The public's and doctors' perceived role in participation in setting health care priorities in Greece (original) (raw)
Related papers
Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus
Background: In countries such as Cyprus the financial crisis and the recession have severely affected the funding and priority setting of the health care system. There is evidence highlighting the importance of population' preferences in designing priorities for health care settings. Although public preferences have been thorough analysed in many countries, there is a research gap in terms of simultaneously investigating the relative importance and the weight of differing and competing criteria for determining healthcare priority settings. The main objective of the study was tο investigate public preferences for the relative utility and weight of differing and competing criteria for health care priority setting in Cyprus. Methods: The 'conjoint analysis' technique was applied to develop a ranking exercise. The aim of the study was to identify the preferences of the participants for alternative options. Participants were asked to grade in a priority order 16 hypothetical case scenarios of patients with different disease and of diverse socioeconomic characteristics awaiting treatment. The sample was purposive and consisted of 100 Cypriots, selected from public locations all over the country. Results: It was revealed that the " severity of the disease " and the " age of the patient " were the key prioritization criteria. Participants assigned the smallest relative value to the criterion " healthy lifestyle ". More precisely, participants older than 35 years old assigned higher relative importance to " age " , while younger participants to the " severity of the disease ". The " healthy lifestyle " criterion was assigned to the lowest relative importance to by all participants. Conclusion: In Cyprus, public participation in health care priority setting is almost inexistent. Nonetheless, it seems that the public's participation in this process could lead to a wider acceptance of the healthcare system especially as a result of the financial crisis and the upcoming reforms implemented such as the establishment of the General System of Health Insurance.
Citizen Preferences for Primary Health Care reform in Greece
Hippokratia, 2019
BACKGROUND The Greek National Health System is currently pursuing the strengthening of Primary Health Care (PHC). Citizen preferences for healthcare service utilization, their views on structural reform of the current system, and the profiling of those in favor of PHC are essential in planning a reform that respects citizens' needs. However, data on this topic in the country are scarce. The present study maps citizen preferences for health care reform in the primary care sector in Greece. METHODS In March 2017, a sample of 1,002 citizens were surveyed by telephone. The survey was repeated with a different sample of 1,001 persons in October 2017. Both samples were defined via a random multistage selection process using a quota for the municipality of residence, sex, and age. Responders were asked to rate their satisfaction with the existing healthcare system and to rank their preferences as to the most important elements of future structural reform. Barriers to accessing healthca...
The public's priorities in health services
Health Expectations, 2013
Background Rationing in health services cannot be solved only by cost-effective analysis because social values play a central role in the difficult trade-off dilemma of prioritizing some service over others. Objective To examine the relative importance ascribed by the public to selected components of health services, in the national allocation of resources as well as in their personal insurance. Methods A telephone survey of a representative sample of the Israeli adult population (N = 1225). Two versions of the questionnaire were used. At the national level, interviewees were asked to assume they were the Minister of Health. At the personal level, interviewees were asked to choose items to be included in their personal complementary health insurance. Results Checkups for early disease detection and nursing care for the frail elderly got the highest support for extra budget as well as to be included in personal insurance. Other items presented were fertility treatments, cardiac rehabilitation, mental health, dental health, programmes for preventive medicine and health promotion, subsidizing supplemental insurance for the poor, additional staff for primary clinics and building a new hospital. The lowest support was for alternative medicine and for cosmetic surgery. No subgroup in the Israeli society presented a different first priority. Conclusion The Israeli public does not give high priority to 'nice to have' services but their selections are 'mature' and responsible. Rationing in health care requires listening to the public even if there are still many methodological limitations on how to reflect the public's opinion.
