DJ Hunter
The potential value of priority-setting methods in public health investment decisions: qualitative findings from three English local authorities
Hunter, DJ; Marks, L; Brown, J; Scalabrini, S; Salway, S; Vale, L; Gray, J; Payne, N
Authors
L Marks
J Brown
S Scalabrini
S Salway
L Vale
J Gray
N Payne
Abstract
This paper reports on an action-oriented research study providing decision support to three local authorities in England on the prioritisation of public health investment and disinvestment decisions. We adopted a political science perspective, using the multiple streams framework to investigate the use of prioritisation tools in public health spending decisions at a time of severe financial constraints. The challenges and implications of their potential use in everyday practice were explored. Twenty-nine interviews were conducted before the targeted decision support occurred and 19 interviews after the decision support had been delivered. Interviews were held with locally elected politicians, officers and public health professionals based within local government, NHS commissioners and the local independent consumer watchdog for health and social care. Targeted workshops with local stakeholders were facilitated in each site by health economist members of the project team. Structured observational notes were recorded during these workshops and integrated with the interview data. Many respondents expressed an interest in prioritisation tools although some scepticism was expressed about their value and impact on decision-making. This paper analyses the enablers and barriers to adopting priority-setting tools in a local government environment that by definition is political. The findings suggest that the adoption of priority-setting tools in decision-making processes in public health poses some significant challenges within local government and that certain enabling factors have to be present.
Citation
Hunter, D., Marks, L., Brown, J., Scalabrini, S., Salway, S., Vale, L., …Payne, N. (2016). The potential value of priority-setting methods in public health investment decisions: qualitative findings from three English local authorities. Critical Public Health, 26(5), 578-587. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2016.1164299
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Acceptance Date | Mar 6, 2016 |
Online Publication Date | Mar 28, 2016 |
Publication Date | 2016 |
Deposit Date | Mar 30, 2016 |
Publicly Available Date | Jul 26, 2019 |
Journal | Critical Public Health |
Print ISSN | 0958-1596 |
Electronic ISSN | 1469-3682 |
Publisher | Taylor and Francis Group |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 26 |
Issue | 5 |
Pages | 578-587 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2016.1164299 |
Files
Accepted Journal Article
(745 Kb)
PDF
Copyright Statement
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Critical Public Health on 28th March 2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09581596.2016.1164299
You might also like
Better evidence for smarter policy making
(2016)
Journal Article
Mobilising knowledge in complex health systems: a call to action
(2016)
Journal Article
Downloadable Citations
About Durham Research Online (DRO)
Administrator e-mail: dro.admin@durham.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2024
Advanced Search