Suppr超能文献

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.

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。

相似文献

1
Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective.
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.
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.
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.
Health Econ. 2002 Dec;11(8):679-93. doi: 10.1002/hec.695.
5
Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Mar;56(5):1001-12. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00091-6.
7
Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life.
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.
Health Policy. 1997 Mar;39(3):241-53. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(96)00878-0.
9

引用本文的文献

1
Prioritisation processes for programme implementation and evaluation in public health: A scoping review.
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.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Feb;14(1):89-104. doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0197-y.
4
The public's priorities in health services.
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.
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.
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?
Patient. 2011;4(4):207-25. doi: 10.2165/11588880-000000000-00000.
8
Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations.
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.
Health Expect. 2010 Mar;13(1):4-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00551.x. Epub 2009 Aug 18.

本文引用的文献

1
The measurement of individual utility and social welfare.
J Health Econ. 1998 Jan;17(1):39-52. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(97)00022-2.
2
EuroQol: the current state of play.
Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53-72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
3
Involving consumers in health care decision making.
Health Care Anal. 1995 Aug;3(3):196-204. doi: 10.1007/BF02197669.
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.
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.
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.
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1593-601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1593.
9
Media coverage of the Child B case.
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.
BMJ. 1996 Jan 20;312(7024):167-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7024.167.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验