Public views on priority setting for High Cost Medications in public hospitals in Australia
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19508293 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gisselle Gallego (0000-0002-3243-8176, University of Technology Sydney), Susan Taylor (0000-0003-4796-1928, The University of Sydney), Susan J Taylor, Paul M Mcneill (UNSW Sydney), Paul McNeill, Jo‐anne E Brien (The University of Sydney) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 224-235 |
| Publication date | 2007-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Expectations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00439.x |
| PMID | 17678511 |
| OpenAlex | W2168828963 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 32 |
Objective To gather information about views of members of the general public about access to High Cost Medications (HCMs) in public hospitals. Methods A structured questionnaire was administered to members of the general public. Individuals were approached in train stations, shopping centres and different venues in the Sydney metropolitan area. People were eligible to answer the survey if they were: over 18 years of age, Australian permanent residents and able to complete the questionnaire in English. Results Two hundred people completed the survey. Of these 56% were females, 47% were married, 84% spoke English at home, 88% were working either full‐time or part‐time, 61% had a university degree, 27% had a household annual income greater than $100 000 and 68% had private health insurance. Participants considered factors such as treatment outcomes, quality of life and current health status when determining who should have access to HCMs. Participants wanted resources to be allocated to provide the ‘greatest benefit to the greatest number of people’. Almost half the respondents did not want direct involvement in decision‐making, however, 38% did. Conclusions The results offered support for indirect involvement through the development of a process to involve community members in discussion on policy on the provision of treatment and services within health‐care institutions and specifically, to seek the views of members of the public on the provision of HCMs and expensive services within public hospitals
Business · Family medicine · Health care · Metropolitan area · Political science · Public health · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medication Adherence and Compliance · Medicine · Nursing · Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy · Gerontology
The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Allocating Health Care Resources—Controversial Preferences of Laypersons with Different Educational Backgrounds
Public preferences regarding the priority setting criteria of health interventions for budget allocation
Israeli lay persons’ views on priority‐setting criteria for Alzheimer’s disease
Social welfare and the Affordable Care Act
Economics and Australian Health Policy
How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail Surveys
Public involvement in health care priority setting
A note on the relative importance that people attach to different factors when setting priorities in health care
Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism
Involving the general public in priority setting
Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district
The public is too subjective
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,24 |
| Citation span | 2009 - 2022 (14) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |