• 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

相似文献

1
The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study.安大略省新癌症药物优先级设定决策对肿瘤内科医生临床实践的影响:一项定性研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Nov 28;7:193. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-193.
2
Continental Divide? The attitudes of US and Canadian oncologists on the costs, cost-effectiveness, and health policies associated with new cancer drugs.大陆分水岭?美国和加拿大肿瘤学家对新癌症药物相关成本、成本效益和卫生政策的态度。
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Sep 20;28(27):4149-53. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.1625. Epub 2010 Aug 9.
3
Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting.癌症治疗的资源分配:关于合理设定限制观念的定性研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 9;18(1):342. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3137-3.
4
Clinician Perspectives of COVID-19-Related Cancer Drug Funding Measures in Ontario.安大略省临床医生对与 COVID-19 相关的癌症药物资助措施的看法。
Curr Oncol. 2021 Feb 26;28(2):1056-1066. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28020103.
5
Attitude of Iranian Medical Oncologists Toward Economic Aspects, and Policy-making in Relation to New Cancer Drugs.伊朗肿瘤内科医生对新癌症药物经济方面及政策制定的态度。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Oct 20;5(2):99-105. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.186.
6
Oncologists' End of Life Treatment Decisions.肿瘤学家的临终治疗决策。
J Appl Gerontol. 2017 Apr;36(4):416-440. doi: 10.1177/0733464815595510. Epub 2016 Jul 9.
7
Medical Oncology Professionals' Perceptions of Telehealth Video Visits.医学肿瘤专业人士对远程医疗视频访问的看法。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jan 4;4(1):e2033967. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33967.
8
Oncologists' Views on Using Value to Guide Cancer Treatment Decisions.肿瘤学家对使用价值来指导癌症治疗决策的看法。
Value Health. 2018 Aug;21(8):931-937. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.005. Epub 2018 Mar 24.
9
Oncologists' Perceptions of Drug Affordability Using NCCN Evidence Blocks: Results from a National Survey.肿瘤学家对 NCCN 证据块药物可负担性的看法:来自全国性调查的结果。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018 Jun;24(6):565-571. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.17449. Epub 2018 Feb 16.
10
Do oncologists believe new cancer drugs offer good value?肿瘤学家认为新型抗癌药物具有良好的价值吗?
Oncologist. 2006 Feb;11(2):90-5. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.11-2-90.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of drug pricing drivers under South Korea's pharmaco-economic evaluation exemption policy (2015-2022).韩国药物经济学评估豁免政策(2015 - 2022年)下的药品定价驱动因素分析
Front Pharmacol. 2025 Jan 7;15:1519491. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1519491. eCollection 2024.
2
Current Attitudes toward Unfunded Cancer Therapies among Canadian Medical Oncologists.加拿大肿瘤医学专家对未资助癌症疗法的当前态度。
Curr Oncol. 2021 Nov 16;28(6):4748-4755. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28060400.
3
Moral Distress and Resilience Associated with Cancer Care Priority Setting in a Resource-Limited Context.资源有限情境下癌症照护优先排序相关的道德困境和适应力
Oncologist. 2021 Jul;26(7):e1189-e1196. doi: 10.1002/onco.13818. Epub 2021 May 28.
4
Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting.癌症治疗的资源分配:关于合理设定限制观念的定性研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 9;18(1):342. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3137-3.
5
Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.权衡、公平与抗癌药物资金:加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省一次公众参与协商活动的主要发现
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 8;18(1):339. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3117-7.
6
Attitude of Iranian Medical Oncologists Toward Economic Aspects, and Policy-making in Relation to New Cancer Drugs.伊朗肿瘤内科医生对新癌症药物经济方面及政策制定的态度。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Oct 20;5(2):99-105. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.186.
7
Overcoming obstacles in accessing unfunded oral chemotherapy: physician experience and challenges.克服获得未资助口服化疗药物的障碍:医生的经验和挑战。
J Oncol Pract. 2013 Jul;9(4):188-93. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000680. Epub 2013 Jan 2.
8
Less than ideal: how oncologists practice with limited drug access.不尽如人意:肿瘤医生在药物可及性有限的情况下的实践
J Oncol Pract. 2012 May;8(3):190-5. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000337. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
9
Variation and consternation: access to unfunded cancer drugs in Canada.变化与惊愕:加拿大获取无资金支持癌症药物的途径。
J Oncol Pract. 2012 Jan;8(1):35-9. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000278.
10
In a survey, marked inconsistency in how oncologists judged value of high-cost cancer drugs in relation to gains in survival.在一项调查中,肿瘤学家在判断高成本癌症药物的价值与生存获益方面存在显著的不一致。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Apr;31(4):709-17. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0251.

