Cited by 112Health Services Management and PolicyHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare Systems and Reforms

Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: Evidence from the English experience

Open access
Robinson, Suzanne, Williams, Iestyn, Dickinson, Helen, Freeman, Tim, Rumbold, Benedict·2012·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

In a context of ever increasing demand, the recent economic downturn has placed further pressure on decision-makers to effectively target healthcare resources. Over recent years there has been a push to develop more explicit evidence-based priority-setting processes, which aim to be transparent and inclusive in their approach and a number of analytical tools and sources of evidence have been developed and utilised at national and local levels. This paper reports findings from a qualitative research study which investigated local priority-setting activity across five English Primary Care Trusts, between March and November 2012. Findings demonstrate the dual aims of local decision-making processes: to improve the overall effectiveness of priority-setting (i.e. reaching 'correct' resource allocation decisions); and to increase the acceptability of priority-setting processes for those involved in both decision-making and implementation. Respondents considered priority-setting processes to be compartmentalised and peripheral to resource planning and allocation. Further progress was required with regard to disinvestment and service redesign with respondents noting difficulty in implementing decisions. While local priority-setters had begun to develop more explicit processes, public awareness and input remained limited. The leadership behaviours required to navigate the political complexities of working within and across organisations with differing incentives systems and cultures r…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, S., Williams, I., Dickinson, H., Freeman, T., & Rumbold, B.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Nuffield Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Suzanne
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
75
Issue
12
Pages
2386-2393
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036797602
Cited by
112
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6
FWCI
10.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
Keywords
priority setting, health care rationing, resource allocation, primary care trusts, resource planning, divestiture, service redesign, citizen participation, leadership behavior, England
MeSH terms
Decision Making, England, Hospitals, Public, Humans, Leadership, Models, Theoretical, Primary Health Care, Health Care Rationing, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review