Why Does Priority Setting Not Result In More Funding For Public Health?

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Chafe
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Priority Setting

scholarly journals Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e015500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dyon Hoekstra ◽  
Margot Mütsch ◽  
Christina Kien ◽  
Ansgar Gerhardus ◽  
Stefan K Lhachimi
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Review Author ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Round ◽  
A Priority ◽  
The University

IntroductionThe Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups.Ethics and disseminationWe have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context.

scholarly journals The art and science of priority-setting: assessing the value of Public Health England’s Prioritization Framework

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Maniatopoulos ◽  
D J Hunter ◽  
J Gray
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Local Authority ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Adoption Process ◽  
Early Adopter ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Prioritization Framework

ABSTRACT Background Findings are presented from the evaluation of Public Health England’s (PHE) Prioritization Framework (PF) aimed to assist local authority commissioners with their public health investment and disinvestment decisions. The study explored the take up of the PF in three early adopter local authority settings. Methods Semi-structured interviews (n = 30) across three local authorities supplemented by participant observation of workshops. Results Participants acknowledged that the PF provided a systematic means of guiding priority-setting and one that encouraged transparency over investment and disinvestment decisions. The role performed by PHE and its regional teams in facilitating the process was especially welcomed and considered critical to the adoption process. However, uptake of the PF required a significant investment of time and commitment from public health teams at a time when resources were stretched. The impact of the political environment in the local government was a major factor determining the likely uptake of the PF. Ensuring committed leadership and engagement from senior politicians and officers was regarded as critical to success. Conclusions The study assessed the value and impact of PHE’s PF tool in three early adopter local authorities. Further research could explore the value of the tool in aiding investment and disinvestment decisions and its impact on spending.

Priority Setting in Public Health

2014 ◽  
pp. 155-162
Author(s):  
K. Lawson ◽  
H. Mason ◽  
E. McIntosh ◽  
C. Donaldson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Priority Setting

Priorities and ethics in population-based healthcare

2020 ◽  
pp. 12-27
Author(s):  
Sian M. Griffiths ◽  
Emily Phipps ◽  
Joe McManners
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Ethical Framework ◽  
Making Choices ◽  
Role Ethics

As a result of reading this chapter you will be able to: understand the language of ethics and the role ethics play in public; health practice; understand the principles of priority-setting for health and healthcare; systems within a constrained budget; appreciate how an ethical framework guides choices for population; health and health policy-making, including making choices to reduce health inequalities

scholarly journals Public health priority setting: A case for priority to the worse off in well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sindre August Horn ◽  
Mathias Barra ◽  
Ole Frithjof Norheim ◽  
Carl Tollef Solberg
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Information Campaigns ◽  
Public Health Priority ◽  
Health Priority ◽  
Vaccine Distribution

In Norway, priority for health interventions is assigned on the basis of three official criteria: health benefit, resources, and severity. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly happened through intersectoral public health efforts such as lockdowns, quarantines, information campaigns, social distancing and, more recently, vaccine distribution. The aim of this article is to evaluate potential priority setting criteria for public health interventions. We argue in favour of the following three criteria for public health priority setting: benefit, resources and improving the well-being of the worse off. We argue that benefits and priority to the worse off may reasonably be understood in terms of individual well-being, rather than only health, for public health priority setting. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic support our conclusions. Keywords: COVID-19, Prioritarianism, Priority Setting, Public Health, Severity

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document