Suppr超能文献

澳大利亚公众对公立医院高成本药物的优先排序看法。

Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia.

作者信息

Gallego Gisselle, Taylor Susan J, McNeill Paul, Brien Jo-anne E

机构信息

Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2007 Sep;10(3):224-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00439.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To gather information about views of members of the general public about access to High Cost Medications (HCMs) in public hospitals.

METHODS

A structured questionnaire was administered to members of the general public. Individuals were approached in train stations, shopping centres and different venues in the Sydney metropolitan area. People were eligible to answer the survey if they were: over 18 years of age, Australian permanent residents and able to complete the questionnaire in English.

RESULTS

Two hundred people completed the survey. Of these 56% were females, 47% were married, 84% spoke English at home, 88% were working either full-time or part-time, 61% had a university degree, 27% had a household annual income greater than 100,000 dollars and 68% had private health insurance. Participants considered factors such as treatment outcomes, quality of life and current health status when determining who should have access to HCMs. Participants wanted resources to be allocated to provide the 'greatest benefit to the greatest number of people'. Almost half the respondents did not want direct involvement in decision-making, however, 38% did.

CONCLUSIONS

The results offered support for indirect involvement through the development of a process to involve community members in discussion on policy on the provision of treatment and services within health-care institutions and specifically, to seek the views of members of the public on the provision of HCMs and expensive services within public hospitals.

摘要

目的

收集公众对公立医院获取高成本药物(HCMs)的看法。

方法

对公众进行结构化问卷调查。在悉尼都会区的火车站、购物中心和不同场所接触个人。如果他们符合以下条件,则有资格回答调查:年龄超过18岁、澳大利亚永久居民且能够用英语完成问卷。

结果

200人完成了调查。其中56%为女性,47%已婚,84%在家说英语,88%全职或兼职工作,61%拥有大学学位,27%家庭年收入超过10万美元,68%拥有私人医疗保险。参与者在确定谁应能获取高成本药物时会考虑治疗结果、生活质量和当前健康状况等因素。参与者希望资源分配能“为最多的人带来最大的益处”。近一半的受访者不希望直接参与决策,然而,38%的受访者希望。

结论

结果支持通过制定一个让社区成员参与医疗机构内治疗和服务提供政策讨论的流程来进行间接参与,特别是就公立医院高成本药物和昂贵服务的提供征求公众意见。

相似文献

1
Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia.
Health Expect. 2007 Sep;10(3):224-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00439.x.
3
Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: a case study.
Health Policy. 2007 Nov;84(1):58-66. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.008. Epub 2007 Jul 6.
4
Priority to End of Life Treatments? Views of the Public in the Netherlands.
Value Health. 2017 Jan;20(1):107-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.544. Epub 2017 Jan 5.
5
Funding and access to high cost medicines in public hospitals in Australia: decision-makers' perspectives.
Health Policy. 2009 Sep;92(1):27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.02.001. Epub 2009 Mar 9.
6
[Rationing health care by thresholds for clinical benefit and its acceptance by the German population].
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):426-34. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.008. Epub 2012 Jul 6.
7
[Critical reflections on the prioritisation debate: are we setting the right priorities to address our prioritisation challenges?].
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):397-403. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.003. Epub 2012 Jun 29.
8
Equal access for equal need: Eliciting public preferences for access to health treatment by employment status.
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Feb;222:246-255. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.003. Epub 2019 Jan 10.
9
Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Mar;56(5):1001-12. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00091-6.

引用本文的文献

2
What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions.
MDM Policy Pract. 2018 Sep 25;3(2):2381468318799628. doi: 10.1177/2381468318799628. eCollection 2018 Jul-Dec.
4
Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study.
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2021 Jul 13;14(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s40545-021-00345-4.
5
Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare.
Health Care Anal. 2021 Sep;29(3):189-212. doi: 10.1007/s10728-020-00424-8. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
6
Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017 Aug 9;15:16. doi: 10.1186/s12962-017-0078-3. eCollection 2017.
7
Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia.
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 1;12(3):e0172971. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172971. eCollection 2017.
8
Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 9;11(6):e0157018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157018. eCollection 2016.

本文引用的文献

1
Tailoring access to high cost, genetically targeted drugs.
Med J Aust. 2005 Jun 20;182(12):607-8. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06844.x.
2
Pharmaceuticals and the consumer movement: the ambivalences of 'patient power'.
Aust Health Rev. 2004 Nov 8;28(2):228-37. doi: 10.1071/ah040228.
3
Whose health service is it anyway? Community values in healthcare.
Med J Aust. 2004 Jan 19;180(2):76-8. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05804.x.
5
Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Mar;56(5):1001-12. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00091-6.
6
An ethical template for pharmacy benefits.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2003 Jan-Feb;22(1):125-37. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.1.125.
8
'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making.
Soc Sci Med. 2002 Jun;54(12):1825-37. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00151-4.
9
Medicine, public health, and the ethics of rationing.
Perspect Biol Med. 2002 Winter;45(1):16-30. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2002.0018.
10
Doctors refuse to operate on 80 year old man.
BMJ. 1998 Dec 5;317(7172):1548. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7172.1548.

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