PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München

A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: Development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention.

Health Policy 101, 290-299 (2011)
DOI
Open Access Green as soon as Postprint is submitted to ZB.
OBJECTIVES: The comparison of fourth hurdle processes is challenging because they are heterogeneous and decision practice may deviate from formal process rules. This study applies a published framework consisting of key steps of coverage decision processes to the area of cancer prevention. METHODS: A research design was developed for analysis of case studies on past decision processes. Decisions were identified and information on the process steps was elicited by semi-structured telephone interviews with decision-makers and experts. The scheme was validated with experts from the areas of screening and prevention and fourth hurdle decision making. RESULTS: Indicators for a structured empirical comparison of coverage decisions were derived. Corresponding ordinal rankings were proposed. Details on six decisions about cancer screening (colorectal and prostate cancer) and vaccination against human papillomavirus in Sweden, Austria and Lithuania are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the structured scheme for analysis of coverage decisions allows validation of official statements on decision processes and collection of larger data sets for empirical analysis. However, the semi-structured phone interviews were time-consuming for collecting information on a larger number of decisions. Further validation of the structured scheme and development of a research tool for large-scale empirical studies is still needed.
Altmetric
Additional Metrics?
Edit extra informations Login
Publication type Article: Journal article
Document type Scientific Article
Keywords Cancer; Insurance coverage; Decision-making; Reimbursement; Prevention
ISSN (print) / ISBN 0168-8510
e-ISSN 1872-6054
Journal Health Policy
Quellenangaben Volume: 101, Issue: 3, Pages: 290-299 Article Number: , Supplement: ,
Publisher Elsevier
Reviewing status Peer reviewed