Understanding Contextual Factors in Cost, Quality and Priority Setting Decisions in Health; Comment on “Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC), Vancouver, BC, Canada

2 BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada

3 Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.


There is growing recognition in the academic literature that critical decisions concerning resource allocation and resource management in health and care are influenced by a range of contextual factors. In their paper in this journal, Williams et al define these ‘decisions of value’ as being characterized by a significant and demonstrable impact on quality and resources in health and care. ‘Decisions of value’ are key functions of health and care organizations, yet relatively little is known about how contextual factors (such as different sources and types of evidence used, organizational context and decision-making structures, and the wider interests of patients, the public and politicians) influence those decisions. In this commentary we offer some reflections on our international experiences in capacity building, developing and implementing priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) mechanisms in the health and care sectors in a range of low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We focus on the role of organizational culture, the relationship to government including political and regulatory environments, and the potential for patient and public engagement in PSRA mechanisms.


Main Subjects

  1. Williams I, Brown H, Healy P. Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(8):683-695. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.09
  2. Pettigrew A. The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in Imperial Chemical Industries. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 1985.
  3. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Priority Setting Toolkit: Guide to the Use of Economics in Healthcare Decision Making. London: BMJ Books; 2004.
  4. Peacock S, Ruta D, Mitton C, Donaldson C, Bate A, Murtagh M. Using economics to set pragmatic and ethical priorities. BMJ. 2006;332(7539):482-485. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7539.482
  5. Baker GR, Denis JL. A Comparative Study of Three Transformative Healthcare Systems: Lessons for Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2011.
  6. Smith N, Mitton C, Hall W, et al. High performance in healthcare priority setting and resource allocation: A literature- and case study-based framework in the Canadian context. Soc Sci Med. 2016;162:185-192. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.027
  7. Abelson J, Wagner F, DeJean D, et al. Public And Patient Involvement In Health Technology Assessment: A Framework For Action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):256-264. doi:10.1017/s0266462316000362
  8. O’Doherty KC. Synthesising the outputs of deliberation: Extracting meaningful results from a public forum. Journal of Public Deliberation. 2013;9(1):8.
  9. O'Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(4):203-215. doi:10.1159/000167801
Volume 7, Issue 12
December 2018
Pages 1145-1147
  • Receive Date: 01 June 2018
  • Revise Date: 21 August 2018
  • Accept Date: 21 August 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 December 2018