Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ktisis.cut.ac.cy/handle/10488/8869
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTheodorou, Mamas-
dc.contributor.authorSamara, Katerina-
dc.contributor.authorPavlakis, Andreas-
dc.contributor.authorMiddleton, Nicos-
dc.contributor.authorPolyzos, Nikos-
dc.contributor.authorManiadakis, Nikos-
dc.contributor.otherΜίτλεττον, Νίκος-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-01T10:56:30Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-01T10:56:30Z-
dc.date.issued2010-
dc.identifier.citationHellenic Journal of Cardiology, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 200-208en_US
dc.identifier.issn2241-5955-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The Greek public is currently not represented at any level of the healthcare system’s organizational structure. This study aimed to investigate the opinions of Greek citizens as well as doctors regarding their representation in priority setting and to compare these two groups’ preferences when prioritizing competing resources.Methods: A sample of 300 citizens and 100 doctors were asked by means of a standardised questionnaire: (a) whether their views should inform healthcare decisions; (b) to rank in terms of importance other groups that should participate in the process; and (c) to allocate competing resources to a series of alternative prevention programmes, medical procedures or across different population groups. Results: As many as 83% of the citizens stated that their opinions should inform decisions regarding prevention and population-group programmes, while a slightly lower 70% believed their opinions should also be heard regarding medical procedures. However, when asked to rank six different population groups in terms of their importance, the public ranked their role quite low. Generally, doctors and patients, and their families were ranked highest, while politicians were ranked last by both groups. Regarding allocation of funds, a remarkable consensus was observed between doctors and the public.Conclusion: This study documents for the first time in Greece the clear preference for active involvement of both the public and healthcare professionals in the process of priority setting and resource allocation. There is great urgency in complementing these findings with qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews and discussions with focus groups, so that a more democratic, participative and transparent process for healthcare priority setting can be initiated, based on the actual needs and health problems of the public.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherHellenic Cardiological Societyen
dc.relation.ispartofHellenic Journal of Cardiologyen_US
dc.rights© Elsevieren_US
dc.subjectMedical careen_US
dc.subjectAdolescent analysisen_US
dc.subjectPublic involvementen_US
dc.subjectHealth careen_US
dc.titleThe public's and doctors' perceived role in participation in setting health care priorities in Greeceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationOpen University Cyprusen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Piraeusen_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.collaborationDemocritus University of Thraceen_US
dc.collaborationNational School of Public Healthen_US
dc.subject.categoryHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.journalsSubscriptionen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.countryGreeceen_US
dc.subject.fieldMedical and Health Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.dept.handle123456789/118en
dc.relation.issue3en_US
dc.relation.volume51en_US
cut.common.academicyear2010-2011en_US
dc.identifier.spage200en_US
dc.identifier.epage208en_US
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypearticle-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Nursing-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Health Sciences-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-6358-8591-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Health Sciences-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

Page view(s) 20

170
Last Week
0
Last month
2
checked on Jan 21, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in KTISIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.