Suppr超能文献

在初级医疗保健信托机构中确定卫生技术的优先次序。

Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust.

作者信息

Wilson Edward, Sussex Jon, Macleod Christine, Fordham Richard

机构信息

UEA/NHS Health Economics Support Programme, Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Health Policy & Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

出版信息

J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Apr;12(2):80-5. doi: 10.1258/135581907780279495.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the English National Health Service (NHS), Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning health-care services on behalf of their populations. As resources are finite, decisions are required as to which services best fulfil population needs. Evidence on effectiveness varies in quality and availability. Nevertheless, decisions still have to be made.

METHODS

We report the development and pilot application of a multi-criteria prioritization mechanism in an English PCT, capable of accommodating a wide variety of evidence to rank six service developments.

RESULTS

The mechanism proved valuable in assisting prioritization decisions and feedback was positive. Two community-based interventions were expected to save money in the long term and were ranked at the top of the list. Based on weighted benefit score and cost, two preventive programmes were ranked third and fourth. Finally, two National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-approved interventions were ranked fifth and sixth. Sensitivity analysis revealed overlap in benefit scores for some of the interventions, representing diversity of opinion among the scoring panel.

CONCLUSION

The method appears to be a practical approach to prioritization for commissioners of health care, but the pilot also revealed interesting divergences in relative priority between nationally mandated service developments and local health-care priorities.

摘要

背景

在英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)中,初级保健信托基金(PCTs)负责代表其服务人群委托开展医疗保健服务。由于资源有限,需要决定哪些服务最能满足人群需求。关于有效性的证据在质量和可得性方面存在差异。然而,决策仍需做出。

方法

我们报告了一种多标准优先排序机制在英国一个初级保健信托基金中的开发和试点应用,该机制能够纳入各种证据,对六个服务发展项目进行排名。

结果

该机制在协助优先排序决策方面被证明是有价值的,反馈是积极的。两项基于社区的干预措施预计从长远来看会节省资金,并排在清单首位。基于加权效益得分和成本,两项预防计划分别排在第三和第四位。最后,两项获得英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)批准的干预措施排在第五和第六位。敏感性分析显示,一些干预措施的效益得分存在重叠,这表明评分小组之间存在意见分歧。

结论

该方法似乎是医疗保健委托方进行优先排序的一种实用方法,但试点也揭示了国家规定的服务发展与地方医疗保健优先事项之间在相对优先顺序上有趣的差异。

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