Rethinking patient involvement in healthcare priority setting

被引:8
作者
Sandman, Lars [1 ]
Hofmann, Bjorn [2 ]
Bognar, Greg [3 ]
机构
[1] Linkoping Univ, Dept Hlth Med & Caring Sci, Natl Ctr Prior Hlth, Linkoping, Sweden
[2] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol NTNU Gjovik, Dept Hlth Sci, Gjovik, Norway
[3] Stockholm Univ, Dept Philosophy, Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
deliberative democracy; empowerment; legitimacy; patient involvement; priority setting; rationing; TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT; PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT; ALLOCATION; LEGITIMACY; CRITERIA; ORGANIZATIONS; ECONOMY; JUSTICE; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.1111/bioe.12730
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
With healthcare systems under pressure from scarcity of resources and ever-increasing demand for services, difficult priority setting choices need to be made. At the same time, increased attention to patient involvement in a wide range of settings has given rise to the idea that those who are eventually affected by priority setting decisions should have a say in those decisions. In this paper, we investigate arguments for the inclusion of patient representatives in priority setting bodies at the policy level. We find that the standard justifications for patient representation, such as to achieve patient-relevant decisions, empowerment of patients, securing legitimacy of decisions, and the analogy with democracy, all fall short of supporting patient representation in this context. We conclude by briefly outlining an alternative proposal for patient participation that involves patient consultants.
引用
收藏
页码:403 / 411
页数:9
相关论文
共 48 条
[11]  
Clark Sarah, 2012, J Health Organ Manag, V26, P293
[12]  
Cohen J., 1989, Contemporary Political Philosophy, an Anthology, P143
[13]   Principles of justice in health care rationing [J].
Cookson, R ;
Dolan, P .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2000, 26 (05) :323-329
[14]   Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers [J].
Daniels, N ;
Sabin, J .
PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 1997, 26 (04) :303-350
[15]  
Daniels N., 2008, Setting limits fairly: Learning to share resources for health
[16]   Accountability for reasonableness - an update [J].
Daniels, Norman ;
Sabin, James E. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 337 (7675) :a1850
[17]   Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences [J].
Danner, Marion ;
Hummel, J. Marjan ;
Volz, Fabian ;
van Manen, Jeannette G. ;
Wiegard, Beate ;
Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos ;
Bastian, Hilda ;
Gerber, Andreas ;
IJzerman, Maarten J. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2011, 27 (04) :369-375
[18]   Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision Support A Primer on the Use of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Promote Evidence-Based, Patient-Centered Healthcare [J].
Dolan, James G. .
PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2010, 3 (04) :229-248
[19]   It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making [J].
Dolan, Paul ;
Edlin, Richard ;
Tsuchiya, Aki ;
Wailoo, Allan .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2007, 64 (01) :157-170
[20]   Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement [J].
Douglas, Conor M. W. ;
Wilcox, Elizabeth ;
Burgess, Michael ;
Lynd, Larry D. .
HEALTH POLICY, 2015, 119 (05) :588-596