Suppr超能文献

公民在确定医疗保健优先事项方面的审议。

Citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities.

作者信息

Murphy Norma Jean

机构信息

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2005 Jun;8(2):172-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00326.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Citizen deliberation is a prominent theme in health policy literature. It is believed that citizens who deliberate may influence the setting of public health-care priorities. Currently, in some jurisdictions, citizens are members of community health boards, and thus have a forum to articulate and share values that could affect the reduction of health inequalities within their communities. However, there is little conceptual clarity on the character of citizen deliberation, or, more specifically, how citizens may articulate and share values.

OBJECTIVES

This paper reviews the literature on citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities; discusses potential challenges for citizens in setting health-care priorities; outlines a developing theory of citizen deliberation; describes how citizens may articulate and share values that ground their health-care priorities and outlines implications of a developing theory of citizen deliberation, its relevance to UK study findings, and to community health boards in setting health-care priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

As members of community health boards, citizens can evaluate their subjective experiences. In reasoning about embedded values, citizens may gain insight into the kind of community they aspire to be, and, in that process, examine their intentions, including whether to serve self or other(s). Citizens who articulate and share values such as respect, generosity or equity may justify health-care priorities that create opportunities for all community members to gain mastery over their lives.

摘要

背景

公民审议是卫生政策文献中的一个突出主题。人们认为,参与审议的公民可能会影响公共卫生保健优先事项的设定。目前,在一些司法管辖区,公民是社区卫生委员会的成员,因此有一个论坛来阐明和分享可能影响其社区内减少健康不平等现象的价值观。然而,对于公民审议的性质,或者更具体地说,公民如何阐明和分享价值观,在概念上还不够清晰。

目的

本文回顾了关于公民审议在设定卫生保健优先事项方面的文献;讨论了公民在设定卫生保健优先事项时可能面临的潜在挑战;概述了一种正在发展的公民审议理论;描述了公民如何阐明和分享作为其卫生保健优先事项基础的价值观,并概述了一种正在发展的公民审议理论的影响、其与英国研究结果的相关性以及对社区卫生委员会在设定卫生保健优先事项方面的相关性。

结论

作为社区卫生委员会的成员,公民可以评估他们的主观经历。在思考内在价值观时,公民可能会深入了解他们渴望成为的那种社区,并在这个过程中审视他们的意图,包括是否为自己或他人服务。阐明和分享尊重、慷慨或公平等价值观的公民可能会为卫生保健优先事项提供正当理由,这些优先事项为所有社区成员创造了掌控自己生活的机会。

相似文献

1
Citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities.
Health Expect. 2005 Jun;8(2):172-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00326.x.
2
The Dutch Citizen Forum on Public Reimbursement of Healthcare: A Qualitative Analysis of Opinion Change.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Feb 1;11(2):118-127. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.81.
3
Citizens' juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome.
Health Expect. 2008 Sep;11(3):272-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00502.x.
4
Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting.
Health Policy. 2003 Oct;66(1):95-106. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(03)00048-4.
5
Involving citizens and patients in health research.
J Ambul Care Manage. 2010 Jul-Sep;33(3):215-22. doi: 10.1097/JAC.0b013e3181e62bd7.
6
Engaging citizens in local health policymaking. A realist explorative case-study.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265404. eCollection 2022.
7
Do consumer voices in health-care citizens' juries matter?
Health Expect. 2016 Oct;19(5):1015-22. doi: 10.1111/hex.12397. Epub 2015 Sep 28.
8
Reluctant rationers: public input to health care priorities.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Apr;2(2):103-11. doi: 10.1177/135581969700200208.
9
The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes.
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jun;74(12):1843-50. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.023. Epub 2012 Mar 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Participatory epidemiology: the contribution of participatory research to epidemiology.
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2017 Feb 10;14:2. doi: 10.1186/s12982-017-0056-4. eCollection 2017.
5
Pandemic influenza communication: views from a deliberative forum.
Health Expect. 2009 Sep;12(3):331-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00562.x.
6
What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A Citizens' Jury of young people in South Wales.
Health Expect. 2006 Sep;9(3):207-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00387.x.

本文引用的文献

2
Giving citizens a voice in healthcare policy in Canada.
BMJ. 2003 May 10;326(7397):1031-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1031.
4
Reluctant rationers: public input to health care priorities.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Apr;2(2):103-11. doi: 10.1177/135581969700200208.
5
Revisiting community participation.
Health Policy Plan. 1998 Mar;13(1):1-12. doi: 10.1093/heapol/13.1.1.
6
Core values in health care reform: a communitarian approach.
Health Care Manag. 1994 Aug;1(1):115-23.
8
Social capital, income inequality, and mortality.
Am J Public Health. 1997 Sep;87(9):1491-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.9.1491.
9
10
Health care rationing: the public's debate.
BMJ. 1996 Mar 16;312(7032):670-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7032.670.

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