ArticleJournal of health organization and management2025
Balancing competing rationales in priority-setting in primary healthcare - an interview study on political governance.
Article in Journal of health organization and management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePublicly funded healthcare systems struggle to govern and determine how finite resources should be allocated in relation to political goals within a pre-determined budget. Primary healthcare (PHC) has a central multipurpose function, not least in terms of political strategies, but PHC governance is still largely underexplored. The aim is to explore how politicians responsible for making decisions pertaining to healthcare coverage navigate the governance of public PHC and disentangle it in the form of narratives based on different types of underlying rationales. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 politicians from 3 Swedish regional healthcare authorities. The data were analysed abductively based on scientific, clinical and cultural rationales using thematic content analysis.
findingsOur study provides insights into how PHC's multipurpose function implicates tensions between politicians' different responsibilities regarding healthcare coverage. It shows how politicians navigate various coexisting rationales, with some being more dominant than others and where tensions also exist between them. In this balancing act, they create narratives addressing different stakeholders and priority-setting dilemmas, reflecting the diverse rationales. Our study reveals that politicians play a crucial role in PHC governance and priorities, balancing rationales that might otherwise become overly dominant. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper contributes new knowledge by displaying how politicians balance tensions within and between rationales through different narratives regarding goals/commissions, problematic situations and preferred solutions in PHC governance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.