepanASommersguter-ReichmannM. Priority setting in Austria. Health Policy1999; 50(1–2): 91–104.
17.
RissanenPHakkinenU. Priority-setting in Finnish healthcare. Health Policy1999; 50: 143–153.
18.
BusseR. Priority-setting and rationing in German healthcare. Health Policy1999; 50(1–2): 71–90.
19.
ChinitzDShalevCLevB. Israel's basic basket of health services: The importance of being explicitly implicit. In CoulterAHamC, editors. The global challenge of healthcare rationing (pp. 44–51). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press; 2000.
20.
HamC. Priority setting in healthcare: Learning from international experience. Health Policy1997; 42: 49–66.
21.
HamC. Synthesis: What can we learn from the international experience?Br Med Bull1995; 51(4): 819–830.
22.
HadornDCHolmesAC. The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: Overview. BMJ1996; 314(7074): 131–134.
23.
CampbellAV. Defining core health services: The New Zealand experience. Bioethics1995; 9(3–4): 252–258.
24.
CummingJ. Core services and priority-setting: The New Zealand experience. Health Policy1994; 29(1–2): 41–60.
25.
CalltorpJ. Priority setting in health policy in Sweden and a comparison with Norway. Health Policy1999; 50(1–2): 1–22.
26.
HolmS. The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: The second phase of priority setting in healthcare. BMJ1998; 317(7164): 1000–1002.
27.
GamindeI. Priorities in healthcare: A perspective from Spain. Health Policy1999; 50(1–2): 55–70.
28.
McKeeMFiguerasJ. Setting priorities, can Britain learn from Sweden?BMJ1996; 312(7032): 691–694.
29.
NewdickC. Resource allocation in the National Health Service. Am J Law Med1997; 23(2–3): 291–318.
30.
BlumsteinJF. The Oregon experiment: The role of cost-benefit analysis in the allocation of Medicaid funds. Soc Sci Med1997; 45(4): 545–554.
31.
KitzhaberJA. Prioritising health services in an era of limits: The Oregon experience. BMJ1993; 307(6900): 373–377.
32.
MittonCDonaldsonC. Setting priorities in Canadian regional health authorities: A survey of key decision makers. Health Policy2002; 60(1): 39–58.
33.
SchopperDTorresAMPereiraJ. Setting health priorities in a Swiss canton: What do different methods tell us?J Epidemiol Community Health2000; 54(5): 388–393.
34.
HopeT. Rationing and life-saving treatments: Should identifiable patients have higher priority?J Med Ethics2001; 27: 179–185.
35.
ScottSNLeesA. Developing a prioritisation framework: Experiences from a Scottish Health Authority. Health Expectations2001; 4(1): 10–17.
36.
NewBLe GrandJ. Rationing in the NHS: Principles and pragmatism. London: King's Fund; 1996.
37.
MaddenLHusseyRMooneyG. Public health and economics in tandem: Programme budgeting, marginal analysis and priority setting in practice. Health Policy1995; 33(2): 161–168.
38.
TwaddleSWalkerA. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: Application within programmes to assist purchasing in Greater Glasgow Health Board. Health Policy1995; 33(2): 91–105.
39.
KearsDJLumRG. Rationing: The Alameda county experience. In BlankRHBonnicksenAL, editors. Emerging issues in biomedical policy: An annual review, volume 1 (pp. 125–145). New York: Columbia University Press; 1992.
40.
MittonCDonaldsonCDeanS. Program budgeting and marginal analysis: A priority-setting framework for Canadian Regional Health Authorities. Healthcare Management Forum2000; 13(4): 24–31.
41.
AllenDLeeRHLowsonK. The use of QALYS (quality-adjusted life years) in health service planning. Int J Health Plan Management1989; 4(4): 261–273.
42.
FarrarSRyanMRossD. Using discrete choice modeling in priority setting: An application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med2000; 50(1): 63–75.
43.
PosnettJStreetA. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: An approach to priority setting in need of refinement. J Health Serv Res Policy1996; 1(3): 147–153.
44.
CharltonJPatrickDMatthewsG. Spending priorities in Kent: A Delphi study. J Epidemiol Community Health1981; 35: 288–292.
45.
VilniusDDandoyS. A priority rating system for public health programs. Public Health Reports1990; 105(5);463–470.
