No Cover Image

Journal article 1015 views

Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?

C. J. Phillips, R. Fordham, K. Marsh, E. Bertranou, S. Davies, J. Hale, M. Kingsley, S. Parke, C. Porteous, J. Rance, D. Warm, Jaynie Rance Orcid Logo

The European Journal of Public Health, Volume: 21, Issue: 5, Pages: 578 - 584

Swansea University Author: Jaynie Rance Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1093/eurpub/ckq121

Abstract

<p>Background: Debates surrounding the use of conventional approaches in public health and the existence of perceived barriers to using the results of economic evaluations have led to questions posed as to how to establish priorities within public health schemes. The aims of this study were th...

Full description

Published in: The European Journal of Public Health
ISSN: 1101-1262 1464-360X
Published: Oxford journals 2011
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa6952
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2015-11-09T10:56:26Z
last_indexed 2018-02-09T04:34:38Z
id cronfa6952
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2017-12-14T15:11:26.1247294</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>6952</id><entry>2012-01-30</entry><title>Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>14360f4993b452995fbc22db857cabf7</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-9504-0675</ORCID><firstname>Jaynie</firstname><surname>Rance</surname><name>Jaynie Rance</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2012-01-30</date><deptcode>HPS</deptcode><abstract>&lt;p&gt;Background: Debates surrounding the use of conventional approaches in public health and the existence of perceived barriers to using the results of economic evaluations have led to questions posed as to how to establish priorities within public health schemes. The aims of this study were therefore to explore the feasibility and validity of economic evaluation techniques in developing priorities within public health programmes and consider the extent to which different presentational approaches are likely to be incorporated into decision-making, from perspectives of relevant stakeholders. Methods: An advisory board, representative of potential users of economic evaluations, was set up to identify preferences for how findings from economic evaluations might be presented to decision makers and to test the impact of different approaches, different outputs and different presentational styles. The board was divided into two groups, each of which was given three hypothetical &#x2018;scenarios&#x2019; to consider. The scenarios comprised descriptions of methods and outputs, with costs, effects, target population and context of intervention constant across all scenarios. Results: The perceived validity of estimates of effectiveness was vitally important, along with sufficient information to gauge whether designs were appropriate and to assess implementation practicalities. Cost&#x2013;benefit analysis and cost&#x2013;utility analysis were the preferred approaches despite their complexity, although participants required benchmarks to place net-benefit estimates from cost&#x2013;benefit analyses into context. Conclusion: Further research is required to substantiate and build on these preliminary findings and collaborations between economists and policy makers are needed to develop clear, rigorous and standard guidance relating to economic evaluation, recognizing the diversity of public health strategies.&lt;/p&gt;</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>The European Journal of Public Health</journal><volume>21</volume><journalNumber>5</journalNumber><paginationStart>578</paginationStart><paginationEnd>584</paginationEnd><publisher>Oxford journals</publisher><issnPrint>1101-1262</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1464-360X</issnElectronic><keywords>Economic evaluation, prioritization, public health</keywords><publishedDay>3</publishedDay><publishedMonth>9</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2011</publishedYear><publishedDate>2011-09-03</publishedDate><doi>10.1093/eurpub/ckq121</doi><url>http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/09/03/eurpub.ckq121</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Psychology</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>HPS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2017-12-14T15:11:26.1247294</lastEdited><Created>2012-01-30T07:32:28.0300000</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Health and Social Care - Public Health</level></path><authors><author><firstname>C. J.</firstname><surname>Phillips</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>R.</firstname><surname>Fordham</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>K.</firstname><surname>Marsh</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>E.</firstname><surname>Bertranou</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>S.</firstname><surname>Davies</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>J.</firstname><surname>Hale</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>M.</firstname><surname>Kingsley</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>S.</firstname><surname>Parke</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>C.</firstname><surname>Porteous</surname><order>9</order></author><author><firstname>J.</firstname><surname>Rance</surname><order>10</order></author><author><firstname>D.</firstname><surname>Warm</surname><order>11</order></author><author><firstname>Jaynie</firstname><surname>Rance</surname><orcid>0000-0002-9504-0675</orcid><order>12</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2017-12-14T15:11:26.1247294 v2 6952 2012-01-30 Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think? 