These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Public dialogue on healthcare prioritisation.
    Author: Rosén P.
    Journal: Health Policy; 2006 Nov; 79(1):107-16. PubMed ID: 16386819.
    Abstract:
    The Swedish public healthcare sector is administered by county councils or regions with their own power of taxation. These authorities are facing difficult times as the gap between demand and healthcare resources is widening and the option to further increase county council taxes is not politically tempting. It is becoming ever more apparent that, sooner or later, limits to the public healthcare commitment must be set. In the north-western district of Region Skåne, the district board determined to initiate a public dialogue on prioritisation with local residents. Annual surveys were sent to 1% of the population ( approximately 2500 individuals) during the period 2002-2004. The addressees were also asked if they wanted to participate in public meetings with the healthcare politicians. This study investigates what happened to the preferences and attitudes of the interest group when the participants were not only offered an opportunity to enter into a dialogue with their peers and representatives, but also received information on prioritisation matters. After the intervention, which consisted of two public meetings with politicians and five information booklets on prioritisation issues, the study group was asked to participate in a second survey. At the follow-up, 20% fewer thought that one should always have a right to public healthcare, even if troubles were trivial. Eighty four percent in the study group thought that the general public should participate in prioritisation discussions while only 64% in the control group agreed to this. Eighty two percent of the study group marked the dialogue project "good" or "very good". The results indicate an increased acceptance for reallocations, a strengthened will to participate and more confidence in the politicians and their work. The study is descriptive and designed to make long-term follow-ups possible.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]