More data are needed for readers to make judgment about study
- Barbara Hanratty (hssbh@leeds.ac.uk), Visiting lecturer in public health medicine,
- Debbie Lawlo, Visiting lecturer in public health medicine
- Nuffield Institute for Health, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9PL
- University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA
- LSE Health, London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE
- North Yorkshire Health Authority, York YO3 4XF
EDITOR—Dolan et al conclude that people's views on setting priorities differ systematically when they have been given the opportunity to discuss and deliberate, yet they present data that show the stability of the public's opinions.1 After discussion more than half of the respondents (52%) did not change their minds about who should be involved in priority setting A further 40% shifted only one point on a five-point scale, which was aggregated to three points, suggesting that the scale discriminated poorly between different preferences. When the participants considered which groups should be proritised 63% did not change their minds and, overall, only two groups were prioritised differently the second time.
The assumption that respondents to questionnaire surveys fail to consider their replies carefully underlies this study, though we are not aware of any evidence to support this. The authors also present no data to support the implication …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The word parameter is almost always wrong.
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 25 May 2012
Re: David Morrell
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Time to end the distinction between mental and neurological illnesses
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Are we nearly there with tranexamic acid?
Published 25 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27