4.0 Article

Health economics methods for public health resource allocation: a qualitative interview study of decision makers from an English local authority

期刊

HEALTH ECONOMICS POLICY AND LAW
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 128-140

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S174413311800052X

关键词

economic evaluation; public health; local decision-making

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Fellowship programme [CDF-2015-08-013]
  2. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [CDF-2015-08-013] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Local authorities in England have responsibility for public health, however, in recent years, budgets have been drastically reduced placing decision makers under unprecedented financial pressure. Although health economics can offer support for decision making, there is limited evidence of it being used in practice. The aim of this study was to undertake in-depth qualitative research within one local authority to better understand the context for public health decision making; what, and how economics evidence is being used; and invite suggestions for how methods could be improved to better support local public health decision making. The study included both observational methods and in-depth interviews. Key meetings were observed and semi-structured interviews conducted with participants who had a decision-making role to explore views on economics, to understand the barriers to using evidence and to invite suggestions for improvements to methods. Despite all informants valuing the use of health economics, many barriers were cited: including a perception of a narrow focus on the health sector; lack of consideration of population impact; and problems with translating long timescales to short term impact. Methodological suggestions included the broadening of frameworks; increased use of natural experiments; and capturing wider non-health outcomes that resonate with the priorities of multiple stakeholders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据