Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Type: Journal article
Title: The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment
Author: Watt, A.
Hiller, J.
Braunack-Mayer, A.
Moss, J.
Buchan, H.
Wale, J.
Riitano, D.
Hodgetts, K.
Street, J.
Elshaug, A.
Citation: Implementation Science, 2012; 7(101):2-12
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd
Issue Date: 2012
ISSN: 1748-5908
Statement of
Amber M Watt, Janet E Hiller, Annette J Braunack-Mayer, John R Moss, Heather Buchan, Janet Wale, Dagmara E Riitano, Katherine Hodgetts, Jackie M Street and Adam G Elshaug, for the ASTUTE Health study group
Abstract: BACKGROUND Governments and other payers are yet to determine optimal processes by which to review the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of technologies and procedures that are in active use within health systems, and rescind funding (partially or fully) from those that display poor profiles against these parameters. To further progress a disinvestment agenda, a model is required to support payers in implementing disinvestment in a transparent manner that may withstand challenge from vested interests and concerned citizens. Combining approaches from health technology assessment and deliberative democratic theory, this project seeks to determine if and how wide stakeholder engagement can contribute to improved decision-making processes, wherein the views of both vested and non-vested stakeholders are seen to contribute to informing policy implementation within a disinvestment context. METHODS/DESIGN Systematic reviews pertaining to illustrative case studies were developed and formed the evidence base for discussion. Review findings were presented at a series of deliberative, evidence-informed stakeholder engagements, including partisan (clinicians and consumers) and non-partisan (representative community members) stakeholders. Participants were actively facilitated towards identifying shared and dissenting perspectives regarding public funding policy for each of the case studies and developing their own funding models in response to the evidence presented. Policy advisors will subsequently be invited to evaluate disinvestment options based on the scientific and colloquial evidence presented to them, and to explore the value of this information to their decision-making processes with reference to disinvestment. DISCUSSION Analysis of the varied outputs of the deliberative engagements will contribute to the methodological development around how to best integrate scientific and colloquial evidence for consideration by policy advisors. It may contribute to the legitimization of broad and transparent stakeholder engagement in this context. It is anticipated that decision making will benefit from the knowledge delivered through informed deliberation with engaged stakeholders, and this will be explored through interviews with key decision makers.
Keywords: Public participation; User involvement; Disinvestment; Policy
Rights: © 2012 Watt et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
RMID: 0020125187
DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-101
Grant ID:
Appears in Collections:Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_76043.pdfPublished version384.29 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

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