Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Health Priorities”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 415 records · Page 23Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

New priorities for health sector reform in Central and Eastern Europe.

After the breakdown of the state socialism, a number of changes have occurred in the legal framework, as well as governmental policy, ownership, production, financing, and reimbursement of health care in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). However, the policy context in CEE makes priority setting a necessary step to ensure the efficient use of public funds for health. The problems with prioritizing of health services in the Central and Eastern Europe are, in essence, related to the general position of health care within broad national priorities. The percentage of gross domestic product spent on health is insufficient and many cost-effective interventions are currently neglected, under-funded or provided with low quality standards. If the health status is to be improved, such interventions should be granted a greater priority. The experience from the established market economies indicate that: (a) overall future system of priorities setting in health care in the CEE should be driven by new democratic values; (b) new systems must be people-centered, more oriented to the needs of individual patient and specific groups, and sensitive to inequalities, unemployment, and social poverty; (c) they should be health-focused; and (d) they should be evidence-based and oriented towards primary health care.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed2003

A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions.

Priority setting (also known as resource allocation or rationing) occurs at every level of every health system and is one of the most significant health care policy questions of the 21st century. Because it is so prevalent and context specific, improving priority setting in a health system entails improving it in the institutions that constitute the system. But, how should this be done? Normative approaches are necessary because they help identify key values that clarify policy choices, but insufficient because different approaches lead to different conclusions and there is no consensus about which ones are correct, and they are too abstract to be directly used in actual decision making. Empirical approaches are necessary because they help to identify what is being done and what can be done, but are insufficient because they cannot identify what should be done. Moreover, to be really helpful, an improvement strategy must utilize rigorous research methods that are able to analyze and capture experience so that past problems are corrected and lessons can be shared with others. Therefore, a constructive, practical and accessible improvement strategy must be research-based and combine both normative and empirical methods. In this paper we propose a research-based improvement strategy that involves combining three linked methods: case study research to describe priority setting; interdisciplinary research to evaluate the description using an ethical framework; and action research to improve priority setting. This describe-evaluate-improve strategy is a generalizable method that can be used in different health care institutions to improve priority setting in that context.

Empirical Research↗
PubMed1992

COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health)--the priorities for the NHS.

Managing COSHH is like managing anything else: define the issues; evaluate the priorities; select management options; implement them and monitor the outcome. In COSHH terms this means inventories, assessments, control measures and auditing. But much of the identification and assessment work should be centralised--after all, the hazards and risks arising from Glutaraldehyde usage or painting with eggshell paints is virtually identical not just across a hospital, but across a District and Region. That is why the Hospital Helpline was established, and has been such a success--a core of COSHH assessments made available to all, so that efforts can be focused on what COSHH is about, after all they are the Control not the Assessment Regulations.

Hazardous Substances↗
PubMed1996

Comparison of doctors', nurses', politicians' and public attitudes to health care priorities.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate differences in attitudes concerning prioritisation in health care held by doctors, nurses, local politicians and the general public. METHODS: Four groups were established: a population sample of 2000 subjects, aged 18-70 years; a random sample of 1500 doctors of working age; a random sample of 1000 nurses of working age; and a sample of 2200 politicians involved in health and social care administration, mostly at the municipal level (altogether 6700 subjects). The main questionnaire contained, among other things, a list of 12 statements concerning ethical decisions regarding prioritisation in health care. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. RESULTS: Most respondents in all the groups felt able to express an opinion on the statements. Despite considerable professional and cultural differences between groups, the views were generally similar. On the whole, respondents supported liberal policies in which the community took responsibility for subsidising health care. When differences between groups occurred, it was usually the doctors who held discordant views. Doctors were less inclined to consider a patient's economic status as a determinant of priority for treatment than the other three groups. Both doctors and nurses were less punitive towards patients with self-induced diseases. And doctors and politicians were more likely to feel further cuts in health care expenditure were possible than was true for nurses and the public. CONCLUSIONS: While considerable uniformity of opinion exists on ethical issues of prioritisation between the principal interested parties, the views of doctors differ substantially on some matters. If prioritisation was left entirely to doctors, health care provision would not reflect the views of other groups in some important ways.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1993

Setting health care priorities in Sweden: the politician's point of view.

