Norheim Ole Frithjof
Section for Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Science, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Health Care Anal. 2002;10(3):309-17. doi: 10.1023/A:1022955909060.
Assessment of evidence is becoming a central part of health policy decisions--not least in limit setting decisions. Limit-setting decisions can be defined as the withholding of potentially beneficial health care. This article seeks to explore the value choices related to the use of evidence in limit-setting decisions at the political level. To better specify the important but restricted role of evidence in such decisions, the value choices of relevance are discussed explicitly. Four criteria are often considered when setting limits: 1. The severity of disease if untreated or treated by standard care 2. The effectiveness of the new technology 3. The cost-effectiveness of the new technology 4. The quality of evidence on (1)-(3) The production and assessment of evidence is important for each criterion, but several points are identified where the practice of evidence-based medicine could be further developed to capture a broader spectrum of ethical and political concerns that such decisions naturally evoke among citizens.
证据评估正成为卫生政策决策的核心部分——尤其是在设定限制的决策中。设定限制的决策可定义为拒绝提供可能有益的医疗保健。本文旨在探讨在政治层面设定限制的决策中与证据使用相关的价值选择。为了更明确证据在这类决策中重要但有限的作用,将明确讨论相关性的价值选择。设定限制时通常会考虑四个标准:1. 疾病若不治疗或采用标准治疗的严重程度;2. 新技术的有效性;3. 新技术的成本效益;4. 关于(1)至(3)的证据质量。证据的产生和评估对每个标准都很重要,但也指出了几个要点,在这些要点上循证医学的实践可以进一步发展,以涵盖这类决策自然引发的公民中更广泛的伦理和政治关切。