↓ 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, August 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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Political strategies in difficult times – The “backstage” experience of Swedish politicians on formal priority setting in healthcare
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.046
Pubmed ID
Authors

Garpenby, Peter, Nedlund, Ann-Charlotte

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 46%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Unspecified 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Other 2 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 August 2016.
All research outputs
#879,969
of 8,200,733 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#1,169
of 6,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,251
of 259,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#54
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,200,733 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 259,685 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.