PLoS ONE, 2012
Health systems worldwide are grappling with the need to control costs to maintain system viability. With the combination of worsening economic conditions, an aging population and reductions in tax revenues, the pressures to make structural changes are expected to continue growing. Common cost control mechanisms, e.g. curtailment of patient access and treatment prioritization, are likely to be adversely viewed by citizens. It seems therefore wise to include them in the decision making processes that lead up to policy changes. In the context of a multilevel iterative mixed-method design a quantitative survey representative of the German population (N = 2031) was conducted to probe the acceptance of priority setting in medicine and to explore the practicability of direct public involvement. Here we focus on preferences for patients' characteristics (medical aspects, lifestyle and socio-economic status) as possible criteria for prioritizing medical services. A questionnaire with closed response options was fielded to gain insight into attitudes toward broad prioritization criteria of patient groups. Furthermore, a discrete choice experiment was used as a rigorous approach to investigate citizens' preferences toward specific criteria level in context of other criteria. Both the questionnaire and the discrete choice experiment were performed with the same sample. The citizens' own health and social situation are included as explanatory variables. Data were evaluated using corresponding analysis, contingency analysis, logistic regression and a multinomial exploded logit model. The results show that some medical criteria are highly accepted for prioritizing patients whereas socio-economic criteria are rejected.
Introduction: priority setting, equitable access and public involvement in health care
Journal of Health Organization and Management, 2016
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue on improving equitable access to health care through increased public and patient involvement (PPI) in prioritization decisions by discussing the conceptualization, scope and rationales of PPI in priority setting that inform the special issue. Design/methodology/approach – The paper employs a mixed-methods approach in that it provides a literature review and a conceptual discussion of the common themes emerging in the field of PPI and health priority setting. Findings – The special issue focuses on public participation that is collective in character, in the sense that the participation relates to a social, not personal, decision and is relevant to whole groups of people and not single individuals. It is aimed at influencing a decision on public policy or legal rules. The rationales for public participation can be found in democratic theory, especially as they relate to the social and political values of legitimac...
The No-Destination Ship of Priority-Setting in Healthcare: A Call for More Democracy Debate
2018
In dealing with scarcity of resources within healthcare systems, decision-makers inevitably have to make choices about which services to fund. Setting priorities represents a challenging task that requires systematic, explicit and transparent methodologies with focus on economic efficiency. In addition, the engagement of the general public in the process of decision-making has been regarded as one of the most important aspects of the management of publicly-funded health systems in liberal democracies. In the current essay, we aim to discuss the problematics of public engagement in the process of resource allocation and priority-setting within the context of publicly-funded health systems. Our central argument is that although there may be a conflict between democratic mechanisms of citizen participation and economic efficiency, in the extra-welfarist sense, expected for/from the system, the solution for this tension does not seem to rely on more or novel authoritative technocratic approaches, but rather on the deepening and betterment of democratic participation. Citation: Seixas BV. The no-destination ship of priority-setting in healthcare: a call for more democracy.
The state of health care priority setting and public participation
1997
A structured questionnaire survey of all 131 health authorities in England, Wales and Scotland was carried out between September 1995 and January 1996. The priority setting questionnaire was sent to chairpersons or chief executives of each health authority, although respondents had a variety of job titles. The objectives of the survey was to assess (i) To assess the extent to
Social Science & Medicine, 2015
Resources available to the health care sector are finite and typically insufficient to fulfil all the demands for health care in the population. Decisions must be made about which treatments to provide. Relatively little is known about the views of the general public regarding the principles that should guide such decisions. We present the findings of a Q methodology study designed to elicit the shared views in the general public across ten countries regarding the appropriate principles for prioritising health care resources. In 2010, 294 respondents rank ordered a set of cards and the results of these were subject to by-person factor analysis to identify common patterns in sorting. Five distinct viewpoints were identified, (I) "Egalitarianism, entitlement and equality of access"; (II) "Severity and the magnitude of health gains"; (III) "Fair innings, young people and maximising health benefits"; (IV) "The intrinsic value of life and healthy living"; (V) "Quality of life is more important than simply staying alive". Given the plurality of views on the principles for health care priority setting, no single equity principle can be used to underpin health care priority setting. Hence, the process of decision making becomes more important, in which, arguably, these multiple perspectives in society should be somehow reflected. Highlights Little is known about views in society on principles to guide priority setting. We used Q methodology with members of the public across ten countries. We found five shared views on principles regarded appropriate for rationing. No single equity principle can be used to underpin priority setting in health care. This plurality of views in society should be reflected in priority setting processes.