PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (90)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Year of Publication
more »
1.  Determinants of adherence to recommendations for depressed elderly patients in primary care: A multi-methods study 
Abstract
Objective. It is logical that tailoring implementation strategies to address identified determinants of adherence to clinical practice guidelines should improve adherence. This study aimed to identify and prioritize determinants of adherence to six recommendations for elderly patients with depression. Design and setting. Group and individual interviews and a survey were conducted in Norway. Method. Individual and group interviews with healthcare professionals and patients, and a mailed survey of healthcare professionals. A generic checklist of determinants of practice was used to categorize suggested determinants. Participants. Physicians and nurses from primary and specialist care, psychologists, researchers, and patients. Main outcome measures. Determinants of adherence to recommendations for depressed elderly patients in primary care. Results. A total of 352 determinants were identified, of which 99 were prioritized. The most frequently identified factors had to do with dissemination of guidelines, general practitioners’ time constraints, the low prioritization of elderly patients with depression, and the patients’ or relatives’ wish for medication. Approximately three-quarters of the determinants were from three of the seven domains in the generic checklist: individual healthcare professional factors, patient factors, and incentives and resources. The survey did not provide useful information due to a low response rate and a lack of responses to open-ended questions. Implications. The list of prioritized determinants can inform the design of interventions to implement recommendations for elderly patients with depression. The importance of the determinants that were identified may vary across communities, practices. and patients. Interventions that address important determinants are necessary to improve practice.
doi:10.3109/02813432.2014.984961
PMCID: PMC4278390  PMID: 25431340
Depression; determinants of practice; elderly patients; general practice; Norway; primary care; tailored implementation
2.  Feasibility of a rapid response mechanism to meet policymakers’ urgent needs for research evidence about health systems in a low income country: a case study 
Objectives
Despite the recognition of the importance of evidence-informed health policy and practice, there are still barriers to translating research findings into policy and practice. The present study aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid response mechanism, a knowledge translation strategy designed to meet policymakers’ urgent needs for evidence about health systems in a low income country, Uganda. Rapid response mechanisms aim to address the barriers of timeliness and relevance of evidence at the time it is needed.
Methods
A rapid response mechanism (service) designed a priori was offered to policymakers in the health sector in Uganda. In the form of a case study, data were collected about the profile of users of the service, the kinds of requests for evidence, changes in answers, and courses of action influenced by the mechanism and their satisfaction with responses and the mechanism in general.
Results
We found that in the first 28 months, the service received 65 requests for evidence from 30 policymakers and stakeholders, the majority of whom were from the Ministry of Health. The most common requests for evidence were about governance and organization of health systems. It was noted that regular contact between the policymakers and the researchers at the response service was an important factor in response to, and uptake of the service. The service seemed to increase confidence for policymakers involved in the policymaking process.
Conclusion
Rapid response mechanisms designed to meet policymakers’ urgent needs for research evidence about health systems are feasible and acceptable to policymakers in low income countries.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0114-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0114-z
PMCID: PMC4172950  PMID: 25208522
Knowledge translation; Evidence-informed policy; Health systems research; Health policy; Barriers for evidence-based policies; Rapid response mechanisms; Uganda; Low and middle income countries
3.  Tailored interventions to implement recommendations for elderly patients with depression in primary care: a study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial 
Trials  2014;15:16.
Background
The prevalence of depression is high and the elderly have an increased risk of developing chronic course. International data suggest that depression in the elderly is under-recognised, the latency before clinicians provide a treatment plan is longer and elderly patients with depression are not offered psychotherapy to the same degree as younger patients. Although recommendations for the treatment of elderly patients with depression exist, health-care professionals adhere to these recommendations to a limited degree only. We conducted a systematic review to identify recommendations for managing depression in the elderly and prioritised six recommendations. We identified and prioritised the determinants of practice related to the implementation of these recommendations in primary care, and subsequently discussed and prioritised interventions to address the identified determinants. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of these tailored interventions for the six recommendations for the management of elderly patients with depression in primary care.
Methods/design
We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomised trial comparing the implementation of the six recommendations using tailored interventions with usual care. We will randomise 80 municipalities into one of two groups: an intervention group, to which we will deliver tailored interventions to implement the six recommendations, and a control group, to which we will not deliver any intervention. We will randomise municipalities rather than patients, individual clinicians or practices, because we will deliver the intervention for the first three recommendations at the municipal level and we want to minimise the risk of contamination across GP practices for the other three recommendations. The primary outcome is the proportion of actions taken by GPs that are consistent with the recommendations.
