BMJ 2000;321:1316-1318 ( 25 November )

Papers

Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study

Editorial by Daniels

Peter A Singer, Sun Life chair and director, ^a Douglas K Martin, research associate, ^a Mita Giacomini, assistant professor, ^b Laura Purdy, bioethicist. ^a

^a University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1L4, ^b Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 3Z5

Correspondence to: P A Singer peter.singer{at}utoronto.ca

Objective: To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine.
Design: Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory.
Setting: Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada.
Participants: The two committees and their 26 members.
Main outcome measures: Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings.
Results: Six interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions.
Conclusion: These domains constitute a model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made.

---

© BMJ 2000
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Telling stories and listening to them
BMJ 2000 321: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Telling stories and listening to them
BMJ 2000 321: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

A model for fair priority setting can be derived from watching decision makers in action
BMJ 2000 321: 0. [Full Text]

Accountability for reasonableness

Norman Daniels
BMJ 2000 321: 1300-1301. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Spicker, P. (2009). What is a priority?. J Health Serv Res Policy 14: 112-116 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Browman, G. P., Manns, B., Hagen, N., Chambers, C. R., Simon, A., Sinclair, S. (2008). 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs. J Oncol Pract 4: 2-7 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Reeleder, D., Goel, V., Singer, P. A., Martin, D. K. (2008). Accountability Agreements in Ontario Hospitals: Are They Fair?. J Public Adm Res Theory 18: 161-175 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sharma, B., Danjoux, N. M., Harnish, J. L., Urbach, D. R. (2006). How Are Decisions to Introduce New Surgical Technologies Made? Advanced Laparoscopic Surgery at a Canadian Community Hospital: A Qualitative Case Study and Evaluation. SURG INNOV 13: 250-256 [Abstract]  
• Benatar, S R (2003). Priority setting: learning to make tough decisions. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 74: 1185-1186 [Full text]  
• Pater, J. L., Browman, G. P., Brouwers, M. C., Nefsky, M. F., Evans, W. K., Cowan, D. H. (2001). Funding New Cancer Drugs in Ontario: Closing the Loop in the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle. JCO 19: 3392-3396 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Daniels, N. (2000). Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 321: 1300-1301 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Why bother to publish it.

W R Harris
bmj.com, 30 Nov 2000 [Full text]

Priority setting for new technologies in medicine.

Helen Thornton-Jones
bmj.com, 30 Nov 2000 [Full text]

Important insights into the black box of priority setting

Søren Holm
bmj.com, 1 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Pronounced trippingly on the tongue

John Hopkins
bmj.com, 1 Dec 2000 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>