Skip to main content

Table 1 Interview guide

From: Priority setting in the provincial health services authority: survey of key decision makers

1 Can you describe for me the process that is currently used to identify priorities and allocate resources within the PHSA?
2 Overall, do you think the process works well? What are the strengths of the process?
3a How well is the publicity condition met in this organization?*
3b How well is the relevance condition met in this organization?*
3c How well is the appeals condition met in this organization?*
3d How well is the enforcement condition met in this organization?*
4 How can the current process of setting priorities and allocating resources be improved?
5 What types of information (or data or evidence) that are not currently used would you most want to use to improve decision making in setting priorities and allocating resources?
6 What barriers are currently faced in undertaking the priority setting process within the PHSA?
7 Noting the organizational culture of the PHSA, how would this environment respond to a move towards an explicit, more formal, process of priority setting?
8 How do the group dynamics at a typical executive meeting impact priority setting decisions?
9 What factors do you think are necessary for sustaining an explicit, more formal, priority setting process in the PHSA? Please be as specific as possible.
10 How has the public been used in priority setting/resource allocation processes in the past?
11 Ideally, how would you want the public to be involved in the priority setting process?
12 What role have physicians played in priority setting/resource allocation processes in the past?
13 Ideally, how would you want the physicians to be involved in the priority setting process?
14 How well do you think the values of the PHSA are incorporated into priority setting activity?
15 How should the values of the PHSA be incorporated into the priority setting process?
  1. *These questions are based upon an ethical framework called Accountability for Reasonableness [19], with details of each ethical 'condition' presented to the respondents prior to eliciting their responses.
  2. 1 Condition of relevance: Decisions should be made on the basis of reasons (i.e. evidence, principles, values, arguments) that 'fair-minded' stakeholders can agree are relevant under the circumstances; Publicity: Decisions and their rationales should be made available to stakeholders; Revision and appeals: There should be opportunities to revisit and revise decisions in light of further evidence or arguments, and there should be a mechanism for challenge and dispute resolution; Enforcement: There is a voluntary or regulatory mechanism for ensuring that the other three conditions are met. Condition of relevance: Decisions should be made on the basis of reasons (i.e. evidence, principles, values, arguments) that 'fair-minded' stakeholders can agree are relevant under the circumstances; Publicity: Decisions and their rationales should be made available to stakeholders; Revision and appeals: There should be opportunities to revisit and revise decisions in light of further evidence or arguments, and there should be a mechanism for challenge and dispute resolution; Enforcement: There is a voluntary or regulatory mechanism for ensuring that the other three conditions are met.