Navarro V
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Int J Health Serv. 2001;31(4):875-80. doi: 10.2190/JM89-J9HR-E8VB-KYM9.
The WHO's World Health Report 2000, entitled Health Systems: Improving Performance, and Christopher Murray and Julio Frenk's replies to Vicente Navarro's critique of that report, reproduce an unawareness of the errors inherent in using a synthetic indicator such as overall health systems performance: the complexity and difficulty in selecting and weighting the many individual indicators that are to be included in the final, overall indicator. Decisions about how to weight the importance of the various components of the overall indicator and the sources used to select information on those components reproduce a set of highly questionable assumptions and heavily loaded ideological choices that weaken the scientific credibility of the overall indicator and of the WHO report itself. This transforms the report into a political ideological document that simply conveys and perpetuates the current conventional wisdom in health policy.
世界卫生组织2000年的《世界卫生报告》,题为《卫生系统:提高绩效》,以及克里斯托弗·默里和胡利奥·弗伦克对维森特·纳瓦罗对该报告批评的回应,都体现出对使用诸如整体卫生系统绩效这样的综合指标所固有的错误缺乏认识:在选择和权衡最终的整体指标中要纳入的众多单个指标时的复杂性和困难。关于如何权衡整体指标各组成部分的重要性以及用于选择这些组成部分信息的来源的决策,再现了一系列极有问题的假设和负载过重的意识形态选择,这些削弱了整体指标以及世卫组织报告本身的科学可信度。这将该报告转变为一份政治意识形态文件,只是传达并延续了当前卫生政策中的传统观念。