Table 3 Data sources and criteria for priority setting
Data sources used by DHS and ACCHS for priority setting | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Short term sources of data | DHS (n) % | ACCHS (n) % | Long term sources of data | DHS (n) % | ACCHS (n) % |
Evidence: e.g. economic evaluation, epidemiology | (16) 62% | (9) 38% | State/Federal policy documents | (19) 73% | (12) 50% |
State/Federal policy documents | (15) 58% | (9) 38% | Evidence: e.g. economic evaluation, epidemiology | (19) 73% | (6) 25% |
Indigenous community (Indigenous views/preferences) | (13) 50% | (17) 71% | Key organisation objectives | (17) 65% | (10) 42% |
Key organisation objectives | (12) 46% | (12) 50% | Indigenous community | (14) 54% | (16) 67% |
Funds available/financial directive | (10) 38% | (12) 50% | Needs assessment | (10) 38% | (13) 54% |
Needs assessment | (8) 31% | (13) 54% | Funds available/financial directive | (8) 31% | (11) 46% |
Mainstream public opinion | (7) 27% | (12) 50% | Three-year business plan | (6) 23% | (11) 46% |
Criteria used by DHS and ACCHS decision-makers for priority setting | |||||
Across programs | DHS (n) % | ACCHS (n) % | Within programs | DHS (n) % | ACCHS (n) % |
Size of the health problem | (18) 69% | (15) 63% | Feasibility/sustainability | (14) 54% | (12) 50% |
Feasibility/sustainability | (13) 50% | (10) 42% | Size of the health problem | (13) 50% | (17) 71% |
Equity | (11) 42% | (8) 10% | Equity | (12) 46% | (4) 17% |
Political ‘hot spots’ | (11) 42% | (4) 17% | Acceptability | (10) 38% | (13) 54% |
Acceptability | (10) 38% | (13) 54% | Efficiency | (7) 27% | (10) 42% |
Access to services | (10) 38% | (8) 33% | Access to services | (6) 23% | (10) 42% |
Historical trends/patterns | (9) 35% | (10) 42% | Historical trends/patterns | (5) 19% | (12) 50% |
Efficiency | (3) 12% | (11) 46% | Political ‘hot spots’ | (4) 15% | (2) 8% |