Priorities Among Effective Clinical Preventive Services. Methods

HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.53). 08/2006; 31(1):90-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.011
Source: PubMed


Decision makers want to know which healthcare services matter the most, but there are no well-established, practical methods for providing evidence-based answers to such questions. Led by the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, the authors update the methods for determining the relative health impact and economic value of clinical preventive services. Using new studies, new preventive service recommendations, and improved methods, the authors present a new ranking of clinical preventive services in the companion article. The original ranking and methods were published in this journal in 2001. The current methods report focuses on evidence collection for a priority setting exercise, guidance for which is effectively lacking in the literature. The authors describe their own standards for searching, tracking, and abstracting literature for priority setting. The authors also summarize their methods for making valid comparisons across different services. This report should be useful to those who want to understand additional detail about how the ranking was developed or who want to adapt the methods for their own purposes.

Download full-text


Available from: Thomas J Flottemesch, May 20, 2015
  • Source
    • "As such, this scenario calls for relative assessments to identify the services, solutions and treatments that matter the most (e.g. Mitton and Donaldson 2003, Maciosek et al. 2006). Second, providing increasing amounts of information may be a result of regulatory overproduction (Gross and Königsgruber 2012) and could lead to information overload (see also Walker 1988, p. 171), which suggests that disclosure should not always be required each time the benefits of single-disclosure items appear to outweigh the costs. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drawing upon information economics, this paper presents a relative assessment of 24 of the most common disclosure items in the management commentary and notes sections of the annual report. We design and conduct an Internet survey using a large representative sample of users with an investment focus (n = 288) and preparers of annual reports (n = 89). Using cost-effectiveness analysis, an evaluation method widely used in healthcare economics, the balance between preparation costs and user satisfaction, relative to user demand is assessed. Our main findings show that corporate social responsibility and corporate governance, the least demanded disclosure items in the management commentary, are also costly items to prepare. Further, preparers do not consider indirect costs (i.e. competitive position costs and potential litigation costs) of information provided in the management commentary to be a major concern. With regard to the notes, we find that business combinations (IFRS 3), financial instruments (IFRS 7) and impairment tests (IAS 36) are highly demanded but are also among the items most costly to prepare, and users are less satisfied with these notes. The findings have important implications for practitioners and policy-makers and can be used for setting priorities.
    Accounting and Business Research 10/2013; 43(6). DOI:10.1080/00014788.2013.827105 · 0.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "There are already a number of examples of MCDA having been successfully applied to the prioritisation of public health interventions. For instance, the US by the Preventive Services Task Force ranked a list of clinical preventative interventions based on their cost-effectiveness and clinical preventable burden [35,36]. More recently a MCDA approach has been used to prioritise preventative health interventions in England [25,37,38]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is acknowledged that economic evaluation methods as they have been developed for Health Technology Assessment do not capture all the costs and benefits relevant to the assessment of public health interventions. This paper reviews methods that could be employed to measure and value the broader set of benefits generated by public health interventions. It is proposed that two key developments are required if this vision is to be achieved. First, there is a trend to modelling approaches that better capture the effects of public health interventions. This trend needs to continue, and economists need to consider a broader range of modelling techniques than are currently employed to assess public health interventions. The selection and implementation of alternative modelling techniques should be facilitated by the production of better data on the behavioural outcomes generated by public health interventions. Second, economists are currently exploring a number of valuation paradigms that hold the promise of more appropriate valuation of public health interventions outcomes. These include the capabilities approach and the subjective well-being approach, both of which offer the possibility of broader measures of value than the approaches currently employed by health economists. These developments should not, however, be made by economists alone. These questions, in particular what method should be used to value public health outcomes, require social value judgements that beyond the capacity of economists. This choice will require consultation with policy makers, and perhaps even the general public. Such collaboration would have the benefit of ensuring that the methods developed are useful for decision makers.
    09/2012; 2(1):17. DOI:10.1186/2191-1991-2-17
  • Source
    • "An important goal for public health and behavioral medicine researchers and practitioners is to develop effective behavior change interventions [4]. A key component of inducing long term behavior change is building sustained motivation, such that people not only engage in the health behaviors during the initial intervention period but afterwards as well. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical interventions can be developed through two distinct pathways. In the first, which we call top-down, a well-articulated theory drives the development of the intervention, whereas in the case of a bottom-up approach, clinical experience, more so than a dedicated theoretical perspective, drives the intervention. Using this dialectic, this paper discusses Self-Determination Theory (SDT) 12 and Motivational Interviewing (MI) 3 as prototypical examples of a top-down and bottom-up approaches, respectively. We sketch the different starting points, foci and developmental processes of SDT and MI, but equally note the complementary character and the potential for systematic integration between both approaches. Nevertheless, for a deeper integration to take place, we contend that MI researchers might want to embrace autonomy as a fundamental basic process underlying therapeutic change and we discuss the advantages of doing so.
    International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 03/2012; 9(1):23. DOI:10.1186/1479-5868-9-23 · 4.11 Impact Factor
Show more