• 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
Israeli lay persons' views on priority-setting criteria for Alzheimer's disease.以色列普通民众对阿尔茨海默病优先排序标准的看法。
Health Expect. 2009 Jun;12(2):187-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00523.x. Epub 2009 Mar 23.
2
Attitudes, knowledge, and preferences of the Israeli public regarding the allocation of donor organs for transplantation.以色列公众对捐赠器官用于移植的态度、知识和偏好。
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2020 May 4;9(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s13584-020-00376-3.
3
Lay person's recommendations about interventions for Alzheimer's disease: correlates and relationship to help-seeking behavior.非专业人士对阿尔茨海默病干预措施的建议:与求助行为的相关性及关系
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2004 Sep-Oct;19(5):309-15. doi: 10.1177/153331750401900512.
4
Gender differences in lay persons' beliefs and knowledge about Alzheimer's disease (AD): a national representative study of Israeli adults.普通人群对阿尔茨海默病(AD)的信念和知识的性别差异:一项对以色列成年人的全国代表性研究。
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013 Mar-Apr;56(2):400-4. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2012.11.001. Epub 2012 Dec 6.
5
Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholders' values.乌干达医疗保健领域确定优先事项的标准:利益相关者价值观探索
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Mar;82(3):172-9. Epub 2004 Apr 16.
6
Is there an association between help-seeking for early detection of Alzheimer's disease and illness representations of this disease among the lay public?公众是否会因为寻求帮助以早期发现阿尔茨海默病而对该疾病产生联想?
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017 Dec;32(12):e100-e106. doi: 10.1002/gps.4661. Epub 2017 Jan 23.
7
Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques.获取公众对医疗保健的偏好:技术的系统评价
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1-186. doi: 10.3310/hta5050.
8
Do the equity-efficiency preferences of the Israeli Basket Committee match those of Israeli health policy makers?以色列篮筐委员会的公平-效率偏好与以色列卫生政策制定者的偏好相符吗?
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2017 Apr 30;6:20. doi: 10.1186/s13584-017-0145-4. eCollection 2017.
9
Efficiency and equity considerations in the preferences of health policy-makers in Israel.以色列卫生政策制定者偏好中的效率与公平考量。
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2017 Apr 1;6:18. doi: 10.1186/s13584-017-0142-7. eCollection 2017.
10
Horizontal equity in medical care: a study of the Israeli public's views.
Isr Med Assoc J. 2000 Oct;2(10):746-52.

引用本文的文献

1
Laypersons' Priority-Setting Preferences for Allocating a COVID-19 Patient to a Ventilator: Does a Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Matter?非专业人士在为 COVID-19 患者分配呼吸机时的优先排序偏好:阿尔茨海默病的诊断是否重要?
Clin Interv Aging. 2020 Dec 23;15:2407-2414. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S283015. eCollection 2020.
2
Health Outcome Prioritization in Alzheimer's Disease: Understanding the Ethical Landscape.阿尔茨海默病的健康结果优先排序:理解伦理景观。
J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):339-353. doi: 10.3233/JAD-191300.
3
Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps.多准则决策分析(MCDA)在医疗保健中的应用:主要特征和方法步骤的系统评价。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Nov 1;18(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0663-1.
4
Weighting Health Outcomes by Socioeconomic Position Using Stated Preferences.运用陈述性偏好按社会经济地位对健康结果进行加权
Pharmacoecon Open. 2018 Mar;2(1):43-51. doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0036-1.
5
Fair reckoning: a qualitative investigation of responses to an economic health resource allocation survey.公正核算:对经济卫生资源配置调查回应的定性研究。
Health Expect. 2014 Apr;17(2):174-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00751.x. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
6
Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it 'in one ear and out the other'?评估审议过程对参与者观点的影响:是“一听了之”吗?
Health Expect. 2014 Apr;17(2):278-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00749.x. Epub 2012 Feb 2.
7
Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?社会价值观在医疗资源配置中的作用:是否全在于健康收益?
Patient. 2011;4(4):207-25. doi: 10.2165/11588880-000000000-00000.

