↓ Skip to main content

Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, April 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
328 Mendeley
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, April 2004
DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-2-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig Mitton, Cam Donaldson

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health organizations the world over are required to set priorities and allocate resources within the constraint of limited funding. However, decision makers may not be well equipped to make explicit rationing decisions and as such often rely on historical or political resource allocation processes. One economic approach to priority setting which has gained momentum in practice over the last three decades is program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). METHODS: This paper presents a detailed step by step guide for carrying out a priority setting process based on the PBMA framework. This guide is based on the authors' experience in using this approach primarily in the UK and Canada, but as well draws on a growing literature of PBMA studies in various countries. RESULTS: At the core of the PBMA approach is an advisory panel charged with making recommendations for resource re-allocation. The process can be supported by a range of 'hard' and 'soft' evidence, and requires that decision making criteria are defined and weighted in an explicit manner. Evaluating the process of PBMA using an ethical framework, and noting important challenges to such activity including that of organizational behavior, are shown to be important aspects of developing a comprehensive approach to priority setting in health care. CONCLUSION: Although not without challenges, international experience with PBMA over the last three decades would indicate that this approach has the potential to make substantial improvement on commonly relied upon historical and political decision making processes. In setting out a step by step guide for PBMA, as is done in this paper, implementation by decision makers should be facilitated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 5 2%
Kenya 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 314 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 83 25%
Researcher 34 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 10%
Student > Bachelor 25 8%
Other 20 6%
Other 72 22%
Unknown 62 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 29%
Social Sciences 39 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 16 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 5%
Other 48 15%
Unknown 78 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,026,503
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#64
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,109
of 62,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 62,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them