Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review

被引:249
作者
Mitton, Craig [1 ,2 ]
Smith, Neale
Peacock, Stuart [3 ]
Evoy, Brian [3 ]
Abelson, Julia [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia Okanagan, Fac Hlth & Social Dev, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
[2] Child & Family Res Inst, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[4] McMaster Univ, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Public participation; Public engagement; Priority setting; Resource allocation; Scoping review; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; DECISION-MAKING; CITIZENS JURIES; POLICY; DELIBERATION; EXPERIENCE; INVOLVEMENT; AUTHORITY; FRAMEWORK; SERVICES;
D O I
10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: While much literature has debated public engagement in health care decision-making, there is no consensus on when public engagement should be sought and how it should be obtained. We conducted a scoping review to examine public engagement in one specific area: priority setting and resource allocation. Method: The review drew upon a broad range of health and non-health literature in an attempt to elicit what is known and not known on this topic, and through this to outline any guidance to assist decision-makers and identify where efforts for future research should be directed. Results: Governments appear to recognize benefits in consulting multiple publics using a range of methods. though more traditional approaches to engagement continue to predominate. There appears to be growing interest in deliberative approaches to public engagement, which are more commonly on-going rather than one-off and more apt to involve face-to-face contact. However, formal evaluation of public engagement efforts is rare. Also absent is any real effort to demonstrate how public views might be integrated with other decision inputs when allocating social resources. Conclusion: While some strands can be taken to inform current priority setting activity, this scoping review identified many gaps and highlights numerous areas for further research. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:219 / 228
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
ABELSON J, 1995, CAN MED ASSOC J, V153, P403
[2]   Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting [J].
Abelson, J ;
Eyles, J ;
McLeod, CB ;
Collins, P ;
McMullan, C ;
Forest, PG .
HEALTH POLICY, 2003, 66 (01) :95-106
[3]   Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study [J].
Abelson, Julia ;
Forest, Pierre-Gerlier ;
Eyles, John ;
Casebeer, Ann ;
Martin, Elisabeth ;
Mackean, Gail .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2007, 64 (10) :2115-2128
[4]  
Adams L., 1989, HEALTH EDUC J, V48, P179
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2002, National Civic Review, DOI DOI 10.1002/NCR.91406
[6]  
Arksey H., 2005, INT J SOC RES METHOD, V8, P19, DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616
[7]  
Beierle T.C. Cayford., 2002, Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions
[8]   DEFINING CORE HEALTH-SERVICES - THE NEW-ZEALAND EXPERIENCE [J].
CAMPBELL, AV .
BIOETHICS, 1995, 9 (3-4) :252-258
[9]   A sociological perspective on public participation in health care [J].
Contandriopoulos, D .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2004, 58 (02) :321-330
[10]  
Cornwall Andrea, 2003, Health Expect, V6, P30, DOI 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2003.00206.x