ArticleBMC health services research2026
Department managers' perceptions of a priority-setting model in a local healthcare organisation: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPriority-setting models have the potential to enhance transparency and support decision-making under conditions of resource scarcity; however, their practical application remains limited, particularly in large-scale decommissioning programmes. This article examines department managers’ perceptions of using a National Model for Transparent Prioritization (NMTP) at their clinics during the implementation of a decommissioning programme. In addition, the study explores whether the model contributes to fair priority setting and to procedural and substantive legitimacy.
methodsA convergent mixed-methods design was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative data from a survey (n = 33) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22). The analysis addressed six questions grouped into two overarching themes: (1) the model’s use and contribution (adoption, exclusion, and inclusion of care) and (2) the model’s legitimacy (acceptance, justification, and fairness of priorities).
resultsDepartment managers expressed varying perceptions of the NMTP. Approximately half of them considered the time and resources required to be justified and perceived that the model ensured patients with the greatest needs were given the highest priority. About one third agreed that the NMTP was accepted as a tool for prioritization and resource allocation, and a similar proportion reported that the NMTP had been used to exclude care that was previously provided.
conclusionsDepartment managers perceived that the NMTP facilitated the application of the Swedish ethical guidelines; however, they also identified several challenges associated with its use in the context of a large-scale decommissioning programme, including time constraints, a substantial initial threshold, demanding evidence requirements, and insufficient alignment with national objectives. Furthermore, resistance encountered within clinical units may have been attributable to limited stakeholder engagement.
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.