Suppr超能文献

应该优先考虑什么——为相对少数人提供昂贵的药物,还是为许多人提供便宜的药物?以色列的健康议会公众咨询倡议。

What should be given a priority - costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel.

作者信息

Guttman Nurit, Shalev Carmel, Kaplan Giora, Abulafia Ahuva, Bin-Nun Gabi, Goffer Ronen, Ben-Moshe Roei, Tal Orna, Shani Mordechai, Lev Boaz

机构信息

Department of Communication, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2008 Jun;11(2):177-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00485.x. Epub 2008 Apr 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the past two decades, government and civic organizations have been implementing a wide range of deliberative public consultations on health care-related policy. Drawing on these experiences, a public consultation initiative in Israel called the Health Parliament was established.

GOALS

To implement a public consultation initiative that will engage members of the public in the discussion of four healthcare policy questions associated with equity in health services and on priorities for determining which medications and treatments should be included in the basket of national health services.

METHOD

One hundred thirty-two participants from the general population recruited through a random sample were provided with background materials and met over several months in six regional sites. Dilemma activities were used and consultants were available for questions and clarifications. Participants presented their recommendations in a national assembly to the Minister of Health.

OUTCOMES

Across the regional groups the recommendations were mostly compatible, in particular regarding considering the healthcare system's monetary state, even at the expense of equity, but for each policy question minority views were also expressed. A strong emphasis in the recommendations was pragmatism.

CONCLUSION

Participants felt the experience was worthwhile; though the actual impact of their recommendations on policy making was indirect, they were willing to participate in future consultations. However, despite enthusiasm the initiative was not continued. Issues raised are whether consultation initiatives must have a direct impact on healthcare policy decisions or can be mainly a venue to involve citizens in the deliberation of healthcare policy issues.

摘要

背景

在过去二十年里,政府和民间组织一直在就医疗保健相关政策开展广泛的公众协商活动。借鉴这些经验,以色列发起了一项名为“健康议会”的公众协商倡议。

目标

实施一项公众协商倡议,让公众参与讨论与医疗服务公平性相关的四个医疗保健政策问题,以及确定哪些药物和治疗应纳入国家医疗服务范围的优先事项。

方法

通过随机抽样从普通人群中招募了132名参与者,为他们提供背景资料,并在六个月的时间里在六个地区地点举行会议。采用了两难问题活动,并有顾问解答问题和提供说明。参与者在国民议会向卫生部长提交了他们的建议。

结果

各地区小组的建议大多一致,特别是在考虑医疗保健系统的资金状况方面,即使以牺牲公平性为代价,但对于每个政策问题也都表达了少数派观点。建议中强烈强调实用主义。

结论

参与者认为这次经历是值得的;尽管他们的建议对政策制定的实际影响是间接的,但他们愿意参与未来的协商。然而,尽管热情高涨,该倡议并未继续开展。提出的问题是,协商倡议是否必须对医疗保健政策决策产生直接影响,还是主要可以作为让公民参与医疗保健政策问题审议的一个场所。

相似文献

2
Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Feb 7;17(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0411-8.
3
Inequalities and healthcare reform in Chile: equity of what?
J Med Ethics. 2008 Sep;34(9):e13. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.022715.
4
[Ethical basis of priority setting in healthcare].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):867-73. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1116-x.
5
Redressing dis-advantage: promoting vertical equity within South Africa.
Health Care Anal. 2000;8(3):235-58. doi: 10.1023/A:1009483700049.
6
[Priority to whom? Prioritizing in the public health system].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):865-6. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1121-0.
8
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
9
Efficiency and equity considerations in the preferences of health policy-makers in Israel.
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2017 Apr 1;6:18. doi: 10.1186/s13584-017-0142-7. eCollection 2017.
10
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

1
What justifies public engagement in health financing decisions?
Bull World Health Organ. 2025 Jan 1;103(1):32-36. doi: 10.2471/BLT.24.291860.
5
The Long and Winding Road to Innovation.
Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2015 Jul 30;6(3):e0030. doi: 10.5041/RMMJ.10215.
6
Public attitudes and values in priority setting.
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015 Jun 19;4:29. doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0025-8. eCollection 2015.
7
What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review.
Health Expect. 2015 Apr;18(2):153-65. doi: 10.1111/hex.12038. Epub 2012 Dec 18.
8
Shared decision-making in Israel: status, barriers, and recommendations.
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012 Jan 30;1(1):5. doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-1-5.
9
Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?
Patient. 2011;4(4):207-25. doi: 10.2165/11588880-000000000-00000.
10
What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?
Eur J Health Econ. 2011 Aug;12(4):285-8. doi: 10.1007/s10198-011-0320-4.

本文引用的文献

1
What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A Citizens' Jury of young people in South Wales.
Health Expect. 2006 Sep;9(3):207-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00387.x.
2
Joe public v. the general public: the role of the courts in Israeli health care policy.
J Law Med Ethics. 2005 Winter;33(4):650-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2005.tb00533.x.
3
Grounded citizens' juries: a tool for health activism?
Health Expect. 2004 Dec;7(4):290-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00295.x.
4
Public involvement in health care.
BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):159-61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.159.
5
Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting.
Health Policy. 2003 Oct;66(1):95-106. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(03)00048-4.
7
Giving citizens a voice in healthcare policy in Canada.
BMJ. 2003 May 10;326(7397):1031-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1031.
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
Defining core health services: the New Zealand experience.
Bioethics. 1995 Jul;9(3-4):252-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00359.x.
10
Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values.
Health Expect. 1999 Dec;2(4):222-234. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00062.x.

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