Discussion
This trial will investigate whether a tailored implementation approach is an effective strategy for improving collaborative care in the municipalities and health-care professionals’ practice towards elderly patients with depression in primary care. The effectiveness evaluation described in this protocol will be accompanied with a process evaluation exploring why and how the interventions were effective or ineffective.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01913236
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-16
PMCID: PMC3899926  PMID: 24405891
Depression; Elderly; Primary care; Tailored interventions; Implementation science; Cluster randomised trial
4.  Helping people make well-informed decisions about health care: old and new challenges to achieving the aim of the Cochrane Collaboration 
Systematic Reviews  2013;2:77.
The aim of the Cochrane Collaboration is to help people make well-informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. This aim is as relevant now as it was 20 years ago, when the Cochrane Collaboration was established. Substantial progress has been made toward addressing challenges to achieving the Collaboration’s aim. At the same time, a huge amount of work remains to be done. Current challenges include improving the quality of reviews, methodological challenges, meeting the needs of contributors and users and taking on new challenges while staying focused on the Collaboration’s aim. Radical thinking and substantial change may be needed to identify and implement pragmatic strategies to ensure that reviews are up-to-date and informative. Methodological challenges include the development and application of better methods for addressing explanatory factors, incorporating non-randomized evidence and making comparisons across multiple interventions. Innovations in editorial processes and strategies to meet the needs of low- and middle-income countries and diverse users of Cochrane reviews are needed. Finally, although it is important to consider broadening the aims of the Collaboration to include types of questions other than the effects of interventions and types of products other than the Cochrane Library, we should not lose sight of the aim of the Cochrane Collaboration. Addressing that aim is still a major challenge that requires the collaboration of thousands of people around the world and continuing improvements in the methods used to achieve that aim.
doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-77
PMCID: PMC3848654  PMID: 24050439
5.  Policymakers’ and other stakeholders’ perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey 
Background
The DECIDE framework was developed to support evidence-informed health system decisions through evidence summaries tailored to health policymakers. The objective of this study was to determine policymakers’ perceptions regarding the criteria in the DECIDE framework and how best to summarise and present evidence to support health system decisions.
Methods
We conducted an online survey of a diverse group of stakeholders with health system decision experience from 15 countries and the World Health Organization. We asked about perceptions of criteria relevant to making health system decisions, use of evidence, grading systems, and evidence summaries.
Results
We received 112 responses (70% response rate). Most respondents had healthcare (85%) and research (79%) experience. They (99%) indicated that systematic consideration of the available evidence would help to improve health system decision-making processes and supported the use of evidence from other countries (94%) and grading systems (81%). All ten criteria in the DECIDE framework were rated as important in the decision-making process. Respondents had divergent views regarding whether the same (38%) or different (45%) grading systems should be used across different types of health decisions. All components of our evidence summary were rated as important by over 90% of respondents.
Conclusions
Survey respondents were supportive of the DECIDE framework for health system decisions and the use of succinct summaries of the estimated size of effects and the quality of evidence. It is uncertain whether the findings of this survey represent the views of policymakers with little or no healthcare and research experience.
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-11-19
PMCID: PMC3672010  PMID: 23705832
Decide; Evidence summaries; Health system decisions
6.  A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice 
Background
Determinants of practice are factors that might prevent or enable improvements. Several checklists, frameworks, taxonomies, and classifications of determinants of healthcare professional practice have been published. In this paper, we describe the development of a comprehensive, integrated checklist of determinants of practice (the TICD checklist).
Methods
We performed a systematic review of frameworks of determinants of practice followed by a consensus process. We searched electronic databases and screened the reference lists of key background documents. Two authors independently assessed titles and abstracts, and potentially relevant full text articles. We compiled a list of attributes that a checklist should have: comprehensiveness, relevance, applicability, simplicity, logic, clarity, usability, suitability, and usefulness. We assessed included articles using these criteria and collected information about the theory, model, or logic underlying how the factors (determinants) were selected, described, and grouped, the strengths and weaknesses of the checklist, and the determinants and the domains in each checklist. We drafted a preliminary checklist based on an aggregated list of determinants from the included checklists, and finalized the checklist by a consensus process among implementation researchers.
