Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Type: Journal article
Title: What counts and how to count it: Physicians' constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context
Author: Hodgetts, K.
Elshaug, A.
Hiller, J.
Citation: Social Science & Medicine, 2012; 75(12):2191-2199
Publisher: Pergamon-Elsevier Science Ltd
Issue Date: 2012
ISSN: 0277-9536
Statement of
Katherine Hodgetts, Adam G. Elshaug, Janet E. Hiller
Abstract: Internationally, there is an increasing focus on quality and sustainability measures oriented to reducing inefficiencies in health provision. The use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for older women represents a case study in this area. This paper analyses the constructions of evidence brought to bear by ART physicians in the context of deliberative stakeholder engagements (held 2010) around options for restricting public subsidy of ART in Australia. Physicians participated in two deliberative engagements during which they were presented with results of a systematic review of ART effectiveness, as well as ethical and cost analyses. These sessions were part of a broader research program of engagements held with policymakers, community members and consumers. Physicians deliberated around the data presented with a view to formulating an informed contribution to policy. The ensuing discussions were transcribed and subject to discourse analysis. Physicians questioned the evidence presented on the grounds of 'currency', 'proximity', 'selectivity' and 'bias'. We outline physicians' accounts of what should count as evidence informing ART policy, and how this evidence should be counted. These accounts reflect implicit decisions around both the inclusion of evidence (selection) and the status it is accorded (evaluation). Our analysis suggests that participatory policy processes do not represent the simple task of assessing the quality/effectiveness of a given technology against self-evident criteria. Rather, these processes involve the negotiation of different orders of evidence (empirical, contextual and anecdotal), indicating a need for higher-level discussion around 'what counts and how to count it' when making disinvestment decisions.
Keywords: Australia; Evidence-based health policy; Deliberative methods; Discourse analysis; Disinvestment
Rights: © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
RMID: 0020123203
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.016
Grant ID:
Appears in Collections:Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.