健康技术评估作为提高资金价值的机制：向全球基金提出的建议。
Health technology assessments as a mechanism for increased value for money: recommendations to the Global Fund.
机构信息
Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, 6th floor, 6th Building, Tiwanon Rd,, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.
出版信息
Global Health. 2013 Aug 21;9:35. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-9-35.
Abstract
The Global Fund is experiencing increased pressure to optimize results and improve its impact per dollar spent. It is also in transition from a provider of emergency funding, to a long-term, sustainable financing mechanism. This paper assesses the efficacy of current Global Fund investment and examines how health technology assessments (HTAs) can be used to provide guidance on the relative priority of health interventions currently subsidized by the Global Fund. In addition, this paper identifies areas where the application of HTAs can exert the greatest impact and proposes ways in which this tool could be incorporated, as a routine component, into application, decision, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation processes. Finally, it addresses the challenges facing the Global Fund in realizing the full potential of HTAs.
摘要
全球基金面临着提高成果优化和每美元投入效果的压力，同时也正在从紧急供资提供者向长期可持续供资机制过渡。本文评估了当前全球基金投资的效果，并探讨了如何利用卫生技术评估（HTA）为目前由全球基金资助的卫生干预措施的相对优先次序提供指导。此外，本文还确定了应用 HTA 可以产生最大影响的领域，并提出了将这一工具作为常规组成部分纳入申请、决策、实施以及监测和评价过程的方法。最后，本文还探讨了全球基金在充分发挥 HTA 潜力方面面临的挑战。
相似文献
1
Health technology assessments as a mechanism for increased value for money: recommendations to the Global Fund.健康技术评估作为提高资金价值的机制：向全球基金提出的建议。
Global Health. 2013 Aug 21;9:35. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-9-35.
2
The role of the Technical Review Panel of the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria: an analysis of grant recommendations.全球抗击艾滋病、结核病和疟疾基金技术审查小组的作用：对赠款建议的分析。
Health Policy Plan. 2018 Apr 1;33(3):335-344. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czx186.
3
Investing for Impact: The Global Fund Approach to Measurement of AIDS Response.为产生影响而投资：全球基金对艾滋病应对措施的衡量方法。
AIDS Behav. 2017 Jul;21(Suppl 1):91-100. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1620-6.
4
Incorporating operational research in programmes funded by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in four sub-Saharan African countries.将运营研究纳入由全球抗击艾滋病、结核病和疟疾基金资助的四个撒哈拉以南非洲国家的规划中。
Global Health. 2020 Jul 25;16(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00599-8.
5
Open letter to The Global Fund about its decision to end DPRK grants.致全球基金关于其终止对朝鲜资助决定的公开信。
Lancet. 2018 Mar 31;391(10127):1257. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30672-X. Epub 2018 Mar 14.
6
Implementing Global Fund programs: a survey of opinions and experiences of the Principal Recipients across 69 countries.实施全球基金项目：对 69 个国家主要受援方意见和经验的调查。
Global Health. 2014 Mar 24;10:15. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-10-15.
7
Challenges in international health financing and implications for the new pandemic fund.国际卫生融资面临的挑战及对新大流行病基金的影响。
Global Health. 2023 Dec 5;19(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s12992-023-00999-6.
8
Leveraging Global Fund investments for health systems strengthening: a qualitative case study on Morocco's Concept Note development.利用全球基金投资加强卫生系统：摩洛哥概念说明制定的定性案例研究。
East Mediterr Health J. 2020 Aug 25;26(8):957-966. doi: 10.26719/emhj.20.039.
9
Investing to end epidemics: the role of the Global Fund to control TB by 2030.投资终结流行病：全球基金到2030年控制结核病的作用。
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016 Mar;110(3):153-4. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trw005.
10
[The Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria policy issues].[抗击艾滋病、结核病和疟疾全球基金政策问题]
Med Trop (Mars). 2010 Feb;70(1):19-27.
引用本文的文献
1
What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study.明确优先事项设定在卫生干预措施中的价值是什么？一项模拟研究。
Health Care Manag Sci. 2022 Sep;25(3):460-483. doi: 10.1007/s10729-022-09594-4. Epub 2022 May 28.