14360f4993b452995fbc22db857cabf7 0000-0002-9504-0675 Jaynie Rance Jaynie Rance true false 2012-01-30 HPS <p>Background: Debates surrounding the use of conventional approaches in public health and the existence of perceived barriers to using the results of economic evaluations have led to questions posed as to how to establish priorities within public health schemes. The aims of this study were therefore to explore the feasibility and validity of economic evaluation techniques in developing priorities within public health programmes and consider the extent to which different presentational approaches are likely to be incorporated into decision-making, from perspectives of relevant stakeholders. Methods: An advisory board, representative of potential users of economic evaluations, was set up to identify preferences for how findings from economic evaluations might be presented to decision makers and to test the impact of different approaches, different outputs and different presentational styles. The board was divided into two groups, each of which was given three hypothetical ‘scenarios’ to consider. The scenarios comprised descriptions of methods and outputs, with costs, effects, target population and context of intervention constant across all scenarios. Results: The perceived validity of estimates of effectiveness was vitally important, along with sufficient information to gauge whether designs were appropriate and to assess implementation practicalities. Cost–benefit analysis and cost–utility analysis were the preferred approaches despite their complexity, although participants required benchmarks to place net-benefit estimates from cost–benefit analyses into context. Conclusion: Further research is required to substantiate and build on these preliminary findings and collaborations between economists and policy makers are needed to develop clear, rigorous and standard guidance relating to economic evaluation, recognizing the diversity of public health strategies.</p> Journal Article The European Journal of Public Health 21 5 578 584 Oxford journals 1101-1262 1464-360X Economic evaluation, prioritization, public health 3 9 2011 2011-09-03 10.1093/eurpub/ckq121 http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/09/03/eurpub.ckq121 COLLEGE NANME Psychology COLLEGE CODE HPS Swansea University 2017-12-14T15:11:26.1247294 2012-01-30T07:32:28.0300000 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences School of Health and Social Care - Public Health C. J. Phillips 1 R. Fordham 2 K. Marsh 3 E. Bertranou 4 S. Davies 5 J. Hale 6 M. Kingsley 7 S. Parke 8 C. Porteous 9 J. Rance 10 D. Warm 11 Jaynie Rance 0000-0002-9504-0675 12
title Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?
spellingShingle Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?
Jaynie Rance
title_short Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?
title_full Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?
title_fullStr Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?
title_sort Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?
author_id_str_mv 14360f4993b452995fbc22db857cabf7
author_id_fullname_str_mv 14360f4993b452995fbc22db857cabf7_***_Jaynie Rance
author Jaynie Rance
author2 C. J. Phillips
R. Fordham
K. Marsh
E. Bertranou
S. Davies
J. Hale
M. Kingsley
S. Parke
C. Porteous
J. Rance
D. Warm
Jaynie Rance
format Journal article
container_title The European Journal of Public Health
container_volume 21
container_issue 5
container_start_page 578
publishDate 2011
institution Swansea University
issn 1101-1262
1464-360X
doi_str_mv 10.1093/eurpub/ckq121
publisher Oxford journals
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str School of Health and Social Care - Public Health{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Health and Social Care - Public Health
url http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/09/03/eurpub.ckq121
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description <p>Background: Debates surrounding the use of conventional approaches in public health and the existence of perceived barriers to using the results of economic evaluations have led to questions posed as to how to establish priorities within public health schemes. The aims of this study were therefore to explore the feasibility and validity of economic evaluation techniques in developing priorities within public health programmes and consider the extent to which different presentational approaches are likely to be incorporated into decision-making, from perspectives of relevant stakeholders. Methods: An advisory board, representative of potential users of economic evaluations, was set up to identify preferences for how findings from economic evaluations might be presented to decision makers and to test the impact of different approaches, different outputs and different presentational styles. The board was divided into two groups, each of which was given three hypothetical ‘scenarios’ to consider. The scenarios comprised descriptions of methods and outputs, with costs, effects, target population and context of intervention constant across all scenarios. Results: The perceived validity of estimates of effectiveness was vitally important, along with sufficient information to gauge whether designs were appropriate and to assess implementation practicalities. Cost–benefit analysis and cost–utility analysis were the preferred approaches despite their complexity, although participants required benchmarks to place net-benefit estimates from cost–benefit analyses into context. Conclusion: Further research is required to substantiate and build on these preliminary findings and collaborations between economists and policy makers are needed to develop clear, rigorous and standard guidance relating to economic evaluation, recognizing the diversity of public health strategies.</p>
published_date 2011-09-03T03:08:35Z
_version_ 1763749832279719936
score 11.021648

Similar Items