↓ Skip to main content

Opportunity costs and local health service spending decisions: a qualitative study from Wales

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Opportunity costs and local health service spending decisions: a qualitative study from Wales
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1354-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Karlsberg Schaffer, Jon Sussex, Dyfrig Hughes, Nancy Devlin

Abstract

All health care systems face the need to find the resources to meet new demands such as a new, cost-increasing health technology. In England and Wales, when a health technology is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the National Health Service (NHS) is mandated to provide the funding to accommodate it within three months of publication of the recommendation. Identifying what, in practice, is foregone when new cost-increasing technologies are introduced is important for understanding the effects of health technology assessment (HTA) decisions on the NHS or any other health care system. Our objective was to investigate how in practice local NHS commissioners in Wales accommodated financial "shocks" arising from technology appraisals (TAs) issued by NICE and from other cost pressures. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Finance Directors and Medical Directors from all seven Local Health Boards (LHBs) in NHS Wales. These interviews covered prioritisation processes, as well as methods of financing NICE TAs and other financial shocks at each LHB. We then undertook a systematic identification of themes and topics from the information recorded. The study relates to the period October 2010 to March 2013. The financial impact of NICE TAs is generally anticipated and planned for in advance and the majority of LHBs have contingency funds available to cope with these and other financial shocks within-period. Efficiency savings (defined as reductions in costs with no assumed reductions in quality) were a source of funds for cost pressures of all kinds. Service displacements were not linkable to particular NICE TAs and there appears to be a general lack of explicit prioritisation activities. The Welsh Government has, on occasion, explicitly or implicitly acted as the funder of last resort. Services may be displaced as part of a response to the cumulative impact of all types of cost pressures, including cost-increasing health technologies recommended by NICE, but such displacements were not direct responses to the publication of individual NICE TAs. The additional cost pressure represented by a new NICE TA is likely to be accommodated at least partly by greater efficiency and increased expenditure rather than displacement of services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 31 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 24%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 36 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 25 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,883,347
of 25,508,813 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#657
of 8,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,533
of 315,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#9
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,508,813 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 315,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.