• 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

质量、创新与性价比:英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)与英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)

Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service.

作者信息

Pearson Steven D, Rawlins Michael D

机构信息

National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London, England.

出版信息

JAMA. 2005 Nov 23;294(20):2618-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.20.2618.

DOI:10.1001/jama.294.20.2618
PMID:16304076
Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was established as a part of the British National Health Service in 1999 to set standards for the adoption of new health care technologies and the management of specific conditions. In doing so it was required explicitly to take into account both clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This article describes how NICE has responded to the challenge and considers whether its experience of balancing quality, innovation, and value for money holds policy lessons for the United States.

摘要

英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)于1999年作为英国国家医疗服务体系的一部分而成立,旨在为新医疗技术的采用和特定病症的管理制定标准。在此过程中,明确要求其兼顾临床疗效和成本效益。本文描述了NICE如何应对这一挑战,并探讨其在平衡质量、创新和性价比方面的经验是否能为美国提供政策借鉴。

相似文献

1
Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service.质量、创新与性价比:英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)与英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)
JAMA. 2005 Nov 23;294(20):2618-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.20.2618.
2
Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所开展的比较效果评估
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;59:1-12.
3
NICE and new: appraising innovation.新颖与卓越:评估创新
BMJ. 2010 Jan 5;340:b5493. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5493.
4
Valuing health technologies at NICE: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所对医疗技术的评估:关于在卫生技术评估中更好纳入治疗价值的建议
Health Econ. 2010 Oct;19(10):1109-16. doi: 10.1002/hec.1654.
5
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). HTA rhyme and reason?国家临床优化研究所(NICE)。卫生技术评估有何道理?
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Spring;18(2):166-70. doi: 10.1017/s026646230200017x.
6
Making decisions on technology availability in the British National Health Service--why we need reliable models.关于英国国家医疗服务体系中技术可用性的决策——为何我们需要可靠的模型。
Value Health. 2003 Jan-Feb;6(1):3-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00002.x.
7
Implications of the appraisal function of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)评估功能的影响。
Value Health. 2001 May-Jun;4(3):212-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.43079.x.
8
Health technology adoption and the politics of governance in the UK.英国的健康技术采用与治理政治
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Dec;63(12):3102-12. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.009. Epub 2006 Sep 18.
9
Eliciting stated preferences for health-technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgments.使用成对比较和推荐判断来引出对健康技术采用标准的明确偏好。
Value Health. 2006 Sep-Oct;9(5):303-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00119.x.
10
Drug prices and value for money: the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.药品价格与性价比:澳大利亚药品福利计划
JAMA. 2005 Nov 23;294(20):2630-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.20.2630.

引用本文的文献

1
Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review.描述医疗保健提供者和医疗机构参与研究的证据基础:范围综述。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jan 24;23(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08887-2.
2
A Review of Economic Models Submitted to NICE's Technology Appraisal Programme, for Treatments of T1DM & T2DM.提交给英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所技术评估项目的用于治疗1型糖尿病和2型糖尿病的经济模型综述
Front Pharmacol. 2022 May 11;13:887298. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.887298. eCollection 2022.
3
Allergen Immunotherapy and Atopic Dermatitis: the Good, the Bad, and the Unknown.
变应原免疫治疗与特应性皮炎:有好有坏,仍有未知。
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2019 Nov 27;19(12):57. doi: 10.1007/s11882-019-0893-z.
4
The making of evidence-informed health policy in Cambodia: knowledge, institutions and processes.柬埔寨循证卫生政策的制定:知识、机构与过程
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Jun 22;3(3):e000652. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000652. eCollection 2018.
5
Public health policies and scientific evidence.公共卫生政策与科学证据。
Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2017 Oct-Dec;15(4):7-10. doi: 10.1590/S1679-45082017ED4314.
6
Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries.为何针对相同药物的卫生技术评估覆盖建议在不同地区存在差异?应用混合方法框架对四个欧洲国家的罕见病药物决策进行系统比较。
Eur J Health Econ. 2017 Jul;18(6):715-730. doi: 10.1007/s10198-016-0823-0. Epub 2016 Aug 18.
7
End points for comparative effectiveness research in heart failure.心力衰竭比较疗效研究的终点。
Heart Fail Clin. 2013 Jan;9(1):15-28. doi: 10.1016/j.hfc.2012.09.002. Epub 2012 Oct 18.
8
Cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians.临床医生的成本效益分析。
BMC Med. 2012 Feb 1;10:10. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-10.
9
Common Drug Review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations?常见药物评审建议:是否有证据支持预期?
Pharmacoeconomics. 2012 Mar;30(3):229-46. doi: 10.2165/11593030-000000000-00000.
10
Cardiogenic shock in ACS. Part 2: Role of mechanical circulatory support.急性冠脉综合征相关心原性休克。第 2 部分:机械循环支持的作用。
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2012 Jan 10;9(4):195-208. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2011.205.