Results
We screened 5,778 titles and abstracts and retrieved 87 potentially relevant papers in full text. Several of these papers had references to papers that we also retrieved in full text. We also checked potentially relevant papers we had on file that were not retrieved by the searches. We included 12 checklists. None of these were completely comprehensive when compared to the aggregated list of determinants and domains. We developed a checklist with 57 potential determinants of practice grouped in seven domains: guideline factors, individual health professional factors, patient factors, professional interactions, incentives and resources, capacity for organisational change, and social, political, and legal factors. We also developed five worksheets to facilitate the use of the checklist.
Conclusions
Based on a systematic review and a consensus process we developed a checklist that aims to be comprehensive and to build on the strengths of each of the 12 included checklists. The checklist is accompanied with five worksheets to facilitate its use in implementation research and quality improvement projects.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-35
PMCID: PMC3617095  PMID: 23522377
7.  Developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results 
Background
Healthcare decision makers face challenges when using guidelines, including understanding the quality of the evidence or the values and preferences upon which recommendations are made, which are often not clear.
Methods
GRADE is a systematic approach towards assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in healthcare. GRADE also gives advice on how to go from evidence to decisions. It has been developed to address the weaknesses of other grading systems and is now widely used internationally. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) consortium (http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/), which includes members of the GRADE Working Group and other partners, will explore methods to ensure effective communication of evidence-based recommendations targeted at key stakeholders: healthcare professionals, policymakers, and managers, as well as patients and the general public. Surveys and interviews with guideline producers and other stakeholders will explore how presentation of the evidence could be improved to better meet their information needs. We will collect further stakeholder input from advisory groups, via consultations and user testing; this will be done across a wide range of healthcare systems in Europe, North America, and other countries. Targeted communication strategies will be developed, evaluated in randomized trials, refined, and assessed during the development of real guidelines.
Discussion
Results of the DECIDE project will improve the communication of evidence-based healthcare recommendations. Building on the work of the GRADE Working Group, DECIDE will develop and evaluate methods that address communication needs of guideline users. The project will produce strategies for communicating recommendations that have been rigorously evaluated in diverse settings, and it will support the transfer of research into practice in healthcare systems globally.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-6
PMCID: PMC3553065  PMID: 23302501
Guidelines; Recommendations; Communication; Presentation formats
8.  Authors' Response to Gowdy 
PLoS Medicine  2006;3(9):e414.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030414
PMCID: PMC1576338
9.  Grading evidence 
doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040014
PMCID: PMC359411
10.  Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations 
THE GRADE WORKING GROUP IS DEVELOPING and evaluating a common, sensible approach to grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in health care. In this article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using letters, numbers, symbols or words to represent grades of evidence and recommendations. Using multiple strategies, we searched for comparative studies of alternative ways of representing ordered categories in any context. In addition, we contacted experts and reviewed theoretical work and qualitative research on how best to communicate grades of any kind quickly and clearly. We were unable to identify health care research that addressed, either directly or indirectly, the best way to present grades of evidence and recommendations. We found examples of symbols used by government, commercial and consumer organizations to communicate quality of evidence or strength of recommendations, but no comparative studies. Although a number of grading systems are used in health care and other fields, there is little or no evidence of how well various presentations are understood. Before promoting the use of specific symbols, numbers, letters or words, the extent to which the intended message is comprehended should be evaluated.
PMCID: PMC202287  PMID: 14517128
13.  Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7654):1170-1173.
Guideline panellists have differing opinions on whether resource use should influence decisions on individual patients. As medical care costs rise, resource use considerations become more compelling, but panellists may find dealing with such considerations challenging
doi:10.1136/bmj.39504.506319.80
PMCID: PMC2394579  PMID: 18497416
14.  GRADE: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7653):1106-1110.
The GRADE system can be used to grade the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests or strategies. This article explains how patient-important outcomes are taken into account in this process
doi:10.1136/bmj.39500.677199.AE
PMCID: PMC2386626  PMID: 18483053
15.  Going from evidence to recommendations 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7652):1049-1051.
The GRADE system classifies recommendations made in guidelines as either strong or weak. This article explores the meaning of these descriptions and their implications for patients, clinicians, and policy makers
doi:10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.AE
PMCID: PMC2376019  PMID: 18467413
16.  What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7651):995-998.
Guideline developers use a bewildering variety of systems to rate the quality of the evidence underlying their recommendations. Some are facile, some confused, and others sophisticated but complex
doi:10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE
PMCID: PMC2364804  PMID: 18456631
17.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7650):924-926.
