A Roadmap For Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Adolescent Health: Defining Priority Health Needs And Actions Through The Empowerment & Capacity Development Of Young People.
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$2,002,448.00
Summary
A third of the Indigenous population are adolescents, their health central to cultural continuity and health equity. Yet priority health needs and evidence-based responses for Indigenous adolescents remain poorly defined, a barrier to effective policy. The project is significant because it will establish a roadmap to guide actions around Indigenous adolescent health. It will also result in a network of engaged and up-skilled Indigenous young people who can drive implementation.
Health Care Priorities: The Community's Preferences For Using Community Preferences
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$52,355.00
Summary
Determining how health care resources should be allocated - often termed rationing or priority setting - has traditionally been carried out by health care personnel, usually doctors but increasingly managers. More recently there has been a move to involve the general public in this process. Much of the research in this area has focussed on the methods used to elicit community preferences. While this is an important area of investigation, a prior issue of how community members feel about the use ....Determining how health care resources should be allocated - often termed rationing or priority setting - has traditionally been carried out by health care personnel, usually doctors but increasingly managers. More recently there has been a move to involve the general public in this process. Much of the research in this area has focussed on the methods used to elicit community preferences. While this is an important area of investigation, a prior issue of how community members feel about the use of their preferences in informing health care priorities needs to be investigated. Four specific questions will be addressed in this study: (i) do members of the general public feel that, as individuals, they have a legitimate role to play in informing priority decisions in health care? if so why? if not, why not? (ii) does the nature-level-setting of the decisions for which priorities are to be set affect whether individual members of the public would wish to participate in the priority setting process? (e.g. different health services, medical procedures-treatments, diseases) (iii) whose preferences should be used if not the community's? (iv) faced ex post with the preferences of the community and the preferences (possibly different) of health service decision makers (i.e. Oexperts'), does this knowledge affect preferences for having community preferences count? A number of health authorities are currently looking for ways of engaging local communities in health care decision making. This study will indicate the appropriate levels at which community preferences are to be elicited and the type of decisions and settings in which they are most relevant.Read moreRead less
Guiding Intervention Choices To Reduce Health Costs, Health Inequalities, And Improve The Health Of Australians
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$3,200,000.00
Summary
As health care costs rise, governments increasingly will need objective evidence on the benefits and costs of health intervention options, whilst taking into account the need for greater health equity, transparency of decision making and stakeholder acceptability. This project will provide the health intelligence to guide such health priority setting in Australia, with a focus on prevention of non-communicable diseases, the implications for Indigenous Australians and the most efficient ways of i ....As health care costs rise, governments increasingly will need objective evidence on the benefits and costs of health intervention options, whilst taking into account the need for greater health equity, transparency of decision making and stakeholder acceptability. This project will provide the health intelligence to guide such health priority setting in Australia, with a focus on prevention of non-communicable diseases, the implications for Indigenous Australians and the most efficient ways of implementing priority interventions in primary care.Read moreRead less
Priority-setting In Child Population Health: Increasing The Effectiveness Of Population Health Resources To Improve Health And Quality Of Life Of Australia's Children
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$153,975.00
Summary
There are many interventions competing for limited funds in Australian child population health. One problem is that evidence is limited to short-term and disease-based measures, making it hard to choose between options. In this Fellowship I will use a proven economic priority-setting approach to prioritise options for investment. This research will build my skills in policy-level decision-making; this and the study results will make me an independent research leader in child health economics.
Empirical Ethics: Quantification Of Social Preferences For Economic Evaluation In The Health Sector
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$329,450.00
Summary
Recent studies indicate that there are significant differences between the social 'preferences'-priorities of the population and the priorities implied by health policy and embodied in health economic evaluations of the health sector. For example, members of the public give higher priority to the severely ill even when little can be done for them. The studies suggest that the public would also take into account, inter alia, a number of other factors, including prognosis, health potential and the ....Recent studies indicate that there are significant differences between the social 'preferences'-priorities of the population and the priorities implied by health policy and embodied in health economic evaluations of the health sector. For example, members of the public give higher priority to the severely ill even when little can be done for them. The studies suggest that the public would also take into account, inter alia, a number of other factors, including prognosis, health potential and the social context of the problem. They would not treat program costs in the way economic theory and practice recommends. These issues have been dramatised in the WHO's Evaluation of Health Systems (World Health Report 2000). This assigns a weight of only 0.25 to health improvement and 0.75 to issues of fairness. The proposed study will carry out three tasks. The first is to measure the importance of Australian health-related social preferences which should, potentially, be included in economic evaluation studies. Key values - parameters - including the rate of time preference and the social willingness to pay for an additional year of life will be measured precisely for immediate use. Secondly, the importance of other issues including illness severity, adaptation and prognosis will be tested to determine how these factors should be included in the economic evaluation of health programs. Finally, some general issues related to public versus private funding, egalitarianism and choice will be investigated. Results from interviews and surveys will be integrated in the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument and its user manual.Read moreRead less