From the trenches: views from decision-makers on health services priority setting

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature on systematic approaches to healthcare priority setting from various countries and different levels of decision making. This paper synthesizes the current literature in order to assess the extent to which program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), burden of disease & cost-effectiveness analysis (BOD/CEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and accountability for reasonableness (A4R), are reported to have been institutionalized and influenced policy making and practice.

METHODS

We searched for English language publications on health care priority setting approaches (2000-2017). Our sources of literature included PubMed and Ovid databases (including Embase, Global Health, Medline, PsycINFO, EconLit).

FINDINGS

Of the four approaches PBMA and A4R were commonly applied in high income countries while BOD/CEA was exclusively applied in low income countries. PBMA and BOD/CEA were most commonly reported to have influenced policy making. The explanations for limited adoption of an approach were related to its complexity, poor policy maker understanding and resource requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

While systematic approaches have the potential to improve healthcare priority setting; most have not been adopted in routine policy making. The identified barriers call for sustained knowledge exchange between researchers and policy-makers and development of practical guidelines to ensure that these frameworks are more accessible, applicable and sustainable in informing policy making.

Implementing priority setting frameworks: Insights from leading researchers

In spite of a substantial literature developing frameworks for policymakers to use in resource allocation decisions in healthcare, there remains limited published work reporting on the implementation or evaluation of such frameworks in practice. This paper presents findings of a targeted survey of 18 leading researchers around the implementation and evaluation of priority-setting exercises. Approximately one third of respondents knew of situations where recommendations of priority-setting exercises had been implemented, one third knew that recommendations had not been implemented and the final third responded that they did not know whether recommendations had been adopted. The lack of evidence linking the implementation of priority-setting recommendations to equity and efficiency outcomes was highlighted by all respondents. Features identified as facilitating successful implementation of priority-setting recommendations included having a climate ready to accept priority-setting, good leadership or a 'champion' for the priority-setting process and having a health economist to guide the process. Successful disinvestment was very uncommon in the experience of the researchers surveyed. Recommendations emerging from Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis exercises appeared to be more widely implemented than those coming from alternative processes. Identifying if the process was repeated following the initial process was suggested as a means to measure success.

'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature

Background

Health care decision making requires making resource allocation decisions among programs, services, and technologies that all compete for a finite resource pool. Methods of priority setting that use explicitly defined criteria can aid health care decision makers in arriving at funding decisions in a transparent and systematic way. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature and examine the use of criteria-based methods in ‘real-world’ health care allocation decisions.

Methods

A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to find examples of ‘real-world’ priority setting exercises that used explicit criteria to guide decision-making.

Results

We found thirty-three examples in the peer-reviewed and grey literature, using a variety of methods and criteria. Program effectiveness, equity, affordability, cost-effectiveness, and the number of beneficiaries emerged as the most frequently-used decision criteria. The relative importance of criteria in the ‘real-world’ trials differed from the frequency in preference elicitation exercises. Neither the decision-making method used, nor the relative economic strength of the country in which the exercise took place, appeared to have a strong effect on the type of criteria chosen.

Conclusions

Health care decisions are made based on criteria related both to the health need of the population and the organizational context of the decision. Following issues related to effectiveness and affordability, ethical issues such as equity and accessibility are commonly identified as important criteria in health care resource allocation decisions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the Australian Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative

This article reports on the 'Assessing Cost-Effectiveness' (ACE) initiative in priority setting from Australia. It commences with why priority setting is topical and notes that a wide variety of approaches are available. In assessing these various approaches, it is argued that a useful first step is to consider what constitutes an 'ideal' approach to priority setting. A checklist to guide priority setting is presented based on guidance from economic theory, ethics and social justice, lessons from empirical experience and the needs of decision-makers. The checklist is seen as an important contribution because it is the first time that criteria from such a broad range of considerations have been brought together to develop a framework for priority setting that endeavors to be both realistic and theoretically sound. The checklist will then be applied to a selection of existing approaches in order to illustrate their deficiencies and to provide the platform for explaining the unique features of the ACE approach. A case study (ACE-Cancer) will then be presented and assessed against the checklist, including reaction from stakeholders in the cancer field. The article concludes with an overview of the full body of ACE research completed to date, together with some reflections on the ACE experience.

To fund or not to fund: development of a decision-making framework for the coverage of new health technologies

BACKGROUND

Attempts to improve the acceptability of resource allocation decisions around new health technologies have spanned many years, fields and disciplines. Various theories of decision making have been tested and methods piloted, but, despite their availability, evidence of sustained uptake is limited. Since the challenge of determining which of many technologies to fund is one that healthcare systems have faced since their inception, an analysis of actual processes, criticisms confronted and approaches used to manage them may serve to guide the development of an 'evidence-informed' decision-making framework for improving the acceptability of decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a technology funding decision-making framework informed by the experiences of multiple healthcare systems and the views of senior-level decision makers in Canada.

