Sobre el presente recurso de revisión constitucional de sentencia de amparo

Most Significant (1) Significant (2) Somewhat Significant (3) Least Significant (4) 1. Funding for PHUs should be

determined via a process that is sufficiently transparent, such that a PHU can calculate or validate its funding allocation using available data

2. PHUs should receive a base level of funding, irrespective of geographic size or population served

3. Funding for PHUs should include explicit amounts for capital costs

4. Funding for PHUs should be tied to meeting agreed

performance targets

Q 4. Are there any principles that you feel would be better suited to a different category than what has been proposed in this survey?

Q 5. Are there any other principles you feel should be considered in making decisions around the distribution of resources for public health units in Ontario?

Q 6. Feel free to share any other thoughts or comments that you may have:

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses and contributions will play a critical role in furthering the on-going debate around potential policy changes surrounding funding allocation practices for the public health sector in Ontario. We really do appreciate your time and contributions to this research project. Please contact the principal investigator (Anum Irfan Khan) via email ([email protected]) or phone (647 886 8344) at any time if you have questions or concerns about this survey. This research has been granted ethics clearance from the University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics. If you have any Nummelin, the Director, Office of Research Ethics, at 1-519-888-4567, Ext. 36005 or [email protected].

137

Methods and decision trail 1. Stage 1: Initiated study design

à Developed and revised the project’s key research questions (understanding how PHUs are currently funded and what principles public health professionals believe should be used to guide the distribution of resources in public health), sample frame (public health professionals in Ontario) and proposed methods (key informant interviews and a web survey) following proposal defense and committee feedback

2. Stage 2: Developed sensitizing concepts and interview guide

à Developed a series of ‘sensitizing concepts’ via a review of literature on public health resource needs, social value judgments and resource distribution in public health settings, and obtained committee feedback on sensitizing principles and interview guide

3. Stage 3: Recruited and conducted informant interviews

à Established sampling frame for key informant interviews and survey – public health professionals from across Ontario (provincial level Ministry officials and Medical officers of health from across PHUs) à Electronic/email invitations were sent out to members in the final sample for key informant interviews à Conducted the 14 key informant interviews

4. Stage 4: Data analyses

à Conducted preliminary analyses of interview data based on techniques/stages described in the preceding section (initial coding, line by line coding and development of categories)

à Memos used to track changes in coding and category development across stages in data analysis 5. Stage 5: Developed and administered web survey

à Interview transcripts were reviewed and the key principles shared by informants were refined and organized into three distinct categories based on the significance assigned to each principle by public health professionals over the course of the interviews

à Survey (electronic link) sent to a wider subset of original sampling frame (all 36 Medical Officers of Health and upper level management/staff in several public health related MOHLTC branches)

à Survey completed by 15 public health professionals à Survey results tabulated

6. Stage 6: Verification of interview findings

à A summary of key findings were shared with the public health professionals that were interviewed, and interviewees were asked to share any feedback they had on the results to ensure that the researcher had accurately captured and interpreted participant perspectives

7. Stage 7: Presentation of results

à Final thesis report presented to thesis committee and shared with public health professionals who participated in the thesis project

138

Interview participant information letter and consent form

Name of Participant Date

Title

Professional Affiliation Address

Dear [Name of Participant]:

Thank you very much for responding to my invitation to participate in a study I am conducting at the University of Waterloo titled, “ .” This study is being undertaken as part of my M.Sc. degree in the School of Public Health And Health Systems under the supervision of Dr. Ian McKillop.

For the past decade or so much of the discussion about how funding should be allocated in Ontario’s health care system has focused on the acute-care sector. The encouraging news is that there is a growing interest in

understanding how best to deploy funds to support public health activities. This project seeks to contribute to that important discussion by identifying and examining the specific decision-making principles that experts feel currently do, and in the future should guide the distribution of provincial funds to Ontario’s public health units. I believe that your contribution as a leading expert and advocate for the public health sector will be invaluable in ensuring that diverse stakeholder perspectives are reflected in reports stemming from this study, which I hope will inform current dialogue and debate around critically examining the funding policies and practices utilized in the province’s public health sector.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. The time commitment is 45-60 minutes, during which I will invite you to talk with me via telephone at a time convenient for you to seek your opinion and input on a number of questions (that I will provide to you ahead of time). You may of course decline to answer any of the interview questions, and you may withdraw from this study at any time without any negative consequences by simply letting me know. With your permission, the interview will be audio recorded and later transcribed for analysis. In additional verbal consent will also be sought prior to the start of the phone interview. After the interview, I will send you via email a list of proposed decision-principles and ask you to rank them in order of significance based on your expertise and experiences in the field of public health. Following the completion of all interviews, I hope to send all participants a general summary of findings, and invite their feedback or reflections on the results obtained. All the information you provide is considered completely confidential. To protect and preserve the confidentiality of all participants, names will not appear in my thesis or any report resulting from this study. There are no known or anticipated risks to you as a participant in this study. No findings or opinions will be directly attributed to you or your professional affiliation(s) in my report, however, with your permission anonymous quotations may be used. Only researchers associated with this project will have access to the data collected.

As a token of my appreciation of the time and expertise you so kindly gave to this project, all participants will receive a $50 gift card from Chapters. The gift card and the thank you letter will be mail to you via post as soon as the interview is completed. The amount received is taxable. It is your responsibility to report the amount received for income tax purposes. In addition, if you would like, a final report can also be sent to you electronically once the project has been completed.

Since the interviews will be conducted over the phone, you will be asked the following 3 questions to attain verbal consent prior to the start of the interview: 1) Do you agree, of your own free will, to participate in this study, 2) Do you agree to have your interview audio recorded, and 3) Do you agree to the use of anonymous quotations in any thesis or publication that comes of this research. You can seek clarifications or ask any questions you may have prior to the start of the interview directly from the researcher during the phone interview, as well at any point over the course of the project via email ([email protected]) or phone (647-886-8344).

139

reaching a decision about participation, please feel free to speak with my supervisor, Dr. Ian McKillop via phone at (519) 888-4567 ext. 37127 or via email at [email protected]. This research has been granted ethics clearance from the University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics, however, the final decision about participation is yours. I very much look forward to speaking with you and thank you in advance for your assistance in this project. Should you have any comments or concerns regarding the conduct of this research, please contact Dr. Maureen Nummelin, the Director, Office of Research Ethics, at 1-519-888-4567, Ext. 36005 or [email protected]

Sincerely,

Anum Irfan Khan, B.A. M.Sc Candidate & Project Lead

University of Waterloo - School of Public Health and Health Systems Phone: 647 886 8344

140

Principle rankings by category

Table A: Summary of principle rankings for Category 1

Category 1 Social Value Most Significant Significant Somewhat Significant Least Significant 1. The amount of funding a PHU

receives should be sensitive to the presence of high-risk vulnerable populations in a PHU’s designated service area

Equity

33.3% 13.3% 20.0% 33.3%6

2. Rural PHUs should receive additional funds to deliver the standard basket of public health services required of all health units

Need _{13.3% 33.3% 33.3% 20.0%}

3. Funding should be based on characteristics of the population served, such as age distribution, incidence of TB, and prevalence of tobacco use etc.

Need

46.7% 6.7% 26.7% 20.0%

4. Funding should account for the cost of service delivery, i.e., a community’s cultural & demographic profile, languages spoken etc.

Need 6.7% 46.7% 20.0% 26.7%

Table B: Summary of principle rankings for Category 2

Category 2 Social _{Value Significant} Most Significant _Significant Somewhat _Significant Least