Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control

Dean A. Regier, Colene Bentley, Craig Mitton, Stirling Bryan, Michael M. Burgess, Ellen Chesney, Andy Coldman, Jennifer Gibson, Jeffrey S Hoch, Syed Rahman, Mona Sabharwal, Carol Sawka, Victoria Schuckel, Stuart J. Peacock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Decision-makers are challenged to incorporate public input into priority-setting decisions. We conducted a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control to investigate the types of evidence, especially evidence supplied by the public, that are utilized in health care priority-setting. We further examined how normative attitudes and contextual factors influence the use of public engagement as evidence at the committee level. Administered between November and December 2012, 67 respondents from 117 invited individuals participated in the survey. The results indicated that public engagement was infrequently utilized compared to clinical effectiveness evidence or cost evidence. General positive agreement between normative attitudes towards the use of evidence and the frequency of evidence utilization was observed, but absence of correlative agreement was found for the types of evidence that are supplied by the general public and for cost-effectiveness inputs. Regression analyses suggested that public engagement was unevenly utilized between jurisdictions and that educational background and barriers to implementing public input may decrease the odds of using public engagement as evidence. We recommend that institutions establish a link between committee members' normative attitudes for using public engagement and its real-world utilization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)130-139
Number of pages10
JournalSocial Science and Medicine
Volume122
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

decision maker
cancer
Committee Membership
evidence
Health Priorities
Neoplasms
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Regression Analysis
Delivery of Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis
utilization
Surveys and Questionnaires
Cancer Control
Public Engagement
costs
jurisdiction
health care
regression

Keywords

  • Canada
  • Health care decision-making
  • Health policy
  • Priority setting
  • Public engagement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • History and Philosophy of Science
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Regier, D. A., Bentley, C., Mitton, C., Bryan, S., Burgess, M. M., Chesney, E., ... Peacock, S. J. (2014). Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control. Social Science and Medicine, 122, 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.038

Public engagement in priority-setting : Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control. / Regier, Dean A.; Bentley, Colene; Mitton, Craig; Bryan, Stirling; Burgess, Michael M.; Chesney, Ellen; Coldman, Andy; Gibson, Jennifer; Hoch, Jeffrey S; Rahman, Syed; Sabharwal, Mona; Sawka, Carol; Schuckel, Victoria; Peacock, Stuart J.

In: Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 122, 01.12.2014, p. 130-139.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Regier, DA, Bentley, C, Mitton, C, Bryan, S, Burgess, MM, Chesney, E, Coldman, A, Gibson, J, Hoch, JS, Rahman, S, Sabharwal, M, Sawka, C, Schuckel, V & Peacock, SJ 2014, 'Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control', Social Science and Medicine, vol. 122, pp. 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.038
Regier, Dean A. ; Bentley, Colene ; Mitton, Craig ; Bryan, Stirling ; Burgess, Michael M. ; Chesney, Ellen ; Coldman, Andy ; Gibson, Jennifer ; Hoch, Jeffrey S ; Rahman, Syed ; Sabharwal, Mona ; Sawka, Carol ; Schuckel, Victoria ; Peacock, Stuart J. / Public engagement in priority-setting : Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control. In: Social Science and Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 122. pp. 130-139.
@article{bcd7b5c2a06c4529bc388b7a41924bba,
title = "Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control",
abstract = "Decision-makers are challenged to incorporate public input into priority-setting decisions. We conducted a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control to investigate the types of evidence, especially evidence supplied by the public, that are utilized in health care priority-setting. We further examined how normative attitudes and contextual factors influence the use of public engagement as evidence at the committee level. Administered between November and December 2012, 67 respondents from 117 invited individuals participated in the survey. The results indicated that public engagement was infrequently utilized compared to clinical effectiveness evidence or cost evidence. General positive agreement between normative attitudes towards the use of evidence and the frequency of evidence utilization was observed, but absence of correlative agreement was found for the types of evidence that are supplied by the general public and for cost-effectiveness inputs. Regression analyses suggested that public engagement was unevenly utilized between jurisdictions and that educational background and barriers to implementing public input may decrease the odds of using public engagement as evidence. We recommend that institutions establish a link between committee members' normative attitudes for using public engagement and its real-world utilization.",
keywords = "Canada, Health care decision-making, Health policy, Priority setting, Public engagement",
author = "Regier, {Dean A.} and Colene Bentley and Craig Mitton and Stirling Bryan and Burgess, {Michael M.} and Ellen Chesney and Andy Coldman and Jennifer Gibson and Hoch, {Jeffrey S} and Syed Rahman and Mona Sabharwal and Carol Sawka and Victoria Schuckel and Peacock, {Stuart J.}",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.038",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "122",
pages = "130--139",
journal = "Social Science and Medicine",
issn = "0277-9536",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public engagement in priority-setting

T2 - Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control

AU - Regier, Dean A.

AU - Bentley, Colene

AU - Mitton, Craig

AU - Bryan, Stirling

AU - Burgess, Michael M.

AU - Chesney, Ellen

AU - Coldman, Andy

AU - Gibson, Jennifer

AU - Hoch, Jeffrey S

AU - Rahman, Syed

AU - Sabharwal, Mona

AU - Sawka, Carol

AU - Schuckel, Victoria

AU - Peacock, Stuart J.

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - Decision-makers are challenged to incorporate public input into priority-setting decisions. We conducted a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control to investigate the types of evidence, especially evidence supplied by the public, that are utilized in health care priority-setting. We further examined how normative attitudes and contextual factors influence the use of public engagement as evidence at the committee level. Administered between November and December 2012, 67 respondents from 117 invited individuals participated in the survey. The results indicated that public engagement was infrequently utilized compared to clinical effectiveness evidence or cost evidence. General positive agreement between normative attitudes towards the use of evidence and the frequency of evidence utilization was observed, but absence of correlative agreement was found for the types of evidence that are supplied by the general public and for cost-effectiveness inputs. Regression analyses suggested that public engagement was unevenly utilized between jurisdictions and that educational background and barriers to implementing public input may decrease the odds of using public engagement as evidence. We recommend that institutions establish a link between committee members' normative attitudes for using public engagement and its real-world utilization.

AB - Decision-makers are challenged to incorporate public input into priority-setting decisions. We conducted a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control to investigate the types of evidence, especially evidence supplied by the public, that are utilized in health care priority-setting. We further examined how normative attitudes and contextual factors influence the use of public engagement as evidence at the committee level. Administered between November and December 2012, 67 respondents from 117 invited individuals participated in the survey. The results indicated that public engagement was infrequently utilized compared to clinical effectiveness evidence or cost evidence. General positive agreement between normative attitudes towards the use of evidence and the frequency of evidence utilization was observed, but absence of correlative agreement was found for the types of evidence that are supplied by the general public and for cost-effectiveness inputs. Regression analyses suggested that public engagement was unevenly utilized between jurisdictions and that educational background and barriers to implementing public input may decrease the odds of using public engagement as evidence. We recommend that institutions establish a link between committee members' normative attitudes for using public engagement and its real-world utilization.

KW - Canada

KW - Health care decision-making

KW - Health policy

KW - Priority setting

KW - Public engagement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908454437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908454437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.038

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.038

M3 - Article

C2 - 25441325

AN - SCOPUS:84908454437

VL - 122

SP - 130

EP - 139

JO - Social Science and Medicine

JF - Social Science and Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

ER -