test Browse by Author Names Browse by Titles of Works Browse by Subjects of Works Browse by Issue Dates of Works
       

Advanced Search
Home   
 
Browse   
Communities
& Collections
  
Issue Date   
Author   
Title   
Subject   
 
Sign on to:   
Receive email
updates
  
My Account
authorized users
  
Edit Profile   
 
Help   
About T-Space   

T-Space at The University of Toronto Libraries >
School of Graduate Studies - Theses >
Doctoral >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/17272

Title: Successful Priority Setting: A Conceptual Framework and an Evaluation Tool
Authors: Sibbald, Shannon L.
Advisor: Martin, Douglas K.
Department: Health Policy, Management and Evaluation
Keywords: priority setting
evaluation
health services reserach
conceptual framework
Issue Date: 26-Feb-2009
Abstract: A growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies is threatening the sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide. Decision makers in this environment struggle to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions; this is because there is no agreement on best practices in priority setting. Decision makers (or ‘leaders’) who want to evaluate priority setting have little guidance to let them know if their efforts were successful t. While approaches exist that are grounded in different disciplines, there is no way to know whether these approaches lead to successful priority setting. The purpose of this thesis is to present a conceptual framework and an evaluation tool for successful priority setting. The conceptual framework is the result of the synthesis of three empirical 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. The elements specify both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of priority setting and relate to both process and outcome aspects. The evaluation tool is made up of three parts: a survey, interviews, and document analysis, and specifies both quantitative and qualitative dimensions and relates to both procedural and substantive dimensions of priority setting. The framework and the tool were piloted in a meso-level urban hospital. The pilot test confirmed the usability of the tool as well as face and content validity (i.e., the tool measured relevant features of success identified in the conceptual framework). The tool can be used by leaders to evaluate and improve priority setting.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/17272
Appears in Collections:Doctoral
The Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation - Doctoral theses

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Sibbald_Shannon_L_200811_PhD_thesis.pdf1.45 MBAdobe PDF
View/Open

Items in T-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

uoft