本文引用的文献

1
An estimate of the total worldwide societal costs of dementia in 2005.2005年全球痴呆症社会总成本的估计数。
Alzheimers Dement. 2007 Apr;3(2):81-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.02.001.
2
An ethical analysis of international health priority-setting.国际卫生重点确定的伦理分析
Health Care Anal. 2008 Jun;16(2):145-60. doi: 10.1007/s10728-007-0065-5. Epub 2007 Aug 15.
3
Alzheimer's disease: epidemiology, genetics, and beyond.阿尔茨海默病:流行病学、遗传学及其他。
Neurosci Bull. 2008 Apr;24(2):105-9. doi: 10.1007/s12264-008-0105-7.
4
Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries.医疗保健中的优先事项设定:八个国家经验教训。
Int J Equity Health. 2008 Jan 21;7:4. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-7-4.
5
Economic considerations in the management of Alzheimer's disease.阿尔茨海默病管理中的经济考量
Clin Interv Aging. 2006;1(2):143-54. doi: 10.2147/ciia.2006.1.2.143.
6
Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study.公众参与等待时间管理倡议的优先级设定活动:一项定性案例研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Nov 16;7:186. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-186.
7
Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders.确定全球儿童健康研究投资的优先事项:考量利益相关者的价值观
Croat Med J. 2007 Oct;48(5):618-27.
8
Experts disagree over NICE's approach for assessing drugs.专家们对英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)评估药物的方法存在分歧。
Lancet. 2007 Aug 25;370(9588):643-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61321-X.
9
Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia.澳大利亚公众对公立医院高成本药物的优先排序看法。
Health Expect. 2007 Sep;10(3):224-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00439.x.
10
Prevention of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Major findings from the Kungsholmen Project.预防阿尔茨海默病和痴呆症。孔斯霍尔门项目的主要发现。
Physiol Behav. 2007 Sep 10;92(1-2):98-104. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.05.059. Epub 2007 May 25.

以色列普通民众对阿尔茨海默病优先排序标准的看法。

Israeli lay persons' views on priority-setting criteria for Alzheimer's disease.

作者信息

Werner Perla

机构信息

Department of Gerontology, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2009 Jun;12(2):187-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00523.x. Epub 2009 Mar 23.

DOI:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00523.x
PMID:19320752
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5060485/
Abstract

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess Israeli lay persons' preferences for setting priorities for the care of Alzheimer's disease (AD).

BACKGROUND

As the knowledge about AD accumulates, and especially as more therapeutic and non-therapeutic interventions for its early diagnosis and treatment are developed, health-care costs associated with the disease rise dramatically. Therefore, setting priorities for funding these therapies, as well as other costs associated with AD is becoming an increasingly complex need.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 624 community-dwelling men and women participated in the study (mean age = 49, range = 20-90). Participants were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with 18 criteria that would be used to set priorities for the allocation of resources in the area of AD.

RESULTS

High-weight criteria included being a life-threatening condition and the benefit of treatment. Average-weight criteria included the severity of the disease, treatment costs and equity of access. The age of the patient also was highly rated. All other patient-related criteria were rated as low. Value orientations and education were the main variables associated with participants' preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

The lay public seems to endorse a multi-criteria decision process for the allocation of resources in the area of AD. Similar to other diseases--disease-related criteria were highly preferred. These preferences should be compared with those of other stakeholders such as clinicians and policy makers.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估以色列普通民众对确定阿尔茨海默病(AD)护理优先级的偏好。

背景

随着对AD的认识不断积累,尤其是随着更多用于其早期诊断和治疗的治疗性和非治疗性干预措施的开发,与该疾病相关的医疗保健成本急剧上升。因此,确定为这些治疗以及与AD相关的其他成本提供资金的优先级正成为一项日益复杂的需求。

方法

一个由624名社区居民男女组成的便利样本参与了该研究(平均年龄 = 49岁,范围 = 20 - 90岁)。参与者被问及他们对用于确定AD领域资源分配优先级的18条标准的同意或不同意程度。

结果

高权重标准包括危及生命的状况和治疗益处。中等权重标准包括疾病严重程度、治疗成本和获得治疗的公平性。患者年龄也被高度重视。所有其他与患者相关的标准被评为低权重。价值取向和教育程度是与参与者偏好相关的主要变量。

结论

普通公众似乎支持在AD领域进行资源分配的多标准决策过程。与其他疾病类似,与疾病相关的标准备受青睐。这些偏好应与临床医生和政策制定者等其他利益相关者的偏好进行比较。