Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:28:49.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why did some Danish counties introduce breast cancer screening and others not? An exploratory study of four selected counties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2008

Kasper Hjulmann ,
Hindrik Vondeling  and
Mickael Bech
Kasper Hjulmann
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Hindrik Vondeling
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Mickael Bech
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Of the fourteen counties and two municipalities that until recently were responsible for healthcare provision in Denmark, five introduced mammography screening (MS) programs. The objective of this research is to explain this decision-making variation and to gain insight into priority setting processes in health-care provision at the county level in Denmark.

Methods: Literature on priority setting in health care was used to derive seven explanatory factors for comparing decision making on MS between four selected counties, of which two had implemented MS. The relative importance of each explanatory factor in each county was determined by analyzing policy documents, supplemented with interviews of selected stakeholders. The results were combined and compared at the county level.

Results: Evidence of effectiveness of MS was considered satisfactory and ethical issues related to MS were perceived relatively unproblematic only in those counties that introduced MS. Lack of resources, that is, radiologists, was an additional important factor for counties not implementing MS. Local opinion leaders have played a stimulating role, whereas advisory policy documents at the central government level and even legislation have had a minor impact.

Conclusions: The four counties have based their decision making on the introduction of MS on different combinations of a limited number of factors that have been differentially weighted. The pattern of relevant factors in both counties not introducing MS is rather similar. The study elucidates the role of complementary factors to evidence in decision making. Of interest, recent public sector reforms have resulted in the decision to have MS implemented nationwide.

Keywords

Mammography screeningPriority settingHealth policyDenmark
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 326 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bilde, N, Ankaer-Jensen, A, Danneskiold-Samsøe, B. The “Health Benefit Basket” in Denmark: A description of entitlements, actors, and decision-making processes in the curative health sector. Euro J Health Econ. 2005;6:S11-S17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Blomquist, W. The policy process and large-N comparative studies. In: Sabatier, PA, ed. Theories of the policy process. Colorado: Westview Press; 1999:201–230.Google Scholar
3. Buse, K, Mays, N, Walt, G. Making health policy. Published in the series: Understanding public health. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
4. Grbich, C. Qualitative research in health: An introduction. London: Sage Publications; 1999.Google Scholar
5. Gøtzsche, P, Olsen, O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet. 2000;55:129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Ham, C. Priority setting in health care: Learning from international experience. Health Policy. 1997;42:49–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Ham, C, Coulter, A. International experience of rationing (or priority setting). In Coulter, A, Ham, C, eds. The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2000:1–12Google Scholar
8. Ham, C, Robert, G. Reasonable rationing: International experience of priority setting in health care. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
9. Holm, S. Developments in the Nordic countries – goodbye to the simple solutions. In Coulter, A, Ham, C, eds. The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2000:29–37.Google Scholar
10. Indenrigs – og sundhedsministerens rådgivende udvalg. Sundhedsvæsenets organisering – sygehuse, incitamenter, amter og alternativer. Indenrigs – og sundhedsministeriet: København; 2003. (In English: Advisory committee of the Minister of Interior and Health. The organization of the health care sector – hospitals, incentives, counties and alternatives. Ministry of Interior and Health: Copenhagen; 2003)Google Scholar
11. Indenrigs - og sundhedsministeriet. Aftale mellem regeringen og Dansk Folkeparti om forbedring af behandling af kræft; 2005. http://www.fm.dk/1024/visPublikation.asp?artikelID=7370&soegningID=137121. (In English: Ministry of Interior and Health. Agreement between the Government and Danish Peoples Party regarding improvements of cancer treatment; 2005. http://www.fm.dk/1024/visPublikation.asp?artikelID=7370&soegningID=137121.Google Scholar
12. Jonsson, E, Banta, HD, Schersten, T. Health technology assessment and screening in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:380–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Kvale, S. InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1996.Google Scholar
14. Martin, DK, Giacomini, M, Singer, PA. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy. 2002;61:279–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Maxwell, JA. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.Google Scholar
16. Olsen, O, Gøtzsche, PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 2001;358:1340–1342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Pedersen, KM, Christiansen, T, Bech, M. The Danish health care system: Evolution – not revolution in a decentralized system. Health Econ. 2005;S1:S41-S57.Google Scholar
18. Pedersen, KM. Sundhedspolitik: Beslutningsgrundlag, beslutningstagen og beslutninger i sundhedsvæsenet. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag; 2005.Google Scholar
19. Perry, N, Broeders, M, de Wolf, C, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. – summary document. Annals of Oncology (published online on November 17th 2007. http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/mdm481v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Rennert, G. Political interpretation of scientific evidence – case study of breast cancer screening policies around the world. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2003;163:140–148CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Rubin, HJ, Rubin, IS. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Shapiro, S, Coleman, CA, Broeders, M, et al. Breast Cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: Current policies, administration and guidelines. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27:735–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Yin, RK. Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003.Google Scholar