• 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

Value focused rationality in AIDS policy.

作者信息

Wenstøp F, Magnus P

机构信息

Norwegian School of Management BI, Elias Smiths vei 15, Box 580, 1301, Sandvika, Norway.

出版信息

Health Policy. 2001 Jul;57(1):57-72. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00120-8.

DOI:10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00120-8
PMID:11348694
Abstract

A health policy analysis to contain the effects of the HIV epidemic in Norway has been carried out. It was performed as a Multi Criteria Decision Analysis where participants in a decision panel used personal values to weight benefits and costs of alternative policies. The analysis is of particular interest since Norway afterwards adopted a controversial HIV policy: the authorities warned the general population against sexual relations with immigrants from countries south of Sahara. The policy might reap benefits, but a certain cost was to stigmatise that group. This paper describes the analysis and defends the underlying consequentialistic ethics against other approaches involving rule-based ethics and benefit-cost analysis. The main argument is based on Hume's insight that reason alone does not prompt action; values will always be involved and should therefore be more explicitly focused on. The paper concludes that we need an extended notion of rationality that includes well-foundedness of values. Decision-makers should try to reach an emotional equilibrium where their values concerning the issue at hand become stable. The paradigm of decision analysis provides useful methods to approach this situation, although it must be considered only an input to policy rather than something producing a final answer.

摘要

相似文献

1
Value focused rationality in AIDS policy.
Health Policy. 2001 Jul;57(1):57-72. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00120-8.
2
Economic evaluation of programmes aiming at eradicating infectious diseases.
Health Policy. 1998 Jul;45(1):69-79. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(98)00032-3.
3
The use of numbers in ethical analysis.数字在伦理分析中的运用。
Health Care Anal. 1994 Feb;2(1):43-6. doi: 10.1007/BF02251336.
4
Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis.挪威的医疗保健优先排序:多准则决策分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Feb 15;12:39. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-39.
5
Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience.医疗保健中的优先事项设定:借鉴国际经验。
Health Policy. 1997 Oct;42(1):49-66. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(97)00054-7.
6
Using simulation for AIDS policy modeling: benefits for HIV/AIDS prevention policy makers in Vienna, Austria.利用模拟进行艾滋病政策建模:对奥地利维也纳的艾滋病毒/艾滋病预防政策制定者的益处。
Health Care Manag Sci. 2002 Apr;5(2):121-34. doi: 10.1023/a:1014433117269.
7
Balancing rationalities: gatekeeping in health care.平衡合理性:医疗保健中的把关
J Med Ethics. 2001 Feb;27(1):25-9. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.1.25.
8
Economic and Policy Analytic Approaches to Inform the Acceleration of HIV Prevention in the United States: Future Directions for the Field.为加速美国艾滋病预防提供信息的经济与政策分析方法:该领域的未来方向
AIDS Educ Prev. 2018 Jun;30(3):199-207. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2018.30.3.199.
9
Can economic evaluation guidelines improve efficiency in resource allocation? The cases of Portugal, The Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom.经济评估指南能否提高资源配置效率?以葡萄牙、荷兰、芬兰和英国为例。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Autumn;16(4):1179-92. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300103216.
10
Medical resource allocation: rationing and ethical considerations--Part I.医疗资源分配:配给与伦理考量——第一部分
Physician Exec. 1994 Feb;20(2):3-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Comprehensive value assessment of drugs using a multi-criteria decision analysis: An example of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment.采用多准则决策分析对药物进行综合价值评估:以转移性结直肠癌治疗的靶向治疗为例。
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 12;14(12):e0225938. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225938. eCollection 2019.
2
Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature.使用多标准决策分析评估医疗保健干预措施的价值:文献综述
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):345-65. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0135-0.