• 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

英国的卫生技术评估:评估与评价。

Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal.

作者信息

Walley Tom

机构信息

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Liverpool University, and Royal Liverpool University Hospital, UK.

出版信息

Med J Aust. 2007 Sep 3;187(5):283-5. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01244.x.

DOI:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01244.x
PMID:17767433
Abstract

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme in England is a government-funded but independent research program. It is "needs-led", identifying technologies of most importance to the National Health Service and commissioning research to provide answers on these technologies useful to policymakers, clinicians and patients. It is "science-added", refining problems to researchable questions and working with researchers to ensure that the question is addressed, and disseminating the findings to key audiences. There is a clear distinction in England between assessment (a scientific process and the role of the HTA Programme) and appraisal (the role of policymakers, like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). There are many features common to HTA in Australia and England, but also differences, as HTA in each country has to adapt to its own environment.

摘要

英国的卫生技术评估(HTA)项目是一个由政府资助但独立的研究项目。它是“需求导向型”的,确定对国民医疗服务体系最为重要的技术,并委托开展研究,为政策制定者、临床医生和患者提供有关这些技术的有用答案。它是“科学补充型”的,将问题细化为可研究的问题,并与研究人员合作以确保问题得到解决,然后将研究结果传播给关键受众。在英国,评估(一个科学过程以及HTA项目的职责)和评价(政策制定者的职责,如国家卫生与临床优化研究所)之间存在明显区别。澳大利亚和英国的卫生技术评估有许多共同特征,但也存在差异,因为每个国家的卫生技术评估都必须适应其自身环境。

相似文献

1
Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal.英国的卫生技术评估:评估与评价。
Med J Aust. 2007 Sep 3;187(5):283-5. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01244.x.
2
Health technology assessment in England and Wales.英格兰和威尔士的卫生技术评估
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 Winter;20(1):11-24. doi: 10.1017/s0266462304000741.
3
The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003-13: a multimethod evaluation.2003 - 2013年英国国家卫生研究院卫生技术评估项目的影响:多方法评估
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Aug;19(67):1-291. doi: 10.3310/hta19670.
4
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.
5
Health technology assessment for the NHS in England and Wales.英格兰和威尔士国民医疗服务体系的卫生技术评估
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Spring;18(2):161-5. doi: 10.1017/s0266462302000168.
6
The cancer technology appraisal programme of the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所的癌症技术评估项目。
Lancet Oncol. 2003 Apr;4(4):242-50. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(03)01036-2.
7
Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland.卫生技术评估(HTA)案例研究:影响澳大利亚、加拿大、英格兰和苏格兰卫生技术评估报销建议分歧的因素
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):320-328. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.014. Epub 2016 Dec 22.
8
Does the use of health technology assessment have an impact on the utilisation of health care resources? Evidence from two European countries.卫生技术评估的使用是否会对医疗保健资源的利用产生影响?来自两个欧洲国家的证据。
Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Jun;21(4):621-634. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01160-5. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
9
On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales.英国的“国民健康与临床优化研究所”(NICE):英格兰和威尔士国民医疗服务体系(NHS)技术评估指南
Health Econ. 2002 Apr;11(3):185-91. doi: 10.1002/hec.706.
10
Is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England more 'innovation-friendly' than the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) in Germany?英国的国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)是否比德国的联邦联合委员会(G-BA)更“有利于创新”?
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019 Aug;19(4):453-462. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2019.1559732. Epub 2018 Dec 30.

引用本文的文献

1
Under careful construction: combining findings, arguments, and values into robust health care coverage decisions.精心构建:将发现、论点和价值观结合起来,做出稳健的医疗保健覆盖决策。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Jun 7;22(1):756. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07781-1.
2
Necessity under construction - societal weighing rationality in the appraisal of health care technologies.必要性的构建——社会在医疗技术评估中的权衡理性。
Health Econ Policy Law. 2021 Oct;16(4):457-472. doi: 10.1017/S1744133120000341. Epub 2020 Sep 21.
3
Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial.
让临床专家参与卫生技术评估议题的优先级排序:一项随机对照试验。
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 21;7(8):e016104. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016104.
4
Assessment vs. appraisal of ethical aspects of health technology assessment: can the distinction be upheld?健康技术评估伦理方面的评估与评价:这种区分能否成立?
GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014 Nov 26;10:Doc05. doi: 10.3205/hta000121. eCollection 2014.
5
A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines.一项旨在确定在药物卫生技术评估中进一步改进患者和公众参与的试点研究。
Patient. 2012;5(3):199-211. doi: 10.1007/BF03262492.
6
Translating comparative effectiveness research into clinical practice: the UK experience.将比较效果研究转化为临床实践:英国的经验。
Drugs. 2012 Jan 22;72(2):163-70. doi: 10.2165/11630860-000000000-00000.
7
Using comparative effectiveness research to inform policy and practice in the UK HHS: past, present and future.利用比较效果研究为英国 HHS 的政策和实践提供信息:过去、现在和未来。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):799-811. doi: 10.2165/11535260-000000000-00000.
8
Improving health care efficiency and quality using tablet personal computers to collect research-quality, patient-reported data.使用平板电脑收集具有研究质量的患者报告数据,以提高医疗保健效率和质量。
Health Serv Res. 2008 Dec;43(6):1975-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00887.x. Epub 2008 Aug 28.