What drives health-care spending priorities? An international survey of health-care professionals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Salkeld G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1800312 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
What drives health-care spending priorities? An international survey of health-care professionals.
Salkeld Glenn G Henry David D Hill Suzanne S Lang Danielle D Freemantle Nick N D'Assunção Jefferson J
PLoS medicine 20070201 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBased on subjective experience, patients can identify research priorities important for health services research. A systematic method for priority setting has been developed by the James Lind Alliance.ObjectiveThis article reviews the literature on the research priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals and presents the prioritized research themes and prioritization methods used.Search strategyThree electronic databases were searched on 22 May 2018. The search was not limited to any time period or language.Inclusion criteriaThe included studies reported the identification and prioritization of research priorities involving patients, relatives and caregivers. Each included paper addressed a specific ICD-coded health problem, and at least one-third of the sample involved in the prioritization process was affected by the health problem.Data extraction and synthesisThe 10 top-ranked research priorities were included in the thematic analysis. With an inductive approach, a system of identified themes and subthemes was developed from the research priorities. Each research priority was assigned to one research theme.Main resultsThe priority lists of 34 publications involving 331 research priorities were included. Nine main themes represent the content of the research priorities. The most frequently represented main themes are 'Treatment', 'Patients' and 'Health condition'. The distribution of the research priorities varied depending on the health conditions and prioritization methods.Discussion and conclusionsThis review provides a comprehensive overview of the overarching research themes in research priorities of affected individuals. The results can guide future patient-oriented research.
| S-EPMC7696132 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11423713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare professionals have first-hand experience with patients in clinical practice and the dynamics in the healthcare system, which can be of great value in the design, implementation, data analysis and dissemination of research study results. Primary care professionals are particularly important as they provide first contact, accessible, coordinated, comprehensive and continuous people-focused care. However, in-depth examination of the engagement of health professionals in health system research and planning activities-how professionals are engaged and how this varies across national contexts- is limited, particularly in international initiatives. There is a need to identify gaps in the planning of engagement activities to inform the design and successful implementation of future international efforts to improve the responsiveness of health systems to the changing needs of patients and professionals. The aim of this study was to explore how primary care professionals were engaged in the design and implementation plans of an international health policy study led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD's international PaRIS survey measures and disseminates information on patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) of people living with chronic conditions who are managed in primary care. A documentary analysis of 17 written national implementation plans (country roadmaps) was conducted between January and June 2023. Two reviewers independently performed the screening and data abstraction and resolved disagreements by discussion. We reported the intended target primary care professionals, phase of the study, channel of engagement, level of engagement, and purpose of engagement. All 17 countries aimed to engage primary care professionals in the execution plans for the international PaRIS survey. While organisations of primary care professionals, particularly of family doctors, were the most commonly targeted group, variation was found in the timing of engagement activities during the different phases of the study and in the level of engagement, ranging from co-development (half of the countries co-developed the survey together with primary care professionals) to one-off consultations with whom. International guidance facilitated the participation of primary care professionals. Continuous collaborative efforts at the international and national levels can foster a culture of engagement with primary care organisations and individual professionals and enhance meaningful engagement of primary care professionals.
| S-EPMC11223287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine ADHD research priorities from the perspective of ADHD professionals internationally.MethodA two-stage modified Delphi design was used. In Stage 1 (qualitative), participants listed research questions relating to ADHD that they perceived to be most important (N = 132). In Stage 2 (quantitative), participants were then asked to rate each research question that was deemed appropriate (able to be researched and not already addressed by research) in terms of perceived importance (N = 180).ResultsStage 1 generated 382 research questions with 10 broad areas identified for example, co-occurring conditions and treatment, etc. The top 20 most important questions related to ADHD in women/girls, long-term medication use, non-pharmacological interventions, ADHD measurement/rating scales, and efficacy of emotional regulation interventions.ConclusionThese results can inform an ADHD research agenda which represents the views of the individuals from major ADHD professional groups internationally. Parallel work is needed focusing on research priorities from the perspective of ADHD consumers.
| S-EPMC11800688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMaternal mortality has declined by nearly half since 1990, but over a quarter million women still die every year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. Maternal-health related targets are falling short of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals and a post-2015 Development Agenda is emerging. In connection with this, setting global research priorities for the next decade is now required.MethodsWe adapted the methods of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) to identify and set global research priorities for maternal and perinatal health for the period 2015 to 2025. Priority research questions were received from various international stakeholders constituting a large reference group, and consolidated into a final list of research questions by a technical working group. Questions on this list were then scored by the reference working group according to five independent and equally weighted criteria. Normalized research priority scores (NRPS) were calculated, and research priority questions were ranked accordingly.ResultsA list of 190 priority research questions for improving maternal and perinatal health was scored by 140 stakeholders. Most priority research questions (89%) were concerned with the evaluation of implementation and delivery of existing interventions, with research subthemes frequently concerned with training and/or awareness interventions (11%), and access to interventions and/or services (14%). Twenty-one questions (11%) involved the discovery of new interventions or technologies.ConclusionsKey research priorities in maternal and perinatal health were identified. The resulting ranked list of research questions provides a valuable resource for health research investors, researchers and other stakeholders. We are hopeful that this exercise will inform the post-2015 Development Agenda and assist donors, research-policy decision makers and researchers to invest in research that will ultimately make the most significant difference in the lives of mothers and babies.