In this report, the results of interviews with sixty local health care politicians in southern Sweden will be presented. It is evident from the material that despite their formal responsibility, the politicians are of the opinion that other actors exert greater influence upon the allocation of resources. They do not think that health care expenditure need be extended, whereas fields such as care of the elderly and preventive medicine ought to receive extended contributions at the expense of other publicly financed activities such as general mammography and in vitro fertilization. Somewhat more than a third of the politicians hold that the goal stipulated in the Swedish Health Care Act, i.e. to provide good health and care on equal terms, has not been fulfilled. Their attitudes towards priority criteria such as personal responsibility, age, life expectancy, parenthood and productivity differ from case to case, and there is no clear-cut consensus. However, approximately half of the respondents agree wholly or partly that a person who promises to alter his or her unhealthy habits should be treated before someone who does not make such a promise. The same applies to the principle that those employed ought to be given priority in operating queues, and in consequence of this utility perspective there are also increased demands upon the physicians to take economy into consideration in treating an individual patient.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2001

Global health strategies versus local primary health care priorities--a case study of national immunisation days in Southern Africa.

Building on the successful eradication of smallpox, the World Health Organisation, together with other agencies, is now moving quickly to the eradication of poliomyelitis, originally aimed for the year 2000. Plans for the subsequent global eradication of measles are in an advanced stage. Eradication of both polio and measles incorporate as a fundamental strategy high routine coverage, surveillance and special national immunisation days (NIDs), which are supplementary to routine vaccination services. There has been a lively debate on whether poor countries, with many health problems that could be controlled, should divert their limited resources for a global goal of eradication that may have low priority for their children. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, NIDs are fully justifiable. However, field observations in sub-saharan Africa show that NIDs divert resources and, to a certain extent, attention from the development of comprehensive primary health care (PHC). The routine immunisation coverage rates dropped on average since the introduction of NIDs in 1996, which is contrary to what was observed in the western Pacific and other regions. The additional investment to be made when moving from disease control to eradication may exceed the financial capacity of an individual country. Since the industrialised countries benefit most from eradication, they should take responsibility for covering the needs of those countries that cannot afford the investment. The WHO's frequent argument that NIDs are promotive to PHC is not confirmed in the southern African region. The authors think that the WHO should, therefore, focus its attention on diminishing the negative side-effects of NIDs and on getting the positive side-effects incorporated in the integrated health services in a sustainable way.

Africa South of the Sahara↗
PubMed1997

Reluctant rationers: public input to health care priorities.

Members of the public can adopt any one of at least three roles when providing input to public decision-making: taxpayer, collective community decision-maker, or patient. Each of these potential roles can be mapped onto three areas of public policy decision-making in health care: funding levels and organization for the system, the services we choose to offer under public funding, and the characteristics of those who should receive the offered services. The increasing desire to involve the public across the spectrum of health care decision-making has yet to result in a clear delineation of either which of the areas are most appropriate for public input or which of the roles we wish individual participants to adopt. The average citizen (as opposed to the self-interested patient, the provider or the manager) has so far shown little interest in contributing and rarely has the requisite skills for most of the tasks asked of him or her. The widespread motivation of governments and others for seeking public input appears to be to get the public to take or share ownership in the tough rationing choices consequent on fiscal retrenchment in health care. Evaluation of existing literature leads to the conclusion that there are only limited areas where we might wish to obtain significant public input if we adopt this widespread policy motivation. Specifically, the general public should be asked to give input to, but not determine, priorities across the broad service categories that could potentially be publicly funded. Members of the public have neither the interest nor the skills to do this at the level of specific services. The role expected of such members of the public should be made explicit and should focus on collective views of the community good rather than self-interested views of individual benefit. Groups of patients, however, should be the source of input when socio-demographic characteristics are being used to decide who should receive offered services. The role expected of these consumers is not, however, to take a self-interested perspective; rather, it is to adopt Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' to reflect compassionate views of priorities across socio-demographic characteristics. Finally, there appears to be no best method for obtaining public input that overcomes the common problems of poor information upon which to base priorities, difficulty in arriving at consensus, poor representativeness of participants, and lack of opportunity for informed discussion prior to declaring priorities. There is some suggestion, however, that panels of citizens or patients, convened on an ongoing basis and provided with the opportunity to acquire relevant information and discuss its implications prior to making consensus recommendations, offer the most promising way forward.

