Patten S, Mitton C, Donaldson C; International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Meeting (19th : 2003 : Canmore, Alta.).
Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2003; 19: abstract no. 294.
University of Calgary, Centre for Health and Policy Studies, 3330 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada Tel: 403-210-9316, Fax: 403-210-3818, E-mail: san.acch@shaw.ca
OBJECTIVES: Due to resource scarcity, processes are required to aid managers and clinicians in setting priorities in health authorities. The aim of this paper is to present key issues relevant to the development of a macro-level priority setting framework within health organizations, with a focus on how decision-makers view evidence. METHODS: A participatory action research project was carried out in one urban health region in Alberta. To inform framework development, one phase of this project included in depth qualitative interviews and a focus group with senior managers and clinicians. Data was thematically coded and categorized into descriptive or interpretive themes. RESULTS: Five interpretive themes were identified, including application of evidence. While most decision makers saw it as their responsibility to be 'evidence-based', challenges of capacity, resources, and organizational culture were identified. Intuition and expert opinion were perceived to be not valued as appropriate forms of evidence for priority setting decisions, yet when evidence is incomplete, these 'softer' forms must be relied upon. It was also felt that in only using 'hard scientific evidence' (e.g., based on HTAs, economic evaluations, outcomes studies), funding decisions would be biased. CONCLUSION: Decision-makers held that in developing a macro-level priority setting framework, guidelines for application of evidence should take into account validity of different forms of evidence (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative, published literature versus best expert opinion), and willingness to invest in innovations that may not yet have 'high level' evidence. Lessons derived here should provide insight for priority setting processes in other jurisdictions.
Publication Types:
Keywords:
- Administrative Personnel
- Alberta
- Budgets
- Canada
- Focus Groups
- Health Resources
- Interviews as Topic
- economics
- hsrmtgs
Other ID:
UI: 102276212
From Meeting Abstracts