↓ Skip to main content

Political strategies in difficult times – The “backstage” experience of Swedish politicians on formal priority setting in healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Political strategies in difficult times – The “backstage” experience of Swedish politicians on formal priority setting in healthcare
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.046
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Garpenby, Ann-Charlotte Nedlund

Abstract

This paper contributes to the knowledge on the governing of healthcare in a democratic context in times of austerity. Resource allocation in healthcare is a highly political issue but the political nature of healthcare is not always made clear and the role of politicians is often obscure. The absence of politicians in rationing/disinvestment arrangements is usually explained with blame-shifting arguments; they prefer to delegate "the burden of responsibility" to administrative agencies or professionals. Drawing on a case where Swedish regional politicians involved themselves in setting priorities at a more detailed level than previously, the findings suggest that the subject of "blame avoidance" is more complicated than usually assumed. A qualitative case study was designed, involving semi-structured interviews with 14 regionally elected politicians in one Swedish health authority, conducted in June 2011. The interviews were analysed through a thematic analysis in accordance with the "framework approach" by Ritchie and Lewis. Findings show that an overarching strategy among the politicians was to appear united and to suppress conflict, which served to underpin the vital strategy of bringing the medical profession into the process. A key finding is the importance that politicians, when appearing "backstage", attach to the prevention of blame from the medical profession. This case illustrates that one has to take into account that priority settings requires various types of skills and knowledges - not only technical but also political and social. Another important lesson points toward the need to broaden the political leadership repertoire, as leadership in the case of priority setting is not about politicians being all in or all out. The results suggest that in a priority-setting process it is of importance to have politics on-board at an early stage to secure loyalty to the process, although not necessarily being involved in all details.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 22 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Psychology 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 26 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,102,965
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#4,222
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,859
of 367,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#69
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.