Stakeholder Participation for Legitimate Priority Setting: A Checklist

被引:21
|
作者
Jansen, Maarten P. M. [1 ]
Baltussen, Rob [1 ]
Baeroe, Kristine [2 ]
机构
[1] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, Dept Hlth Evidence, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Bergen, Dept Global Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Bergen, Norway
关键词
Priority Setting; Accountability for Reasonableness; Legitimacy; Stakeholder Participation; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT; ACCOUNTABILITY; REASONABLENESS; CARE; PRINCIPLES; DECISIONS; COVERAGE; ISSUES;
D O I
10.15171/ijhpm.2018.57
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Accountable decision-makers are required to legitimize their priority setting decisions in health to members of society. In this perspective we stress the point that fair, legitimate processes should reflect efforts of authorities to treat all stakeholders as moral equals in terms of providing all people with well-justified, reasonable reasons to endorse the decisions. We argue there is a special moral concern for being accountable to those who are potentially adversely affected by decisions. Health authorities need to operationalize this requirement into real world action. In this perspective, we operationalize five key steps in doing so, in terms of (i) proactively identifying potentially adversely affected stakeholders; (ii) comprehensively including them in the decision-making process; (iii) ensuring meaningful participation; (iv) communication of recommendations or decisions; and (v) the organization of evaluation and appeal mechanisms. Health authorities are advised to use a checklist in the form of 29 reflective questions, aligned with these five key steps, to assist them in the practical organization of legitimate priority setting in healthcare.
引用
收藏
页码:973 / 976
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] The 'Checklist of Leisure, Interests and Participation': A contemporary leisure checklist
    Levick, Jessica
    Broome, Kieran
    Ingram, Leanne
    Oprescu, Florin
    Gray, Marion
    AUSTRALIAN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY JOURNAL, 2025, 72 (01)
  • [32] Access, boundaries and their effects: legitimate participation in anaesthesia
    Goodwin, D
    Pope, C
    Mort, M
    Smith, A
    SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS, 2005, 27 (06) : 855 - 871
  • [33] Peer Mentoring: On the Move to Legitimate Peripheral Participation
    Sheehy, D.
    Bohler, H.
    RESEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERCISE AND SPORT, 2016, 87 : S51 - S51
  • [34] A framework for priority setting
    Scott, A
    Donaldson, C
    Wordsworth, S
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 314 (7085): : 980 - 980
  • [35] DUETs and priority setting
    Derek Richards
    Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2012, 13 (3) : 92 - 92
  • [36] Learning to nurse through legitimate peripheral participation
    Spouse, J
    NURSE EDUCATION TODAY, 1998, 18 (05) : 345 - 351
  • [37] PRIORITY SETTING IN PURCHASING
    CARROLL, G
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, 1993, 49 (03): : 200 - 202
  • [38] PRIORITY SETTING FOR TJR
    Fargher, E. A.
    Payne, K.
    Davies, L. M.
    RHEUMATOLOGY, 2004, 43 : 80 - 80
  • [39] Priority setting and the public
    Darley, C
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HEALTH, 2000, 120 (02): : 134 - 134
  • [40] Priority setting and the public
    Griffith, B
    SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2001, 53 (11) : 1558 - 1560