2
Informing decisions with disparate stakeholders: cross-sector evaluation of cash transfers in Malawi.多利益攸关方决策信息：马拉维现金转移支付跨部门评估
Health Policy Plan. 2022 Jan 13;37(1):140-151. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czab137.
3
Health economic evidence in clinical guidelines in South Africa: a mixed-methods study.南非临床指南中的健康经济证据：一项混合方法研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jul 26;21(1):738. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06747-z.
4
Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for HTA Around the Globe: Exploring the Next Frontiers of HTA and Best Practices Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe".全球范围内的卫生技术评估中的循证决策过程：探索卫生技术评估的下一个前沿和最佳实践 评“全球卫生技术评估机构使用循证决策过程”。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021 Mar 14;10(4):232-236. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.145.
5
Fairer financing of vaccines in a world living with COVID-19.在与新冠疫情共存的世界中实现更公平的疫苗融资。
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Jul;5(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002951.
6
From Design to Evaluation: Applications of Health Technology Assessment in Myanmar and Lessons for Low or Lower Middle-Income Countries.从设计到评估：卫生技术评估在缅甸的应用及对中低收入国家的启示
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(6):461-466. doi: 10.1017/S0266462319000199. Epub 2019 May 17.
7
Priority-setting, the Indian way.确定优先事项的印度方式。
J Glob Health. 2018 Dec;8(2):020311. doi: 10.7189/jogh.08.020311.
8
Doing 'Upstream' Priority-Setting for Global Health with Justice: Moving from Vision to Practice?以公正的方式为全球健康进行“上游”优先事项设定：从愿景走向实践？
Public Health Ethics. 2016 Jun 3;11(3):265-274. doi: 10.1093/phe/phw026. eCollection 2018 Nov.
9
Allocation rules for global donors.全球捐赠者的分配规则。
J Health Econ. 2018 Mar;58:67-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.02.003. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
10
Institutionalising health technology assessment: establishing the Medical Technology Assessment Board in India.将卫生技术评估制度化：在印度设立医疗技术评估委员会。
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Jun 26;2(2):e000259. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000259. eCollection 2017.
本文引用的文献
1
Value for Money in Donor HIV Funding.捐赠者对艾滋病毒的资金投入的性价比
Rand Health Q. 2012 Dec 1;1(4):2. eCollection 2012 Winter.
2
The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.移动医疗技术在改善医疗服务提供流程方面的有效性：系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001363. Epub 2013 Jan 15.
3
Social values and health policy: a new international research programme.社会价值与健康政策：一项新的国际研究计划。
J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):285-92. doi: 10.1108/14777261211238945.
4
Did the first Global Fund grant (2003-2006) contribute to malaria control and health system strengthening in Timor-Leste?第一份全球基金资助（2003-2006 年）是否有助于东帝汶的疟疾控制和卫生系统加强？
Malar J. 2012 Jul 23;11:237. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-237.
5
Implementing the global plan to stop TB, 2011-2015--optimizing allocations and the Global Fund's contribution: a scenario projections study.实施全球结核病规划（2011-2015 年）：优化资源配置和全球基金的贡献——方案预测研究。
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38816. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038816. Epub 2012 Jun 18.
6
Allocating scarce resources strategically--an evaluation and discussion of the Global Fund's pattern of disbursements.战略性地分配稀缺资源——对全球基金支出模式的评估与讨论。
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e34749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034749. Epub 2012 May 9.
7
Global Fund investments in harm reduction from 2002 to 2009.2002 年至 2009 年全球基金在减少伤害方面的投资。
Int J Drug Policy. 2012 Jul;23(4):279-85. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.01.013. Epub 2012 Mar 13.
8
Systematic review of economic evaluations of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics.流感大流行防范策略和干预措施的经济评价的系统评价。
PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e30333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030333. Epub 2012 Feb 29.
9
Indicators measuring the performance of malaria programs supported by the global fund in Asia, progress and the way forward.亚洲地区由全球基金支持的疟疾规划绩效指标、进展及未来方向。
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28932. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028932. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
10
The Global Fund's resource allocation decisions for HIV programmes: addressing those in need.全球基金艾滋病规划署资源分配决策：关注有需要的人。
J Int AIDS Soc. 2011 Oct 26;14:51. doi: 10.1186/1758-2652-14-51.
Zotero 插件