Maciosek Michael V, Edwards Nichol M, Coffield Ashley B, Flottemesch Thomas J, Nelson Winnie W, Goodman Michael J, Solberg Leif I
HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Jul;31(1):90-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.011.
Decision makers want to know which healthcare services matter the most, but there are no well-established, practical methods for providing evidence-based answers to such questions. Led by the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, the authors update the methods for determining the relative health impact and economic value of clinical preventive services. Using new studies, new preventive service recommendations, and improved methods, the authors present a new ranking of clinical preventive services in the companion article. The original ranking and methods were published in this journal in 2001. The current methods report focuses on evidence collection for a priority setting exercise, guidance for which is effectively lacking in the literature. The authors describe their own standards for searching, tracking, and abstracting literature for priority setting. The authors also summarize their methods for making valid comparisons across different services. This report should be useful to those who want to understand additional detail about how the ranking was developed or who want to adapt the methods for their own purposes.
决策者想知道哪些医疗服务最为重要，但目前尚无成熟实用的方法来为这类问题提供基于证据的答案。在国家预防重点委员会的领导下，作者们更新了确定临床预防服务相对健康影响和经济价值的方法。作者们利用新的研究、新的预防服务建议以及改进后的方法，在配套文章中给出了临床预防服务的新排名。最初的排名和方法于2001年发表在本期刊上。当前的方法报告侧重于为优先事项设定活动收集证据，而文献中实际上缺乏对此的指导。作者们描述了他们自己在为优先事项设定搜索、跟踪和提炼文献方面的标准。作者们还总结了他们在不同服务之间进行有效比较的方法。本报告对于那些想了解排名是如何制定的更多细节或者想根据自身目的调整方法的人应该会有所帮助。