Canada↗
PubMed2003

The moral relevance of personal characteristics in setting health care priorities.

This paper discusses the moral relevance of accounting for various personal characteristics when prioritising between groups of patients. After a review of the results from empirical studies, we discuss the ethical reasons which might explain-and justify-the views expressed in these studies. The paper develops a general framework based upon the causes of ill health and the consequences of treatment. It then turns to the question of the extent to which a personal characteristic-and the eventual underlying ethical justification of its relevance-could have any relationships to these causes and consequences. We attempt to disentangle those characteristics that may reflect a potentially relevant justification from those which violate widely accepted principles of social justice.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Past and future priorities in health promotion in the United States: a survey of experts.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine past and future priorities of the health promotion industry. Parameters included target markets, program staff, ethical issues, corporate programs, and program sites. METHODS: This study focused on the predictive perceptions of 76 prominent health and fitness professionals. Participants completed an inventory designed to compare past and future practices in health promotion. The Wilcoxon rank-sign test was used to determine changes in perceived importance from past to future periods. RESULTS: The most important markets in the future were women and the elderly. Predictions regarding staffing included an expected increase in staff size in many program settings, a high importance rating for marketers and health educators, and standardized training and certification for health promotion personnel. Many employers in the future were predicted to link medical care costs and reimbursements with lifestyle behaviors, support confidentiality of health status information, and offer voluntary participation in health promotion programs to all employees. Employers were also predicted to provide more healthful work environments. DISCUSSION: Future success of these projected programs will depend upon administrative flexibility, creativity, and strategic planning.

Adult↗
PubMed1984

Programme budgeting: an aid to planning and priority setting in health care.

Programme budgeting can assist in overcoming some of the current problems besetting health care planning and management. In particular, health services suffer from lack of (i) explicit objectives; (ii) comprehensive overviews; (iii) knowledge of production functions; (iv) incentives for efficiency; and (v) inappropriate budgeting structures. Programme budgeting while not in itself capable of overcoming all these problems can create an information framework which first highlights but secondly fosters amelioration of these problems. In essence programme budgeting links outputs and inputs by health care programme. This facilitates monitoring, planning, control and the fostering of evaluation. Two examples of the use of programme budgets are presented.

Budgets↗
PubMedDate not supplied

How can PhD research contribute to the global health research agenda?

We propose that PhD and post-doctoral researchers are a strong, untapped resource with the potential to make a real contribution to global health research (GHR). However, we raise some ethical, institutional and funding issues which either discourage new researchers from entering the field or diminish their capacity to contribute. We offer a number of recommendations to Canadian academic and non-academic institutions and funders, and aim to generate discussion among them about how to overcome these constraints. We need changes in the way graduate research is organized and funded, to create opportunities to work collaboratively within established low- and middle-income country (LMIC)/Canadian research partnerships. We urge changes in the way institutions fund, recognize, value and support GHR, so established researchers are encouraged to develop long-term LMIC relationships and mentor new Canadian/LMIC researchers. We ask funders to reconsider additional GHR activities for support, including strategic training initiatives and dissemination of research results. We also encourage the development of alternative institutions that can provide training and mentoring opportunities. GHR per se faces many challenges. If we address those that reduce our potential to contribute, we can become real partners in GHR, working towards equitable global health and solutions to priority health issues.

Canada↗
PubMed1989

[Health care priority requirements in old age].

Based on the results of long-term research of the health and social position of elderly subjects priority needs are discussed. This comprises adequate care in acute diseases, incl. their signalization, essential hospitalization and long-term treatment in sanatoria and dispensary care. The main link in the provision of comprehensive geriatric care are local health communities. For the dispensary care of the old people a special methodical procedure was recommended and priorities were defined for the first stage of implementation of the eventual dispensarization of old people. Already in the first stage it is recommended to dispensarize all people above 75 years.

Aged↗