Guidelines are inconsistent in how they rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. This article explores the advantages of the GRADE system, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide
doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
PMCID: PMC2335261  PMID: 18436948
18.  The Effect of How Outcomes Are Framed on Decisions about Whether to Take Antihypertensive Medication: A Randomized Trial 
PLoS ONE  2010;5(3):e9469.
Background
We conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing three valence framing presentations of the benefits of antihypertensive medication in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) for people with newly diagnosed hypertension to determine which framing presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values.
Methods and Findings
In this second in a series of televised trials in cooperation with the Norwegian Broadcasting Company, adult volunteers rated the relative importance of the consequences of taking antihypertensive medication using visual analogue scales (VAS). Participants viewed information (or no information) to which they were randomized and decided whether or not to take medication. We compared positive framing over 10 years (the number escaping CVD per 1000); negative framing over 10 years (the number that will have CVD) and negative framing per year over 10 years of the effects of antihypertensive medication on the 10-year risk for CVD for a 40 year-old man with newly diagnosed hypertension without other risk factors. Finally, all participants were shown all presentations and detailed patient information about hypertension and were asked to decide again. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS-scores for the undesirable consequences of antihypertensive medication from the VAS-score for the benefit of CVD risk reduction. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 1,528 participants completed the study. The statistically significant differences between the groups in the likelihood of choosing to take antihypertensive medication in relation to different values (RIS) increased as the RIS increased. Positively framed information lead to decisions most consistent with those made by everyone for the second, more fully informed decision. There was a statistically significant decrease in deciding to take antihypertensives on the second decision, both within groups and overall.
Conclusions
For decisions about taking antihypertensive medication for people with a relatively low baseline risk of CVD (70 per 1000 over 10 years), both positive and negative framing resulted in significantly more people deciding to take medication compared to what participants decided after being shown all three of the presentations.
Trial Registration
International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN 33771631
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009469
PMCID: PMC2830888  PMID: 20209127
19.  Translating research into policy: lessons learned from eclampsia treatment and malaria control in three southern African countries 
Background
Little is known about the process of knowledge translation in low- and middle-income countries. We studied policymaking processes in Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe to understand the factors affecting the use of research evidence in national policy development, with a particular focus on the findings from randomized control trials (RCTs). We examined two cases: the use of magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) in the treatment of eclampsia in pregnancy (a clinical case); and the use of insecticide treated bed nets and indoor residual household spraying for malaria vector control (a public health case).
Methods
We used a qualitative case-study methodology to explore the policy making process. We carried out key informants interviews with a range of research and policy stakeholders in each country, reviewed documents and developed timelines of key events. Using an iterative approach, we undertook a thematic analysis of the data.
Findings
Prior experience of particular interventions, local champions, stakeholders and international networks, and the involvement of researchers in policy development were important in knowledge translation for both case studies. Key differences across the two case studies included the nature of the evidence, with clear evidence of efficacy for MgSO4 and ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of bed nets compared with spraying; local researcher involvement in international evidence production, which was stronger for MgSO4 than for malaria vector control; and a long-standing culture of evidence-based health care within obstetrics. Other differences were the importance of bureaucratic processes for clinical regulatory approval of MgSO4, and regional networks and political interests for malaria control. In contrast to treatment policies for eclampsia, a diverse group of stakeholders with varied interests, differing in their use and interpretation of evidence, was involved in malaria policy decisions in the three countries.
Conclusion
Translating research knowledge into policy is a complex and context sensitive process. Researchers aiming to enhance knowledge translation need to be aware of factors influencing the demand for different types of research; interact and work closely with key policy stakeholders, networks and local champions; and acknowledge the roles of important interest groups.
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-31
PMCID: PMC2809043  PMID: 20042117
20.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 16: Using research evidence in balancing the pros and cons of policies 
Health Research Policy and Systems  2009;7(Suppl 1):S16.
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.
In this article, we address the use of evidence to inform judgements about the balance between the pros and cons of policy and programme options. We suggest five questions that can be considered when making these judgements. These are: 1. What are the options that are being compared? 2. What are the most important potential outcomes of the options being compared? 3. What is the best estimate of the impact of the options being compared for each important outcome? 4. How confident can policymakers and others be in the estimated impacts? 5. Is a formal economic model likely to facilitate decision making?
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S16
PMCID: PMC2809501  PMID: 20018106
21.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 
This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.