本文引用的文献

1
Breaking bad news: impact of a continuing medical education workshop.告知坏消息:继续医学教育研讨会的影响
J Palliat Care. 2003 Winter;19(4):238-45.
2
Communication skills in palliative care: a practical guide.姑息治疗中的沟通技巧:实用指南。
Neurol Clin. 2001 Nov;19(4):989-1004. doi: 10.1016/s0733-8619(05)70057-8.
3
Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study.新型癌症药物的优先级设定决策:一项定性案例研究
Lancet. 2001 Nov 17;358(9294):1676-81. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06714-9.
4
Funding new cancer drugs in Ontario: closing the loop in the practice guidelines development cycle.安大略省新型癌症药物的资金投入:完善实践指南制定周期中的环节
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jul 15;19(14):3392-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.14.3392.
5
Canadian oncologists and clinical practice guidelines: a national survey of attitudes and reported use. Provincial Lung Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario.加拿大肿瘤学家与临床实践指南:态度及报告使用情况的全国性调查。安大略癌症护理组织省级肺部疾病站点组
Oncology. 2000 Nov;59(4):283-90. doi: 10.1159/000012184.
6
Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.医学新技术的优先级设定:定性案例研究
BMJ. 2000 Nov 25;321(7272):1316-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316.
7
Accountability for reasonableness.合理性问责制。
BMJ. 2000 Nov 25;321(7272):1300-1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300.
8
SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer.SPIKES——传达坏消息的六步协议:应用于癌症患者
Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302-11. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-4-302.
9
Caring and cost: the challenge for physician advocacy.关怀与成本:医师倡导面临的挑战。
Ann Intern Med. 2000 Jul 18;133(2):148-53. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-133-2-200007180-00014.
10
Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritising new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold.专员和癌症专家在确定新癌症药物优先顺序方面的观点:证据阈值的影响
BMJ. 1999 Feb 13;318(7181):456-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7181.456.

安大略省新癌症药物优先级设定决策对肿瘤内科医生临床实践的影响:一项定性研究

The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study.

作者信息

Berry Scott R, Hubay Stacey, Soibelman Hagit, Martin Douglas K

机构信息

Division of Medical Oncology/Hematology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Nov 28;7:193. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-193.

DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-7-193
PMID:18042302
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2148046/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health care policies, including drug-funding policies, influence physician practice. Funding policies are especially important in the area of cancer care since cancer is a leading cause of death that is responsible for a significant level of health care expenditures. Recognizing the rising cost of cancer therapies, Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) established a funding process to provide access to new, effective agents through a "New Drug Funding Program" (NDFP). The purpose of this study is to describe oncologists' perceptions of the impact of NDFP priority setting decisions on their practice.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study involving semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 46 medical oncologists in Ontario. Oncologists were asked to describe the impact of CCO's NDFP drug funding decisions on their practice. Analysis of interview transcripts commenced with data collection.

RESULTS

Our key finding is that many of the medical oncologists who participated in this study did not accept limits when policy decisions limit access to cancer drugs they feel would benefit their patients. Moreover, overcoming those limits had a significant impact on oncologists' practice in terms of how they spend their time and energy and their relationship with patients.

CONCLUSION

When priority setting decisions limit access to cancer medications, many oncologists' efforts to overcome those limits have a significant impact on their practice. Policy makers need to seriously consider the implications of their decisions on physicians, who may go to considerable effort to circumvent their policies in the name of patient advocacy.

摘要

背景

包括药物资助政策在内的医疗保健政策会影响医生的行医方式。资助政策在癌症护理领域尤为重要,因为癌症是主要的死亡原因,导致了大量的医疗保健支出。鉴于癌症治疗成本不断上升,安大略癌症护理组织(CCO)制定了一个资助流程,通过“新药资助计划”(NDFP)让患者能够使用新的、有效的药物。本研究的目的是描述肿瘤学家对NDFP优先级设定决策对其行医方式影响的看法。

方法

这是一项定性研究,对安大略省的46名医学肿瘤学家进行了半结构化的深入访谈。肿瘤学家被要求描述CCO的NDFP药物资助决策对其行医方式的影响。访谈记录的分析从数据收集开始。

结果

我们的主要发现是,参与本研究的许多医学肿瘤学家在政策决策限制他们认为对患者有益的癌症药物的获取时,并不接受这些限制。此外,克服这些限制在肿瘤学家如何花费时间和精力以及他们与患者的关系方面对其行医方式产生了重大影响。

结论

当优先级设定决策限制癌症药物的获取时,许多肿瘤学家为克服这些限制所做的努力对其行医方式产生了重大影响。政策制定者需要认真考虑他们的决策对医生的影响,医生可能会以患者权益倡导者的名义付出巨大努力来规避他们的政策。