• 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

[德国平面媒体上关于医疗保健领域优先事项设定的全国性公共讨论]

[The national public discourse on priority setting in health care in German print media].

作者信息

Liesching Florian, Meyer Thorsten, Raspe Heiner

机构信息

Seniorprofessur für Bevölkerungsmedizin, Akademisches Zentrum für Bevölkerungsmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universität zu Lübeck.

出版信息

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):389-96. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jun 28.

DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.007
PMID:22857724
Abstract

Germany's Central Ethics Committee of the Federal Chamber of Physicians (FCP) and other relevant national actors called for a public discourse on priority setting in health care. Politicians, members of a Federal Joint Committee and health insurance representatives, however, refused to promote or participate in the establishment of a public discussion. A change to that attitude only became apparent after former FCP President Hoppe's opening speech at the annual FCP assembly in Mainz in 2009. The present paper applies the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse, implemented through Qualitative Content Analysis and elements of Grounded Theory, to examine the development of the national public discourse in leading German print media. It creates a matrix that represents the discourse development between May 2009 and May 2010 and reflects central actors, their "communicative phenomena" and their interactions. Additionally, the matrix has been extended to cover the period until December 2011. Hoppe's arguments for priority setting in health care are faced with a wide opposition assuming opposing prerequisites and thus demanding alternative remedies. The lack of interaction between the different parties prevents any development of the speakers' positions. Incorrect accounts, reductions and left-outs in the media representation add to this effect. Consequently, the public discussion on priority setting is far from being an evolving rational discourse. Instead, it constitutes an exchange of preformed opposing positions.

摘要

德国联邦医师公会中央伦理委员会及其他相关国家行为体呼吁就医疗保健中的优先事项设定展开公开讨论。然而,政治家、联邦联合委员会成员和医疗保险代表拒绝推动或参与开展公开讨论。直到2009年联邦医师公会主席霍佩在美因茨举行的联邦医师公会年度大会上发表开幕演讲后,这种态度才有所改变。本文运用话语知识社会学方法,通过定性内容分析和扎根理论要素来研究德国主要平面媒体中全国性公开讨论的发展情况。它创建了一个矩阵,展示了2009年5月至2010年5月期间的话语发展,并反映了核心行为体、他们的“交流现象”及其互动。此外,该矩阵已扩展至涵盖截至2011年12月的时间段。霍佩关于医疗保健优先事项设定的论点面临广泛反对,这些反对意见基于相反的前提,因此要求采取替代补救措施。不同党派之间缺乏互动阻碍了发言者立场的任何发展。媒体报道中的错误描述、删减和遗漏加剧了这种影响。因此,关于优先事项设定的公开讨论远非一场不断发展的理性话语。相反,它构成了预先形成的对立立场的交流。

相似文献

1
[The national public discourse on priority setting in health care in German print media].[德国平面媒体上关于医疗保健领域优先事项设定的全国性公共讨论]
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):389-96. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jun 28.
2
[Priorization in healthcare. An important duty, an unnecessary luxury, or playing with fire? A sociomedical point of view].[医疗保健中的优先排序。一项重要职责、一种不必要的奢侈,还是在玩火?一种社会医学视角]
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):874-81. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1112-1.
3
[Ethical basis of priority setting in healthcare].[医疗保健中确定优先次序的伦理基础]
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):867-73. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1116-x.
4
[Prioritization in health care 2012 - on the current status of the discussion].
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):380-2. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.006. Epub 2012 Jun 27.
5
[The Danish debate on priority setting in medicine - characteristics and results].[丹麦关于医学领域优先事项设定的辩论——特点与结果]
Gesundheitswesen. 2011 Oct;73(10):680-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1280841. Epub 2011 Jul 27.
6
[Prioritization does not place in an ethical vacuum].优先级排序并非处于道德真空之中。
MMW Fortschr Med. 2014 Jun 26;156(12):13.
7
[Prioritization is actually quite a self-evident evaluation process, however it may not supplant the important debate about rationalization (interview by Heiner Raspe and Sabine Stumpf)].
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):404-6. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.011. Epub 2012 Jun 29.
8
[Priority to whom? Prioritizing in the public health system].[优先给予谁?公共卫生系统中的优先排序]
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2010 Sep;53(9):865-6. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1121-0.
9
[Rationing in German health care with particular consideration of oncology: view points of German stakeholders--a qualitative interview study].[德国医疗保健中的配给,特别考虑肿瘤学:德国利益相关者的观点——一项定性访谈研究]
Gesundheitswesen. 2015 Jan;77(1):8-15. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1367021. Epub 2014 Apr 2.
10
Priority-setting, rationing and cost-effectiveness in the German health care system.德国医疗保健系统中的优先事项设定、资源分配与成本效益
Med Health Care Philos. 2013 Aug;16(3):327-39. doi: 10.1007/s11019-012-9423-7.