Background: Priority setting is a key function to optimize the allocation of limited healthcare resources. Technical and judgmental criteria are used in priority setting decisions. The present study aims to compare the social values in some countries’ health care system based on Clark-Weale framework.
Methods: We searched the PubMed and Scopus to find published studies on the role of social values in priority setting based on the Clark-Weale framework. We checked references in order to include landmark papers which were not found in the previous step. On the basis of this framework, we subsequently compared content and process values based on which priorities are set in identified studies.
Results: Our review showed that this framework is applied to describe social values in priority setting in Australia, England, China, Germany, Iran, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Latin American countries, and USA. Countries apply the social values in different ways. Some of them consider an extended range of values and some use only a limited number of values. Content values are often more reliable than process values. Contextual characteristics and having committees in operation to advise priority setting tasks had significant roles in taking social values into consideration in the process of health priority setting.
Conclusion: It is difficult to examine how exactly health priority setting decisions are influenced by social values in health systems. However, a comparative picture of values and their relative importance can contribute to understand the status quo and under-represented values.
Peacock S, Mitton C, Bate A, McCoy B, Donaldson C. Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy. 2009;92(2-3):124-32.
Youngkong S, Kapiriri L, Baltussen R. Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies. Trop Med Int Health. 2009;14(8):930-9.
Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Martin DK. Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(4):766-73.
Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Martin DK. Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):78-94.
Courbage C, Rey B. Priority setting in health care and higher order degree change in risk. J Health Econ. 2012;31(3):484-9.
K Kapiriri L, Norheim OF. Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholders' values. Bull World Health Organ. 2004; 82(3): 172–179.
Glassman A, Chalkidou K, Giedion U, Teerawattananon Y, Tunis S, Bump JB, Pichon-Riviere A. Priority-setting institutions in health: recommendations from a center for global development working group. Glob Heart. 2012;7(1):13-34.
Baltussen R, Mikkelsen E, Tromp N, Hurtig A, Byskov J, Olsen Ø, Bærøe K, Hontelez JA, Singh J, Norheim OF. Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa–development of programmatic guidance. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11:26.
Ham C, Coulter A. International experience of rationing. Reasonable rationing: International experience of priority setting in health care. 2003:4-15.
Khayatzadeh-Mahani A, Fotaki M, Harvey G. Ethical theories and values in priority setting: a case study of the Iranian health system. Public Health Ethics. 2012;6(1):60-72.
Defechereux T, Paolucci F, Mirelman A, Youngkong S, Botten G, Hagen TP, Niessen LW. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:39.
Botelho A, Pinho MM, Veiga PA. Who should participate in health care priority setting and how should priorities be set? Evidence from a Portuguese survey. Revista Portuguesa de Saúde Pública. 2013;31(2):179-87.
Clark S, Weale A. Social values in health priority setting: a conceptual framework. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):293-316.
Diederich A, Swait J, Wirsik N. Citizen Participation in Patient Prioritization Policy Decisions: An Empirical and Experimental Study on Patients' Characteristics. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5): e36824.
Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):219-28.
Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):37-50.
Biron L, Rumbold B, Faden R. Social value judgments in healthcare: a philosophical critique. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):317-30.
Kolasa K, Dohnalik J, Borek E, Siemiątkowski M, Scibiorski C. The paradox of public participation in the healthcare in Poland--what citizens want, and what they think. Health Policy. 2014;118(2):159-65.
Mostafavi H, Rashidian A, Arab M, Mahdavi MR, Ashtarian K. Health Priority Setting in Iran: Evaluating Against the Social Values Framework. Glob J Health Sci. 2016;8(10):53834.
Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness : Establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301.
Littlejohns P, Sharma T, Jeong K. Social values and health priority setting in England: "values" based decision making. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):363-73.
Kieslich K. Social values and health priority setting in Germany. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):374-83.
Ahn J, Kim G, Suh HS, Lee SM. Social values and healthcare priority setting in Korea. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):343-50.
Docherty M, Cao Q, Wang H. Social values and health priority setting in China. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):351-62.
Whitty JA, Littlejohns P. Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2015;119(2):127-36.
Tantivess S, Pérez Velasco R, Yothasamut J, Mohara A, Limprayoonyong H, Teerawattananon Y. Efficiency or equity: value judgments in coverage decisions in Thailand. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):331-42.