Vélez Claudia Marcela, Díaz-Hernández Diana Patricia, Velázquez-Salazar Pamela, Hernández-Herrera Gilma, Patiño-Lugo Daniel Felipe, Salazar-Blanco Olga Francisca, Rodríguez-Corredor Leydi Camila, Vélez-Marín Viviana María, Velásquez Juan Carlos, Jaramillo-García Anny Julieth
Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia
McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 20;15(1):e085866. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085866.
In recent years, citizens have become more interested and willing to influence health policy decision-making, and governments worldwide are more prone to citizen engagement in such processes. Prioritising which health technologies should be publicly funded is one decision that requires prudence and consideration of the values and expectations of the people who will be affected by it.
To identify and understand the citizens' perceptions about which health technologies should be publicly funded in Colombia.
Sequential exploratory mixed methods study; the first was a qualitative embedded case study, and the second was a Q methodology study.
46 citizens were interviewed, and 30 citizens ordered a Q-sample of 45 statements.
Interviews were content analysed. We performed a content analysis of the interviews, and, for the quantitative strand, we performed a principal component analysis and varimax rotation to identify view patterns. We also estimated the z-scores of each statement and the load to each factor. We jointly interpreted both sets of findings.
We identified two general approaches citizens used to consider public funding of healthcare technologies. One approach endorsed full coverage of all health technologies required by every Colombian. In the second approach, public funding is conditional on the characteristics of the person who needs the technology, their disease/condition, the kind of technology required and the expectation of efficient health system performance. When integrating the results of the Q methodology, we found five patterns of points of view about the public funding of health technologies.
Colombian citizens consider and balance a range of different factors when making decisions about which health technologies are publicly funded. Citizens not only use technical criteria to decide but also provide the perspective and values of those affected by the decision.
近年来,公民对影响卫生政策决策的兴趣和意愿日益浓厚,全球各国政府也更倾向于让公民参与此类决策过程。确定哪些卫生技术应获得公共资金支持是一项需要审慎考虑的决策,要考虑到受其影响的民众的价值观和期望。
确定并了解哥伦比亚公民对哪些卫生技术应获得公共资金支持的看法。
序贯探索性混合方法研究;第一项是定性嵌入式案例研究,第二项是Q方法研究。
采访了46名公民,30名公民对45条陈述进行了Q样本排序。
对访谈进行内容分析。我们对访谈进行了内容分析,对于定量部分,我们进行了主成分分析和方差最大化旋转以确定观点模式。我们还估计了每条陈述的z分数以及每个因素的负荷。我们对两组结果进行了综合解读。
我们确定了公民在考虑医疗技术公共资金支持时使用的两种一般方法。一种方法支持全面覆盖每个哥伦比亚人所需的所有卫生技术。在第二种方法中,公共资金取决于需要该技术的人的特征、他们的疾病/状况、所需技术的种类以及对高效卫生系统绩效的期望。在整合Q方法的结果时,我们发现了关于卫生技术公共资金支持的五种观点模式。
哥伦比亚公民在决定哪些卫生技术应获得公共资金支持时会考虑并权衡一系列不同因素。公民不仅使用技术标准来做决定,还提供受该决定影响者的观点和价值观。