METHODS

A 1-day, facilitated workshop was held with 16 senior-level healthcare decision makers in Canada. International examples of actual technology funding decision-making processes were presented. Participants discussed key elements of these processes, debated strengths and weaknesses and highlighted unresolved challenges. The findings were used to construct a technology decision-making framework on which participant feedback was then sought. Its relevance, content, structure and feasibility were further assessed through key informant interviews with ten additional senior-level decision makers.

RESULTS

Six main issues surrounding current processes were raised: (i) timeliness; (ii) methodological considerations; (iii) interpretations of 'value for money'; (iv) explication of social values; (v) stakeholder engagement; and (vi) 'accountability for reasonableness'. While no attempt was made to force consensus on what should constitute each of these, there was widespread agreement on questions that must be addressed through a 'robust' process. These questions, grouped and ordered into three phases, became the final framework.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision-making framework informed by processes in other jurisdictions and the views of local decision makers was developed. Pilot testing underway in one Canadian jurisdiction will identify any further refinements needed to optimize its usefulness.

Evaluation of the impact of program budgeting and marginal analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research was to provide further insights into the ability of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to help health care decision-makers in deciding where to allocate scarce resources so as to best meet their organizational objectives.

METHODS

We report on a case study of PBMA implementation. The main source of information was two sets of semi-structured evaluation interviews conducted with senior decision-makers after each of the first two years of PBMA implementation in Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA), Canada. These interviews were analysed thematically, with initial coding based upon themes that had been identified in the previous stage of the research.

RESULTS

Many of the initial problems with PBMA implementation resolved themselves over time as participants became more familiar with the process. However, some problems needed to be addressed explicitly through changes in procedures. Establishing procedures for handling 'must-dos' (i.e. spending priorities, that are externally mandated) did not replace the need to define explicitly the extent of the organization's discretionary spending authority.

CONCLUSION

Faced with claims that typically outstrip available resources, health care decision-makers need a process to guide allocation decisions. PBMA has demonstrated at VIHA an ability to handle some of the key issues associated with this challenge. Our analysis has produced lessons that should facilitate future implementation but has also shown that resource allocation criteria selection and the extent of executive discretion are likely to be ongoing challenges.

Qualitative methodologies in health-care priority setting research

Priority setting research in health economics has traditionally employed quantitative methodologies and been informed by post-positivist philosophical assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge. These approaches have been rewarded with well-developed and validated tools. However, it is now commonly noted that there has been limited uptake of economic analysis into actual priority setting and resource allocation decisions made by health-care systems. There seem to be substantial organizational and political barriers. The authors argue in this paper that understanding and addressing these barriers will depend upon the application of qualitative research methodologies. Some efforts in this direction have been attempted; however these are theoretically under-developed and seldom rooted in any of the established qualitative research traditions. Two such approaches - narrative inquiry and discourse analysis - are highlighted here. These are illustrated with examples drawn from a real-world priority setting study. The examples demonstrate how such conceptually powerful qualitative traditions produce distinctive findings that offer unique insight into organizational contexts and decision-maker behavior. We argue that such investigations offer untapped benefits for the study of organizational priority setting and thus should be pursued more frequently by the health economics research community.

Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods

Ten years ago, Holm's highly influential paper "Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting" was published [Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. British Medical Journal 1998;317:1000-7]. Whilst attending the 2nd International Conference on Priorities in Health Care in London, Holm argued that the search for a rational set of decision-making rules was no longer adequate. Instead, the priority setting process itself was now thought to be more complex. Ten years later, the Conference returns to the UK for the first time, and it is timely to describe some new tools intended to assist both researchers and decision-makers seeking to develop both rational and fair and legitimate priority setting processes. In this paper we argue that to do so, researchers and decision-makers need to adopt an interdisciplinary and collaborative approach to priority setting. We focus on program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) and bring together three hitherto separate interdisciplinary strands of the PBMA literature. Our aim is to assist researchers and decision-makers seeking to effectively develop and implement PBMA in practice. Specifically, we focus on the use of multi-criteria decision analysis, participatory action research, and accountability for reasonableness, drawn from the disciplines of decision analysis, sociology, and ethics respectively.

Drug formulary decision-making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada

OBJECTIVES

Growing pharmaceutical demands challenge healthcare organizations to set drug funding priorities (i.e. establish a formulary list). This responsibility typically rests with pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committees, yet how the process transpires within regional health authorities is unclear. The purpose of this study was to construct an explanatory model of drug formulary priority-setting as it occurs within regional health authorities.

METHODS

A grounded theory approach was employed to study the practices of two regional health authority P&T committees in British Columbia, Canada. Data sources spanned committee documents, meeting observations (n=4), and semi-structured interviews with committee members (n=15). Data analysis involved coding using the constant comparative technique and writing analytic memos.

RESULTS

Regional P&T committees engaged in two activities related to drug formulary priority-setting: developing auto-substitution policies and reviewing drug addition requests. Four processes were central to decision-making: (i) negotiating margins of therapeutic advantage; (ii) seeking value for the resources allocated; (iii) interfacing between community and institutional settings; (iv) situating decisions within an organizational context.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight opportunities for institutions to improve the fairness of agenda-setting practices, and for additional collaboration between policy-makers who prioritize drugs for publicly funded formularies applicable to institutional versus community settings.