• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

相似文献

1
Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective.公众参与医疗保健优先事项的设定:经济学视角
Health Expect. 1999 Dec;2(4):235-244. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00061.x.
2
Societal preferences for distributive justice in the allocation of health care resources: a latent class discrete choice experiment.社会在医疗保健资源分配中对分配正义的偏好:一项潜在类别离散选择实验。
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):94-105. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14547915. Epub 2014 Aug 21.
3
Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence.资源分配、社会价值观与质量调整生命年:关于这场辩论及实证证据的综述
Health Expect. 2002 Sep;5(3):210-22. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00182.x.
4
QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey.质量调整生命年最大化与公众偏好:一项普通人群调查的结果
Health Econ. 2002 Dec;11(8):679-93. doi: 10.1002/hec.695.
5
Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia.让公众参与确定优先事项:来自澳大利亚的经验。
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Mar;56(5):1001-12. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00091-6.
6
Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health.质量调整生命年在儿科护理中缺乏质量:对已发表的儿童健康成本效用研究的批判性综述。
Pediatrics. 2005 May;115(5):e600-14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2127.
7
Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life.获取社会对疾病负担和生命末期质量调整生命年(QALY)加权的偏好。
Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):210-22. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15619389. Epub 2015 Dec 15.
8
Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective.从社会角度进行成本效用分析。
Health Policy. 1997 Mar;39(3):241-53. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(96)00878-0.
9
10
Multi-gene Pharmacogenomic Testing That Includes Decision-Support Tools to Guide Medication Selection for Major Depression: A Health Technology Assessment.多基因药物基因组学检测,包括用于指导抗抑郁药物选择的决策支持工具:一项卫生技术评估。
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2021 Aug 12;21(13):1-214. eCollection 2021.

引用本文的文献

1
Prioritisation processes for programme implementation and evaluation in public health: A scoping review.公共卫生计划实施和评估的优先排序过程:范围综述。
Front Public Health. 2023 Mar 27;11:1106163. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1106163. eCollection 2023.
2
Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness.用于引出社会对疾病负担偏好的管理模式和替代形式的比较。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Feb;14(1):89-104. doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0197-y.
3
Research priority setting for health policy and health systems strengthening in Nigeria: the policymakers and stakeholders perspective and involvement.尼日利亚卫生政策与卫生系统强化的研究重点设定:政策制定者与利益相关者的观点及参与情况
Pan Afr Med J. 2013 Sep 12;16:10. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2013.16.10.2318. eCollection 2013.
4
The public's priorities in health services.公众在医疗服务方面的优先事项。
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):904-17. doi: 10.1111/hex.12064. Epub 2013 Apr 3.
5
Societal preferences for standard health insurance coverage in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study.荷兰社会对标准医疗保险覆盖范围的偏好:一项横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2012 Apr 5;2(2):e001021. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001021. Print 2012.
6
Fair reckoning: a qualitative investigation of responses to an economic health resource allocation survey.公正核算:对经济卫生资源配置调查回应的定性研究。
Health Expect. 2014 Apr;17(2):174-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00751.x. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
7
Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?社会价值观在医疗资源配置中的作用:是否全在于健康收益?
Patient. 2011;4(4):207-25. doi: 10.2165/11588880-000000000-00000.
8
Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations.使用 QALYs 评估癌症:方法学局限性的综述。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Aug;29(8):673-85. doi: 10.2165/11588250-000000000-00000.
9
Eliciting individual preferences for health care: a case study of perinatal care. eliciting 个体对医疗保健的偏好:围产期护理案例研究。
Health Expect. 2010 Mar;13(1):4-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00551.x. Epub 2009 Aug 18.
10
Captured voices in cancer: experiences from networking between individuals with experiential and professional knowledge.癌症中的声音:来自具有经验和专业知识的个人之间网络交流的经验
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Feb 19;7:23. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-23.

