Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Qualitative Health Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fredelius, G.
Right arrow Articles by Lindqvist, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fredelius, G.
Right arrow Articles by Lindqvist, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Who Should Receive Subsidized Psychotherapy?: Analysis of Decision Makers’ Think-Aloud Protocols

Gunilla Fredelius

Stockholm County Council, Institute of Psychotherapy

Rolf Sandell

Department of Behavioural Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Cecilia Lindqvist

Stockholm County Council, Institute of Psychotherapy.

Three groups of judges representing clinical, political, and laypersons’ perspectives were given the task of prioritizing patients for subsidized psychotherapy within the Swedish health care system. The authors documented the judges’decision-making processes in think-aloud protocols and analyzed them qualitatively, focusing on the conflict between the urgency of a case and its suitability for treatment. In an earlier statistical analysis of the same material, clinicians had seemed to pay more attention to suitability criteria, whereas health care officials and laypersons prioritized based on urgency. The qualitative findings confirmed the centrality of this conflict and contributed to a deeper understanding of decision makers’ways of coping with it. Their conceptions of suitability and urgency were also elucidated by analysis of the think-aloud protocols.

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 12, No. 5, 640-654 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/104973202129120151
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Qual Saf Health CareHome page
T. Smith
The problem with rational approaches to reforming the NHS
Qual. Saf. Health Care, January 12, 2002; 11(4): 383 - 386.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]