Author:
Smith Neale,Mitton Craig,Cornelissen Evelyn,Gibson Jennifer,Peacock Stuart
Abstract
PurposePublic sector interest in methods for priority setting and program or policy evaluation has grown considerably over the last several decades, given increased expectations for accountable and efficient use of resources and emphasis on evidence‐based decision making as a component of good management practice. While there has been some occasional effort to conduct evaluation of priority setting projects, the literatures around priority setting and evaluation have largely evolved separately. In this paper, the aim is to bring them together.Design/methodology/approachThe contention is that evaluation theory is a means by which evaluators reflect upon what it is they are doing when they do evaluation work. Theories help to organize thinking, sort out relevant from irrelevant information, provide transparent grounds for particular implementation choices, and can help resolve problematic issues which may arise in the conduct of an evaluation project.FindingsA detailed review of three major branches of evaluation theory – methods, utilization, and valuing – identifies how such theories can guide the development of efforts to evaluate priority setting and resource allocation initiatives. Evaluation theories differ in terms of their guiding question, anticipated setting or context, evaluation foci, perspective from which benefits are calculated, and typical methods endorsed.Originality/valueChoosing a particular theoretical approach will structure the way in which any priority setting process is evaluated. The paper suggests that explicitly considering evaluation theory makes key aspects of the evaluation process more visible to all stakeholders, and can assist in the design of effective evaluation of priority setting processes; this should iteratively serve to improve the understanding of priority setting practices themselves.
Subject
Health Policy,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
Reference86 articles.
1. Alkin, M.C. and Christie, C.A. (2004), “An evaluation theory tree”, in Alkin, M.C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists' Views and Influences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 12‐65.
2. Anell, A. (2004), “Priority setting for pharmaceuticals”, European Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 28‐35.
3. Armstrong, K., Mitton, C., Carleton, B. and Shoveller, J. (2008), “Drug formulary decision‐making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada”, Health Policy, Vol. 88, pp. 308‐16.
4. Baltussen, R. and Niessen, L. (2006), “Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi‐criteria decision analysis”, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, Vol. 4, p. 14.
5. Bate, A., Donaldson, C. and Murtagh, M.J. (2007), “Managing to manage healthcare resources in the English NHS? What can health economics teach? What can health economics learn?”, Health Policy, Vol. 84, pp. 249‐61.
Cited by
7 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