本文引用的文献

1
The measurement of individual utility and social welfare.个体效用与社会福利的度量。
J Health Econ. 1998 Jan;17(1):39-52. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(97)00022-2.
2
EuroQol: the current state of play.欧洲生活质量量表:当前进展情况
Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53-72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
3
Involving consumers in health care decision making.让消费者参与医疗保健决策。
Health Care Anal. 1995 Aug;3(3):196-204. doi: 10.1007/BF02197669.
4
Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study.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
BMJ. 1999 Apr 3;318(7188):916-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7188.916.
5
Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences.
Health Econ. 1998 Nov;7(7):595-603. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<595::aid-hec381>3.0.co;2-e.
6
Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management.运用联合分析评估女性对流产管理的偏好。
Health Econ. 1997 May-Jun;6(3):261-73. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199705)6:3<261::aid-hec262>3.0.co;2-n.
7
Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument.代际公平:对“公平 innings”论点的探讨。
Health Econ. 1997 Mar-Apr;6(2):117-32. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199703)6:2<117::aid-hec256>3.0.co;2-b.
8
The rationing agenda in the NHS. Rationing Agenda Group.英国国家医疗服务体系中的配给议程。配给议程小组。
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1593-601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1593.
9
Media coverage of the Child B case.媒体对儿童B案件的报道。
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1587-91. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1587.
10
Lessons for health care rationing from the case of child B.从儿童B的案例中获得的医疗资源分配经验教训。
BMJ. 1996 Jan 20;312(7024):167-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7024.167.

公众参与医疗保健优先事项的设定:经济学视角

Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective.

作者信息

Roberts Tracy, Bryan Stirling, Heginbotham Chris, McCallum Alison

机构信息

Health Economics Facility, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK; East & North Hertfordshire Health Authority, Hertfordshire, UK; Department of Primary Care & Population Sciences, Royal Free & University College London Medical School, London, UK.

出版信息

Health Expect. 1999 Dec;2(4):235-244. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00061.x.

DOI:10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00061.x
PMID:11281900
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5080947/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Public involvement in health care decision making and priority setting in the UK is being promoted by recent policy initiatives. In 1993, the British Medical Association called for public consultation where rationing of services was to be undertaken. The approach to priority setting advocated by many health economists is the maximization of quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Typically, for a particular health care programme, the QALY calculation takes account of four features: (1) the number of patients receiving the programme, (2) the survival gain, (3) the gain in quality of life and, (4) the probability of treatment success. Only one feature, that relating to quality of life, is based upon public preferences. If the QALY is to be used as a tool for health care resource allocation at a societal level then it should incorporate broader societal preferences. METHODS: This study used an interview-based survey of 91 members of the general public to explore whether the traditional QALY maximization model is a good predictor of public responses to health care priority setting choices. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Many respondents did not choose consistently in line with a QALY maximization objective and were most influenced by quality of life concerns. There was little support for health care programmes that provided a prognostic improvement but left patients in relatively poor states of health. The level of respondent engagement in the survey exercise was not sensitive to the provision of supporting clinical information.

摘要

背景

英国近期的政策举措推动了公众参与医疗保健决策和确定优先事项。1993年,英国医学协会呼吁在进行服务配给时开展公众咨询。许多卫生经济学家倡导的确定优先事项的方法是使质量调整生命年(QALYs)最大化。通常,对于特定的医疗保健项目,QALY计算考虑四个特征:(1)接受该项目的患者数量,(2)生存获益,(3)生活质量的改善,以及(4)治疗成功的概率。只有一个特征,即与生活质量相关的特征,是基于公众偏好的。如果QALY要作为社会层面医疗保健资源分配的工具,那么它应该纳入更广泛的社会偏好。方法:本研究采用基于访谈的调查,对91名普通公众进行了调查,以探讨传统的QALY最大化模型是否能很好地预测公众对医疗保健优先事项选择的反应。结果与结论:许多受访者的选择并不始终符合QALY最大化目标,且受生活质量问题的影响最大。对于那些能改善预后但使患者健康状况相对较差的医疗保健项目,支持率很低。受访者参与调查活动的程度对提供支持性临床信息不敏感。