dc.contributor.author | Makundi, Emmanuel | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kapiriri, Lydia | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Norheim, Ole Frithjof | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2008-05-23T06:35:38Z | |
dc.date.available | 2008-05-23T06:35:38Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2007-09-24 | eng |
dc.Published | BMC Health Services Research 2007 7(152) | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 1472-6963 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1956/2665 | |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | eng | eng |
dc.publisher | BioMed Central | eng |
dc.title | Combining evidence and values in priority setting: testing the balance sheet method in a low-income country | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
dc.rights.holder | Copyright 2007 Makundi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-152 | |
dc.identifier.cristin | 366447 | |
dc.subject.nsi | VDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Helsefag: 800::Samfunnsmedisin, sosialmedisin: 801 | nob |