As no health system can afford to provide all possible services and treatments for the people it serves, each system must set priorities. Priority setting decision makers are increasingly involving the public in policy making. This study focuses on public engagement in a key priority setting context that plagues every health system around the world: wait list management. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting for the Ontario Wait Time Strategy, with special attention to public engagement.
This study was conducted at the Ontario Wait Time Strategy in Ontario, Canada which is part of a Federal-Territorial-Provincial initiative to improve access and reduce wait times in five areas: cancer, cardiac, sight restoration, joint replacements, and diagnostic imaging. There were two sources of data: (1) over 25 documents (e.g. strategic planning reports, public updates), and (2) 28 one-on-one interviews with informants (e.g. OWTS participants, MOHLTC representatives, clinicians, patient advocates). Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation.
The Ontario Wait Time Strategy partially meets the four conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'. The public was not directly involved in the priority setting activities of the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Study participants identified both benefits (supporting the initiative, experts of the lived experience, a publicly funded system and sustainability of the healthcare system) and concerns (personal biases, lack of interest to be involved, time constraints, and level of technicality) for public involvement in the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Additionally, the participants identified concern for the consequences (sustainability, cannibalism, and a class system) resulting from the Ontario Wait Times Strategy.
We described and evaluated a wait time management initiative (the Ontario Wait Time Strategy) with special attention to public engagement, and provided a concrete plan to operationalize a strategy for improving public involvement in this, and other, wait time initiatives.
Cites: Health Care Anal. 2003 Mar;11(1):59-6814510309
Cites: Health Policy. 2007 Mar;80(3):444-5816757057
Cites: Health Policy. 1999 Oct;49(1-2):75-13510827292
Cites: BMJ. 2000 Nov 25;321(7272):1300-111090498
Cites: BMJ. 2000 Nov 25;321(7272):1316-811090513
Cites: Philos Public Aff. 1997 Fall;26(4):303-5011660435
Cites: Health Policy. 2002 Nov;62(2):173-9412354411
Cites: BMC Health Serv Res. 2002 Jul 18;2(1):1412126482
Cites: Health Policy Plan. 2003 Jun;18(2):205-1312740325
Cites: Crit Care Med. 2003 Dec;31(12):2764-814668612
Cites: BMJ. 1993 Jul 31;307(6899):309-118374382
Cites: BMJ. 1993 Aug 14;307(6901):435-88374459
Cites: J Health Polit Policy Law. 1993 Winter;18(4):881-9048120350
Cites: J Med Philos. 1994 Aug;19(4):367-887996074
Cites: Br Med Bull. 1995 Oct;51(4):876-848556296
Cites: Acta Trop. 1996 Apr;61(2):79-928740887
Cites: BMJ. 1998 May 30;316(7145):1668-709603758
Cites: BMJ. 1998 Oct 10;317(7164):1000-29841021
Cites: Pharm World Sci. 2005 Aug;27(4):273-716228621
Cites: J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8(4):197-20114596753