Youngkong Sitaporn, Kapiriri Lydia, Baltussen Rob
Nijmegen International Center for Health Systems Research and Education, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Trop Med Int Health. 2009 Aug;14(8):930-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02311.x. Epub 2009 Jun 26.
To assess and summarize empirical studies on priority-setting in developing countries.
Literature review of empirical studies on priority-setting of health interventions in developing countries in Medline and EMBASE (Ovid) databases.
Eighteen studies were identified and classified according to their characteristics and methodological approaches. All studies were published after 1999, mostly between 2006 and 2008. Study objectives and methodologies varied considerably. Most studies identified sets of relevant criteria for priority-setting (17/18) and involved different stakeholders as respondents (11/18). Studies used qualitative (8/15) or quantitative (3/15) techniques, or combinations of these (4/15) to elicit preferences from respondents. In a few studies, respondents deliberated on results (3/18). A minority of studies (7/18) resulted in a rank ordering of interventions.
This review has revealed an increase in the number of empirical studies on priority-setting in developing countries in the past decade. Methods for explicit priority-setting are developing, being reported and are verifiable and replicable and can potentially lead to solutions for ad hoc policy-making in health care in many developing countries.
评估并总结发展中国家确定优先事项的实证研究。
对Medline和EMBASE(Ovid)数据库中有关发展中国家卫生干预措施确定优先事项的实证研究进行文献综述。
共识别出18项研究,并根据其特征和方法进行了分类。所有研究均在1999年之后发表,大多发表于2006年至2008年之间。研究目标和方法差异很大。大多数研究确定了一系列确定优先事项的相关标准(17/18),并让不同利益相关者作为受访者参与(11/18)。研究使用定性(8/15)或定量(3/15)技术,或两者结合(4/15)来获取受访者的偏好。在少数研究中,受访者对结果进行了审议(3/18)。少数研究(7/18)得出了干预措施的排序。
本综述表明,在过去十年中,发展中国家确定优先事项的实证研究数量有所增加。明确确定优先事项的方法正在不断发展、得到报道,并且可验证、可复制,有可能为许多发展中国家医疗保健方面的临时决策提供解决方案。