Priority setting in primary health care - dilemmas and opportunities: a focus group study

BMC Family Practice

Research Article

Malin André¹  Eva Arvidsson²  Per Carlsson³  Lars Borgquist⁴ 

[1] Centre for Clinical Research, Falun, Sweden;Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Division of General Practice, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for Medical Technology Assessment, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;Department of Primary Health Care, Kalmar, Sweden;Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for Priority Setting in Health Care, Sweden;Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Division of General Practice, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;

关键词: Focus Group;    Primary Health Care;    Priority Setting;    Evidence Level;    Patient Benefit;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2296-11-71

 received in 2010-04-05, accepted in 2010-09-23,  发布年份 2010

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundSwedish health care authorities use three key criteria to produce national guidelines for local priority setting: severity of the health condition, expected patient benefit, and cost-effectiveness of medical intervention. Priority setting in primary health care (PHC) has significant implications for health costs and outcomes in the health care system. Nevertheless, these guidelines have been implemented to a very limited degree in PHC. The objective of the study was to qualitatively assess how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses perceive the application of the three key priority-setting criteria.MethodsFocus groups were held with GPs and nurses at primary health care centres, where the staff had a short period of experience in using the criteria for prioritising in their daily work.ResultsThe staff found the three key priority-setting criteria (severity, patient benefit, and cost-effectiveness) to be valuable for priority setting in PHC. However, when the criteria were applied in PHC, three additional dimensions were identified: 1) viewpoint (medical or patient's), 2) timeframe (now or later), and 3) evidence level (group or individual).ConclusionsThe three key priority-setting criteria were useful. Considering the three additional dimensions might enhance implementation of national guidelines in PHC and is probably a prerequisite for the criteria to be useful in priority setting for individual patients.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Arvidsson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010