• 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

选择健康技术评估和系统综述课题:为患者和消费者利益设定优先顺序标准的制定。

Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests.

机构信息

National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20894, USA.

出版信息

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Oct;27(4):348-56. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000547.

DOI:10.1017/S0266462311000547
PMID:22004776
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) was established in 2003 by the German parliament. Its legislative responsibilities are health technology assessment, mostly to support policy making and reimbursement decisions. It also has a mandate to serve patients' interests directly, by assessing and communicating evidence for the general public.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a priority-setting framework based on the interests of patients and the general public.

METHODS

A theoretical framework for priority setting from a patient/consumer perspective was developed. The process of development began with a poll to determine level of lay and health professional interest in the conclusions of 124 systematic reviews (194 responses). Data sources to identify patients' and consumers' information needs and interests were identified.

RESULTS

IQWiG's theoretical framework encompasses criteria for quality of evidence and interest, as well as being explicit about editorial considerations, including potential for harm. Dimensions of "patient interest" were identified, such as patients' concerns, information seeking, and use. Rather than being a single item capable of measurement by one means, the concept of "patients' interests" requires consideration of data and opinions from various sources.

CONCLUSIONS

The best evidence to communicate to patients/consumers is right, relevant and likely to be considered interesting and/or important to the people affected. What is likely to be interesting for the community generally is sufficient evidence for a concrete conclusion, in a common condition. More research is needed on characteristics of information that interest patients and consumers, methods of evaluating the effectiveness of priority setting, and methods to determine priorities for disinvestment.

摘要

背景

德国议会于 2003 年成立了德国卫生保健质量与效率研究所(IQWiG)。其立法职责是进行卫生技术评估,主要是为了支持决策和报销决策。它还有一项任务,即为患者的利益直接服务,通过评估和向公众传播证据来实现。

目的

制定一个基于患者和公众利益的优先排序框架。

方法

从患者/消费者的角度开发了一个优先排序的理论框架。该开发过程始于一项民意调查,以确定普通民众和卫生专业人员对 124 项系统评价结论的兴趣程度(194 名受访者)。确定了识别患者和消费者信息需求和兴趣的数据源。

结果

IQWiG 的理论框架包括证据和利益质量的标准,以及明确编辑考虑因素,包括潜在危害。确定了“患者利益”的维度,例如患者的关注、信息寻求和使用。“患者利益”的概念不是一个可以通过单一手段衡量的单一项目,而是需要考虑来自各种来源的数据和意见。

结论

向患者/消费者传达的最佳证据是正确的、相关的,并且可能被认为是受影响人群感兴趣和/或重要的。对于一般社区来说,在常见情况下,有足够的证据就可以得出具体的结论。需要进一步研究患者和消费者感兴趣的信息特征、优先排序效果评估方法以及确定撤资优先级的方法。

相似文献

1
Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests.选择健康技术评估和系统综述课题:为患者和消费者利益设定优先顺序标准的制定。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Oct;27(4):348-56. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000547.
2
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.德国药品效益评估的程序和方法。
Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5.
3
Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.选择、精炼和确定与消费者及其他利益攸关方合作的健康传播领域中的优先 Cochrane 综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Apr 29;17(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z.
4
[Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].[德国药品效益评估的程序和方法]
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25.
5
Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach.让消费者参与国民保健服务体系的研发议程设定:制定基于证据的方法。
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Apr;8(15):1-148, III-IV. doi: 10.3310/hta8150.
6
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
7
Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.消费者和卫生服务提供者对合作改善卫生服务设计、提供和评估的看法和认知:一项共同制定的定性证据综合研究。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 14;3(3):CD013274. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013274.pub2.
8
Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material.消费者参与制定医疗保健政策与研究、临床实践指南及患者信息材料的方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;2006(3):CD004563. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004563.pub2.
9
Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group's systematic review priority-setting project.考科蓝消费者与传播小组系统评价优先级设定项目评估
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Sep 2;18(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00604-x.
10
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.

引用本文的文献

1
Incremental levels of diagnostic information incentivize health-seeking in non-alcoholic fatty liver: a randomized clinical trial.诊断信息的逐步增加促使人们寻求非酒精性脂肪肝的治疗:一项随机临床试验。
Sci Rep. 2022 May 18;12(1):8272. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12295-1.
2
Systematic review for the development of a pharmaceutical and medical products prioritization framework.用于制定药品和医疗产品优先排序框架的系统评价。
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019 Aug 21;12:21. doi: 10.1186/s40545-019-0181-2. eCollection 2019.
3
Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.
基于研究的注册减少了系统评价中的浪费:讨论和案例报告。
Syst Rev. 2019 May 30;8(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3.
4
Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.选择、精炼和确定与消费者及其他利益攸关方合作的健康传播领域中的优先 Cochrane 综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Apr 29;17(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z.
5
A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane.对消费者参与开展系统评价的组织的证据进行的系统综述:聚焦考克兰协作网。
Res Involv Engagem. 2016 Dec 21;2:36. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0049-4. eCollection 2016.
6
The health systems' priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence.卫生系统选择卫生技术的优先排序标准:当前证据的系统评价
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016 Feb 16;30:329. eCollection 2016.