Suppr超能文献

讨论与审议对公众关于医疗保健优先事项设定观点的影响:焦点小组研究

Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study.

作者信息

Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B

机构信息

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO1 5DD.

出版信息

BMJ. 1999 Apr 3;318(7188):916-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7188.916.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the extent to which people change their views about priority setting in health care as a result of discussion and deliberation.

DESIGN

A random sample of patients from two urban general practices was invited to attend two focus group meetings, a fortnight apart.

SETTING

North Yorkshire Health Authority.

SUBJECTS

60 randomly chosen patients meeting in 10 groups of five to seven people.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Differences between people's views at the start of the first meeting and at the end of the second meeting, after they have had an opportunity for discussion and deliberation, measured by questionnaires at the start of the first meeting and the end of the second meeting.

RESULTS

Respondents became more reticent about the role that their views should play in determining priorities and more sympathetic to the role that healthcare managers play. About a half of respondents initially wanted to give lower priority to smokers, heavy drinkers, and illegal drug users, but after discussion many no longer wished to discriminate against these people.

CONCLUSION

The public's views about setting priorities in health care are systematically different when they have been given an opportunity to discuss the issues. If the considered opinions of the general public are required, surveys that do not allow respondents time or opportunity for reflection may be of doubtful value.

摘要

目的

调查人们因讨论和审议而改变其对医疗保健中优先事项设定看法的程度。

设计

从两个城市全科诊所随机抽取患者样本,邀请他们参加两个焦点小组会议,间隔两周。

地点

北约克郡卫生局。

研究对象

60名随机挑选的患者,分成10组,每组五至七人。

主要观察指标

在第一次会议开始时和第二次会议结束时,通过在第一次会议开始时和第二次会议结束时进行问卷调查来衡量人们在有机会进行讨论和审议后观点的差异。

结果

受访者对其观点在确定优先事项中应发挥的作用变得更加沉默寡言,对医疗保健管理者所发挥的作用则更具同情心。约一半的受访者最初希望降低吸烟者、酗酒者和非法药物使用者的优先级别,但经过讨论后,许多人不再希望歧视这些人。

结论

当公众有机会讨论这些问题时,他们对医疗保健中设定优先事项的看法会有系统性的不同。如果需要公众经过深思熟虑的意见,那么不给予受访者思考时间或机会的调查可能价值存疑。

相似文献

3
Public opinion and purchasing.公众舆论与购买行为。
BMJ. 1992 Mar 14;304(6828):680-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6828.680.
4
Health care rationing: the public's debate.医疗保健资源分配:公众的辩论。
BMJ. 1996 Mar 16;312(7032):670-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7032.670.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验