Suppr超能文献

质量调整生命年:它们足够了吗?一位卫生经济学家的视角。

QALYs: are they enough? A health economist's perspective.

作者信息

Mooney G

机构信息

University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 1989 Sep;15(3):148-52. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.3.148.

Abstract

John Rawles's criticism of QALYs are seen as being both imprecise and largely unhelpful. This paper accepts that there are problems in both QALYs themselves and in the current decision-making processes with which they seek to help. The QALY pliers tend to play down the former and the QALY knockers the latter. It is suggested that theories (regret theory and prospect theory) other than expected utility theory, which is normally seen as the basis for QALYs, may provide better approaches to measuring health service outputs. Thus equity, information and decision-making per se are not handled as well in the expected utility QALYs as they could be. Developing better QALYs, with qualifications, is the goal.

摘要

约翰·罗尔斯对质量调整生命年(QALYs)的批评被认为既不准确又基本上毫无帮助。本文承认质量调整生命年本身以及它们试图辅助的当前决策过程都存在问题。支持质量调整生命年的人往往淡化前者,而批评质量调整生命年的人则淡化后者。有人认为,除了通常被视为质量调整生命年基础的预期效用理论之外的其他理论(遗憾理论和前景理论),可能会为衡量卫生服务产出提供更好的方法。因此,在预期效用质量调整生命年中,公平、信息和决策本身并没有得到应有的妥善处理。目标是在具备一定条件的情况下开发出更好的质量调整生命年。

相似文献

4
QALYs and justice.
Health Policy. 1989 Nov;13(2):115-20. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(89)90066-3.
5
Rationing, barbarity and the economist's perspective.配给、暴行与经济学家的视角。
Health Care Anal. 1996 May;4(2):146-56. doi: 10.1007/BF02251220.
10
Castigating QALYs.谴责质量调整生命年
J Med Ethics. 1989 Sep;15(3):143-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.3.143.

引用本文的文献

7
Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: a critical appraisal of seven studies on cholesterol-lowering agents.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 Oct;2(4):270-8. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199202040-00003.

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