Normand Charles
Centre for Health Policy and Management, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Jul;38(1):27-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.04.005.
Tools for measuring outcomes in health and social care have become key parts of the processes of evaluation and setting priorities. Measures of output that can be used in all settings and specialties have the advantage that they facilitate comparisons and choices between and within patient groups. However, the most commonly used composite measure of outcomes, the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) appears not to work well in complex interventions, such as palliative care, leading to the paradox that there is evidence that people would give priority to interventions and services that would be shown not to be cost-effective, using QALYs as an outcome measure. This article explores the possible reasons for this paradox, and looks at alternative approaches that may provide better tools for setting priorities within palliative care and for comparison of palliative and other care services.
用于衡量健康和社会护理成果的工具已成为评估过程和确定优先事项的关键部分。可在所有环境和专业中使用的产出指标具有便于在患者群体之间及群体内部进行比较和选择的优势。然而,最常用的综合成果指标——质量调整生命年(QALY),在诸如姑息治疗等复杂干预措施中似乎效果不佳,这导致了一种矛盾现象:有证据表明,若将QALY作为成果指标,人们会优先选择那些被证明不具有成本效益的干预措施和服务。本文探讨了这一矛盾现象的可能原因,并研究了一些替代方法,这些方法可能为在姑息治疗中确定优先事项以及比较姑息治疗和其他护理服务提供更好的工具。