Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Many health and social care systems create guidance to inform allocation of resources and thus services. Such guidance depends on decisions about opportunity costs and thus is based on social values as to the relative importance of different priorities. Research in this area has shown international variation in these values underlying differences in priority setting systems (Littlejohns 2012). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England has a policy of Social Value Judgements (2008) that informs the use of research evidence in the production of health systems guidance for the National Health Service. NICE is currently revising its social values policy and this paper reports on a review of the literature on social values commissioned to inform that revision.
Aim:
To identify social values and related debates relevant to priority setting by health and social care systems.
Method:
As the purpose was to identify issues, a configuring rather than aggregative review methodology was adopted (Gough 2012). The search strategy included a priori inclusion criteria and exhaustive and iterative search components. Nearly 2000 papers were identified, of which over 800 were considered highly relevant. The issues were configured using an adapted version of Clarke and Weale’s (2012) typology for social values consisting of: Utility and efficiency, Justice and equity, Autonomy, Solidarity, Participation, Sustainability, Transparency and accountability, and Rigour in methods of guidance development.
Results and conclusion:
The review identified 84 main issues under the eight social value categories and proposed 20 main issues that NICE might wish to consider under ten main themes. These ten themes and their relevance to the development of priority setting in health and social care systems will be presented and discussed.
Many health and social care systems create guidance to inform allocation of resources and thus services. Such guidance depends on decisions about opportunity costs and thus is based on social values as to the relative importance of different priorities. Research in this area has shown international variation in these values underlying differences in priority setting systems (Littlejohns 2012). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England has a policy of Social Value Judgements (2008) that informs the use of research evidence in the production of health systems guidance for the National Health Service. NICE is currently revising its social values policy and this paper reports on a review of the literature on social values commissioned to inform that revision.
Aim:
To identify social values and related debates relevant to priority setting by health and social care systems.
Method:
As the purpose was to identify issues, a configuring rather than aggregative review methodology was adopted (Gough 2012). The search strategy included a priori inclusion criteria and exhaustive and iterative search components. Nearly 2000 papers were identified, of which over 800 were considered highly relevant. The issues were configured using an adapted version of Clarke and Weale’s (2012) typology for social values consisting of: Utility and efficiency, Justice and equity, Autonomy, Solidarity, Participation, Sustainability, Transparency and accountability, and Rigour in methods of guidance development.
Results and conclusion:
The review identified 84 main issues under the eight social value categories and proposed 20 main issues that NICE might wish to consider under ten main themes. These ten themes and their relevance to the development of priority setting in health and social care systems will be presented and discussed.