Abstract
Context
Recommended best practice for resource allocation decisions by governments include a stepwise process guided by economic evidence. However, the use of economic evidence in preventive health decision-making, which often impacts on multiple sectors of government, is under-researched. This study aimed to explore the resource allocation decision-making processes for preventive health interventions in the New South Wales (NSW) Government in Australia, and specifically examined the barriers and facilitators to the use of economic evidence from the perspective of multiple government departments.
Methods
This mixed methods study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with NSW Treasury representatives (n = 4), a focus group of NSW Ministry of Health representatives (n = 9), and a quantitative questionnaire of all participants. The schedule for the interviews and focus group was based on resource allocation guidance documents from Australian government agencies. Deductive content analysis was undertaken, guided by the Multiple Streams Framework.
Findings
NSW Treasury participants believed that decision-making processes where economic efficiency was the key guiding principle was the ideal approach. However, the NSW Ministry of Health participants identified that for preventive health decision-making, economic evidence was not used to inform their own choices but was typically only used to convince other agencies of the merits of proposed initiatives when seeking approval. The key barriers to the use of economic evidence were the lack of capacity within the NSW Ministry of Health to understand and undertake economic evaluations; a lack of collaboration between NSW Treasury and preventive health decision-makers within the NSW Ministry of Health; and deficient processes and governance mechanisms that do not facilitate or incentivise effective inter-sectoral decision-making.
Conclusions
Institutional structures for resource allocation decision-making regarding preventive health result in processes that contrast with best practice recommendations. The multiple challenges to collaborative decision-making across agencies require organisational change to promote a whole-of-government approach.
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
National Heart Foundation of Australia
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference82 articles.
1. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016;E Gakidou;Lancet,2017
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Burden of Disease Study: impact and causes of illness and death in Australia 2015. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2019 Contract No.: no. 19. Cat. no. BOD 22.
3. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017;HH Kyu;The Lancet,2018
4. Changing the future of obesity: science, policy, and action;SL Gortmaker;The Lancet,2011
5. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments;BA Swinburn;The Lancet,2011
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献