• norsk
    • English
  • norsk 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Logg inn
Vis innførsel 
  •   Hjem
  • Faculty of Medicine
  • Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care
  • Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care
  • Vis innførsel
  •   Hjem
  • Faculty of Medicine
  • Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care
  • Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care
  • Vis innførsel
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Combining evidence and values in priority setting: testing the balance sheet method in a low-income country

Makundi, Emmanuel; Kapiriri, Lydia; Norheim, Ole Frithjof
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Thumbnail
Åpne
BIMed_Combining evidence.pdf (334.8Kb)
1472-6963-7-152.xml (89.00Kb)
1472-6963-7-152-S1.DOC (53.5Kb)
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/1956/2665
Utgivelsesdato
2007-09-24
Metadata
Vis full innførsel
Samlinger
  • Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care [2508]
Originalversjon
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-152
Sammendrag
Background: Procedures for priority setting need to incorporate both scientific evidence and public values. The aim of this study was to test out a model for priority setting which incorporates both scientific evidence and public values, and to explore use of evidence by a selection of stakeholders and to study reasons for the relative ranking of health care interventions in a setting of extreme resource scarcity. Methods: Systematic search for and assessment of relevant evidence for priority setting in a lowincome country. Development of a balance sheet according to Eddy's explicit method. Eight group interviews (n-85), using a modified nominal group technique for eliciting individual and group rankings of a given set of health interventions. Results: The study procedure made it possible to compare the groups' ranking before and after all the evidence was provided to participants. A rank deviation is significant if the rank order of the same intervention differed by two or more points on the ordinal scale. A comparison between the initial rank and the final rank (before deliberation) showed a rank deviation of 67%. The difference between the initial rank and the final rank after discussion and voting gave a rank deviation of 78%. Conclusion: Evidence-based and deliberative decision-making does change priorities significantly in an experimental setting. Our use of the balance sheet method was meant as a demonstration project, but could if properly developed be feasible for health planners, experts and health workers, although more work is needed before it can be used for laypersons.
Utgiver
BioMed Central
Opphavsrett
Copyright 2007 Makundi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Kontakt oss | Gi tilbakemelding

Personvernerklæring
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Levert av  Unit
 

 

Bla i

Hele arkivetDelarkiv og samlingerUtgivelsesdatoForfattereTitlerEmneordDokumenttyperTidsskrifterDenne samlingenUtgivelsesdatoForfattereTitlerEmneordDokumenttyperTidsskrifter

Min side

Logg inn

Statistikk

Besøksstatistikk

Kontakt oss | Gi tilbakemelding

Personvernerklæring
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Levert av  Unit