Journal article 1015 views
Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?
The European Journal of Public Health, Volume: 21, Issue: 5, Pages: 578 - 584
Swansea University Author:
Jaynie Rance
Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.
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...
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><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></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 |