• 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

伦理与经济学:规划预算与边际分析有助于公平的优先事项设定吗?

Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting?

作者信息

Gibson Jennifer, Mitton Craig, Martin Douglas, Donaldson Cam, Singer Peter

机构信息

Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, 88 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1L4, Canada.

出版信息

J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006 Jan;11(1):32-7. doi: 10.1258/135581906775094280.

DOI:10.1258/135581906775094280
PMID:16378530
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Limited resources mean that decision-makers must set priorities among competing opportunities. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is an economic approach that focuses on optimizing benefits with available resources. Accountability for reasonableness (A4R) is an ethics approach that focuses on ensuring fair priority-setting processes. PBMA and A4R have been used separately to provide decision-makers with advice about how to set priorities within limited resources. The goals of this research were to use the A4R framework to evaluate the fairness of using PBMA for priority setting and to assess how A4R might make PBMA fairer.

METHODS

Qualitative case studies to describe priority setting using PBMA in the Calgary Health Region (Alberta, Canada) evaluated using A4R as a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

The use of PBMA for priority setting was fairer than previous priority setting because of its emphasis on explicit rational decision-making. However, there were opportunities to improve the process, particularly by collecting data related to the decision criteria, by developing a communication plan to engage internal and external stakeholders about priority-setting, and by providing a formal mechanism to review priority-setting decisions and resolve disputes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potential for combining A4R and PBMA in a more comprehensive approach to priority setting, which uses a fair priority-setting process to reach decisions aimed at achieving optimal benefits with available resources.

摘要

目的

资源有限意味着决策者必须在相互竞争的机会中确定优先事项。项目预算编制与边际分析(PBMA)是一种经济方法,侧重于利用可用资源优化效益。合理性问责制(A4R)是一种伦理方法,侧重于确保公平的优先事项确定过程。PBMA和A4R已被分别用于为决策者提供关于如何在有限资源内确定优先事项的建议。本研究的目的是使用A4R框架评估使用PBMA确定优先事项的公平性,并评估A4R如何使PBMA更公平。

方法

采用定性案例研究,以A4R作为概念框架,描述加拿大艾伯塔省卡尔加里健康区域使用PBMA确定优先事项的情况。

结果

使用PBMA确定优先事项比以前的优先事项确定方法更公平,因为它强调明确的理性决策。然而,仍有改进这一过程的机会,特别是通过收集与决策标准相关的数据,制定一项沟通计划以使内部和外部利益相关者参与优先事项确定,以及提供一个正式机制来审查优先事项确定决策并解决争议。

结论

将A4R和PBMA结合起来用于确定优先事项的更全面方法具有潜力,该方法使用公平的优先事项确定过程来做出决策,旨在利用可用资源实现最佳效益。

相似文献

1
Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting?伦理与经济学:规划预算与边际分析有助于公平的优先事项设定吗?
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006 Jan;11(1):32-7. doi: 10.1258/135581906775094280.
2
Priority setting in healthcare: towards guidelines for the program budgeting and marginal analysis framework.医疗保健中的优先级设置:迈向方案预算编制和边际分析框架指南。
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 Oct;10(5):539-52. doi: 10.1586/erp.10.66.
3
Priority setting in health care using multi-attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA).运用多属性效用理论以及规划预算和边际分析(PBMA)进行医疗保健中的优先事项设定。
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Feb;64(4):897-910. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.029. Epub 2006 Dec 4.
4
Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs.介绍家庭和社区护理项目中的优先事项设定与资源分配。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Jan;13 Suppl 1:41-5. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007064.
5
Priority setting in a hospital critical care unit: qualitative case study.医院重症监护病房的优先级设定:定性案例研究
Crit Care Med. 2003 Dec;31(12):2764-8. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098440.74735.DE.
6
Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think?基于证据的优先事项设定:决策者怎么看?
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004 Jul;9(3):146-52. doi: 10.1258/1355819041403240.
7
Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?公平性与合理的问责制。不同卫生系统以及决策层级中,确定优先事项的决策者的观点是否存在差异?
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Feb;68(4):766-73. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.011. Epub 2008 Dec 11.
8
Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?实践中的优先级设定:比较成本与效益的最佳方法是什么?
Health Econ. 2009 Apr;18(4):467-78. doi: 10.1002/hec.1380.
9
Priority-setting for healthcare: who, how, and is it fair?医疗保健的优先事项设定:谁来设定、如何设定以及是否公平?
Health Policy. 2007 Dec;84(2-3):220-33. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.009. Epub 2007 Jul 12.
10
Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) to set priorities: reflections from a qualitative assessment in an English Primary Care Trust.运用计划预算编制和边际分析(PBMA)确定优先事项:在英国初级保健信托机构进行定性评估的思考。
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Dec;98:162-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.020. Epub 2013 Oct 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Priority Setting in the Context of Planetary Healthcare.全球健康背景下的优先级设定
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 Jun 24. doi: 10.1007/s40258-025-00980-x.
2
Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review.新型药物和疗法的机构优先排序:定性系统评价。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:7494. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2024.7494. Epub 2024 Feb 10.
3
Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study.
优先考虑医院为高成本创新药物和疗法提供资金:一项定性的机构案例研究。
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 18;19(3):e0300519. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300519. eCollection 2024.
4
Developing a combined framework for priority setting in integrated health and social care systems.制定综合卫生和社会保健系统优先事项设定的综合框架。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Aug 21;23(1):879. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09866-x.
5
A qualitative evaluation of priority-setting by the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel in Kenya.肯尼亚卫生福利包咨询小组的优先事项设定的定性评估。
Health Policy Plan. 2023 Jan 6;38(1):49-60. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czac099.
6
Comparing Public and Provider Preferences for Setting Healthcare Priorities: Evidence from Kuwait.比较公众与医疗服务提供者在确定医疗保健优先事项上的偏好:来自科威特的证据。
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 May 8;9(5):552. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9050552.
7
Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices.卫生优先事项设定中的公共价值观与多元性:当人们意见分歧时该怎么做,以及为何我们不仅应关注选择,还应关注理由。
Soc Sci Med. 2021 May;277:113892. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113892. Epub 2021 Apr 2.
8
Addressing prioritization in healthcare amidst a global pandemic.在全球大流行中解决医疗保健的优先事项。
Healthc Manage Forum. 2021 Sep;34(5):252-255. doi: 10.1177/08404704211002539. Epub 2021 Apr 5.
9
Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries.描述高收入国家公共资助的医疗保健系统中优先排序和资源分配的实践。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jan 27;21(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06078-z.
10
Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review.医疗保健决策中的组织因素:文献综述
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2020 Aug 31;8(1):1810905. doi: 10.1080/20016689.2020.1810905.