Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting

BACKGROUND: The sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide is threatened by a growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies. Decision makers struggle in this environment to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions. One way to approach this problem is to determine what all relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean. The goal of this research was to develop a conceptual framework for successful priority setting. METHODS: Three separate empirical studies were completed using qualitative data collection methods (one-on-one interviews with healthcare decision makers from across Canada; focus groups with representation of patients, caregivers and policy makers; and Delphi study including scholars and decision makers from five countries). RESULTS: This paper synthesizes the findings from three studies into a framework of ten separate but interconnected elements germane to successful priority setting: stakeholder understanding, shifted priorities/reallocation of resources, decision making quality, stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction, positive externalities, stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process, information management, consideration of values and context, and revision or appeals mechanism. CONCLUSION: The ten elements specify both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of priority setting and relate to both process and outcome components. To our knowledge, this is the first framework that describes successful priority setting. The ten elements identified in this research provide guidance for decision makers and a common language to discuss priority setting success and work toward improving priority setting efforts

Evaluating priority setting success in healthcare: a pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In healthcare today, decisions are made in the face of serious resource constraints. Healthcare managers are struggling to provide high quality care, manage resources effectively, and meet changing patient needs. Healthcare managers who are constantly making difficult resource decisions desire a way to improve their priority setting processes. Despite the wealth of existing priority setting literature (for example, program budgeting and marginal analysis, accountability for reasonableness, the 'describe-evaluate-improve' strategy) there are still no tools to evaluate how healthcare resources are prioritised. This paper describes the development and piloting of a process to evaluate priority setting in health institutions. The evaluation process was designed to examine the procedural and substantive dimensions of priority setting using a multi-methods approach, including a staff survey, decision-maker interviews, and document analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The evaluation process was piloted in a mid-size community hospital in Ontario, Canada while its leaders worked through their annual budgeting process. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The evaluation process was both applicable to the context and it captured the budgeting process. In general, the pilot test provided support for our evaluation process and our definition of success, (i.e., our conceptual framework).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide a simple, practical way for an organization to better understand what it means to achieve success in its priority setting activities and identify areas for improvement. In order for the process to be used by healthcare managers today, modification and contextualization of the process are anticipated. As the evaluation process is applied in more health care organizations or applied repeatedly in an organization, it may become more streamlined.</p

Chromosomal radiosensitivity in head and neck cancer patients: evidence for genetic predisposition?

The association between chromosomal radiosensitivity and genetic predisposition to head and neck cancer was investigated in this study. In all, 101 head and neck cancer patients and 75 healthy control individuals were included in the study. The G2 assay was used to measure chromosomal radiosensitivity. The results demonstrated that head and neck cancer patients had a statistically higher number of radiation-induced chromatid breaks than controls, with mean values of 1.23 and 1.10 breaks per cell, respectively (P<0.001). Using the 90th percentile of the G2 scores of the healthy individuals as a cutoff value for chromosomal radiosensitivity, 26% of the cancer patients were radiosensitive compared with 9% of the healthy controls (P=0.008). The mean number of radiation-induced chromatid breaks and the proportion of radiosensitive individuals were highest for oral cavity cancer patients (1.26 breaks per cell, 38%) and pharynx cancer patients (1.27 breaks per cell, 35%). The difference between patients and controls was most pronounced in the lower age group (⩽50 years, 1.32 breaks per cell, 38%) and in the non- and light smoking patient group (⩽10 pack-years, 1.28 breaks per cell, 46%). In conclusion, enhanced chromosomal radiosensitivity is a marker of genetic predisposition to head and neck cancer, and the genetic contribution is highest for oral cavity and pharynx cancer patients and for early onset and non- and light smoking patients

Spontaneous and radiation-induced chromosomal instability and persistence of chromosome aberrations after radiotherapy in lymphocytes from prostate cancer patients

The aim of the study was to compare the spontaneous and ex vivo radiation-induced chromosomal damage in lymphocytes of untreated prostate cancer patients and age-matched healthy donors, and to evaluate the chromosomal damage, induced by radiotherapy, and its persistence. Blood samples from 102 prostate cancer patients were obtained before radiotherapy to investigate the excess acentric fragments and dicentric chromosomes. In addition, in a subgroup of ten patients, simple exchanges in chromosomes 2 and 4 were evaluated by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), before the onset of therapy, in the middle and at the end of therapy, and 1 year later. Data were compared to blood samples from ten age-matched healthy donors. We found that spontaneous yields of acentric chromosome fragments and simple exchanges were significantly increased in lymphocytes of patients before onset of therapy, indicating chromosomal instability in these patients. Ex vivo radiation-induced aberrations were not significantly increased, indicating proficient repair of radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks in lymphocytes of these patients. As expected, the yields of dicentric and acentric chromosomes, and the partial yields of simple exchanges, were increased after the onset of therapy. Surprisingly, yields after 1 year were comparable to those directly after radiotherapy, indicating persistence of chromosomal instability over this time. Our results indicate that prostate cancer patients are characterized by increased spontaneous chromosomal instability. This instability seems to result from defects other than a deficient repair of radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks. Radiotherapy-induced chromosomal damage persists 1 year after treatment