Knowing how to find and use research evidence can help policymakers and those who support them to do their jobs better and more efficiently. Each article in this series presents a proposed tool that can be used by those involved in finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed health policymaking. The series addresses four broad areas: 1. Supporting evidence-informed policymaking 2. Identifying needs for research evidence in relation to three steps in policymaking processes, namely problem clarification, options framing, and implementation planning 3. Finding and assessing both systematic reviews and other types of evidence to inform these steps, and 4. Going from research evidence to decisions. Each article begins with between one and three typical scenarios relating to the topic. These scenarios are designed to help readers decide on the level of detail relevant to them when applying the tools described. Most articles in this series are structured using a set of questions that guide readers through the proposed tools and show how to undertake activities to support evidence-informed policymaking efficiently and effectively. These activities include, for example, using research evidence to clarify problems, assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review about the effects of options selected to address problems, organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking, and planning policy monitoring and evaluation. In several articles, the set of questions presented offers more general guidance on how to support evidence-informed policymaking. Additional information resources are listed and described in every article. The evaluation of ways to support evidence-informed health policymaking is a developing field and feedback about how to improve the series is welcome.
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-I1
PMCID: PMC3271819  PMID: 20018098
22.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? 
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.
In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking?
Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes.
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S1
PMCID: PMC3271820  PMID: 20018099
23.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review 
Health Research Policy and Systems  2009;7(Suppl 1):S10.
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.
In this article we address considerations of equity. Inequities can be defined as "differences in health which are not only unnecessary and avoidable but, in addition, are considered unfair and unjust". These have been well documented in relation to social and economic factors. Policies or programmes that are effective can improve the overall health of a population. However, the impact of such policies and programmes on inequities may vary: they may have no impact on inequities, they may reduce inequities, or they may exacerbate them, regardless of their overall effects on population health.
We suggest four questions that can be considered when using research evidence to inform considerations of the potential impact a policy or programme option is likely to have on disadvantaged groups, and on equity in a specific setting. These are: 1. Which groups or settings are likely to be disadvantaged in relation to the option being considered? 2. Are there plausible reasons for anticipating differences in the relative effectiveness of the option for disadvantaged groups or settings? 3. Are there likely to be different baseline conditions across groups or settings such that that the absolute effectiveness of the option would be different, and the problem more or less important, for disadvantaged groups or settings? 4. Are there important considerations that should be made when implementing the option in order to ensure that inequities are reduced, if possible, and that they are not increased?
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S10
PMCID: PMC3271821  PMID: 20018100
24.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed Policymaking in health 11: Finding and using evidence about local conditions 
Health Research Policy and Systems  2009;7(Suppl 1):S11.
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.
Evidence about local conditions is evidence that is available from the specific setting(s) in which a decision or action on a policy or programme option will be taken. Such evidence is always needed, together with other forms of evidence, in order to inform decisions about options. Global evidence is the best starting point for judgements about effects, factors that modify those effects, and insights into ways to approach and address problems. But local evidence is needed for most other judgements about what decisions and actions should be taken. In this article, we suggest five questions that can help to identify and appraise the local evidence that is needed to inform a decision about policy or programme options. These are: 1. What local evidence is needed to inform a decision about options? 2. How can the necessary local evidence be found? 3. How should the quality of the available local evidence be assessed? 4. Are there important variations in the availability, quality or results of local evidence? 5. How should local evidence be incorporated with other information?
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S11
PMCID: PMC3271822  PMID: 20018101
25.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 12: Finding and using research evidence about resource use and costs 
Health Research Policy and Systems  2009;7(Suppl 1):S12.
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.
In this article, we address considerations about resource use and costs. The consequences of a policy or programme option for resource use differ from other impacts (both in terms of benefits and harms) in several ways. However, considerations of the consequences of options for resource use are similar to considerations related to other impacts in that policymakers and their staff need to identify important impacts on resource use, acquire and appraise the best available evidence regarding those impacts, and ensure that appropriate monetary values have been applied. We suggest four questions that can be considered when assessing resource use and the cost consequences of an option. These are: 1. What are the most important impacts on resource use? 2. What evidence is there for important impacts on resource use? 3. How confident is it possible to be in the evidence for impacts on resource use? 4. Have the impacts on resource use been valued appropriately in terms of their true costs?
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S12
PMCID: PMC3271823  PMID: 20018102

Results 1-25 (90)