| S-EPMC4132282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy).SettingInternational.ParticipantsWe included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both).DesignSurvey.MethodsWe invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes.ResultsParticipants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals.ConclusionsConsumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.
| S-EPMC5942413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDefining the role of exercise in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a top research priority for people with CKD. We aimed to achieve consensus on specific research priorities in exercise and CKD among an international panel of stakeholders.MethodsUsing the Delphi method, patients/caregivers, researchers, clinicians, and policymakers submitted their top research priorities in round 1 and ranked their importance in rounds 2 and 3 using a 9-point Likert scale. The mean, median, and proportion of scores ranked 7 to 9 were calculated. Consensus was defined as priorities that scored above the overall mean and median score within each stakeholder panel. Qualitative description was used to understand participants' rankings.ResultsSeventy participants (78% response) completed round 1: 15 (21.4%) clinicians, 33 (47.1%) researchers, 13 (18.6%) policymakers, and 9 (12.9%) patients; (85.7%) completed round 3. The top research priorities were defining exercise-related outcomes meaningful to patients, identifying patients' motivation and perspective towards exercise, understanding the effect of exercise on the risk of institutionalization, mortality, and mobility, and understanding the effect of pre- and post-transplant exercise on postoperative recovery. Themes from the qualitative analysis were individualization, personal experience, and holistic approach to exercise (patients), the need to address common clinical problems (clinicians), developing targeted interventions (researchers), and the importance of evidence-based development versus implementation (policymakers).ConclusionsPreventing physical disability was a common priority. Policymakers emphasized that more efficacy studies were needed. Other panels expressed the need for holistic and targeted exercise interventions and for outcomes that address common clinical problems.
| S-EPMC7938076 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC546056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background A crucial part of delirium care is determining if the delirium episode has resolved. Yet, there is no clear evidence or consensus on which assessments clinicians should use to assess for delirium recovery. Objective To evaluate current opinions from delirium specialists on assessment of delirium recovery. Design Online questionnaire-based survey distributed internationally to healthcare professionals involved in delirium care. Methods The survey covered methods for assessing recovery, the importance of different symptom domains for capturing recovery, and local guidance or pathways that recommend monitoring for delirium recovery. Results Responses from 199 clinicians were collected. Respondents were from the UK (51%), US (13%), Australia (9%), Canada (7%), Ireland (7%) and 16 other countries. Most respondents were doctors (52%) and nurses (27%). Clinicians worked mostly in geriatrics (52%), ICUs (21%) and acute assessment units (17%). Ninety-four percent of respondents indicated that they conduct repeat delirium assessments (i.e., on ≥2 occasions) to monitor delirium recovery. The symptom domains considered most important for capturing recovery were: arousal (92%), inattention (84%), motor disturbance (84%), and hallucinations and delusions (83%). The most used tool for assessing recovery was the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT, 51%), followed by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM, 26%), the CAM for the ICU (CAM-ICU, 17%) and the Single Question in Delirium (SQiD, 11%). Twenty-eight percent used clinical features only. Less than half (45%) of clinicians reported having local guidance that recommends monitoring for delirium recovery. Conclusions The survey results suggest a lack of standardisation regarding tools and methods used for repeat delirium assessment, despite consensus surrounding the key domains for capturing delirium recovery. These findings emphasise the need for further research to establish best practice for assessing delirium recovery.
| S-EPMC7614362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh and increasing spending dominates the public discussion on healthcare in Switzerland. However, the drivers of the spending increase are poorly understood. This study decomposes health care spending by diseases and other perspectives and estimates the contribution of single cost drivers to overall healthcare spending growth in Switzerland between 2012 and 2017.MethodsWe decompose total healthcare spending according to National Health Accounts by 48 major diseases, injuries, and other conditions, 20 health services, 21 age groups, and sex of patients. This decomposition is based on micro-data from a multitude of data sources such as the hospital inpatient registry, health and accident insurance claims data, and population surveys. We identify the contribution of four main drivers of spending: population growth, change in population structure (age/sex distribution), changes in disease prevalence, and changes in spending per prevalent patient.ResultsMental disorders were the most expensive major disease group in both 2012 and 2017, followed by musculoskeletal disorders and neurological disorders. Total health care spending increased by 19.7% between 2012 and 2017. An increase in spending per prevalent patient was the most important spending driver (43.5% of total increase), followed by changes in population size (29.8%), in population structure (14.5%), and in disease prevalence (12.2%).ConclusionsA large part of the recent health care spending growth in Switzerland was associated with increases in spending per patient. This may indicate an increase in the treatment intensity. Future research should show if the spending increases were cost-effective.
| S-EPMC10598929 | biostudies-literature