• 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

公众对医疗保健优先事项设定原则的看法:一项使用Q方法的欧洲跨国研究结果

Public views on principles for health care priority setting: findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology.

作者信息

van Exel Job, Baker Rachel, Mason Helen, Donaldson Cam, Brouwer Werner

机构信息

Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 OBA, Scotland.

出版信息

Soc Sci Med. 2015 Feb;126:128-37. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.023. Epub 2014 Dec 22.

DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.023
PMID:25550076
Abstract

Resources available to the health care sector are finite and typically insufficient to fulfil all the demands for health care in the population. Decisions must be made about which treatments to provide. Relatively little is known about the views of the general public regarding the principles that should guide such decisions. We present the findings of a Q methodology study designed to elicit the shared views in the general public across ten countries regarding the appropriate principles for prioritising health care resources. In 2010, 294 respondents rank ordered a set of cards and the results of these were subject to by-person factor analysis to identify common patterns in sorting. Five distinct viewpoints were identified, (I) "Egalitarianism, entitlement and equality of access"; (II) "Severity and the magnitude of health gains"; (III) "Fair innings, young people and maximising health benefits"; (IV) "The intrinsic value of life and healthy living"; (V) "Quality of life is more important than simply staying alive". Given the plurality of views on the principles for health care priority setting, no single equity principle can be used to underpin health care priority setting. Hence, the process of decision making becomes more important, in which, arguably, these multiple perspectives in society should be somehow reflected.

摘要

医疗保健部门可用的资源是有限的,通常不足以满足人群对医疗保健的所有需求。必须决定提供哪些治疗方法。对于公众对指导此类决策的原则的看法,我们了解得相对较少。我们展示了一项Q方法研究的结果,该研究旨在引出十个国家公众对医疗保健资源优先排序适当原则的共同看法。2010年,294名受访者对一组卡片进行了排序,这些结果经过个人因素分析,以确定分类中的共同模式。确定了五个不同的观点,(I)“平等主义、权利和获得机会平等”;(II)“健康收益的严重程度和规模”;(III)“公平寿限、年轻人和最大化健康益处”;(IV)“生命的内在价值和健康生活”;(V)“生活质量比仅仅活着更重要”。鉴于在医疗保健优先排序原则上存在多种观点,没有单一的公平原则可用于支持医疗保健优先排序。因此,决策过程变得更加重要,可以说,社会中的这些多种观点应以某种方式得到体现。

相似文献

1
Public views on principles for health care priority setting: findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology.公众对医疗保健优先事项设定原则的看法:一项使用Q方法的欧洲跨国研究结果
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Feb;126:128-37. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.023. Epub 2014 Dec 22.
2
Priority to End of Life Treatments? Views of the Public in the Netherlands.临终治疗的优先级?荷兰公众的观点。
Value Health. 2017 Jan;20(1):107-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.544. Epub 2017 Jan 5.
3
From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries.从代表观点到观点的代表性:在九个欧洲国家医疗保健资源分配决策背景下阐释一种新的(Q2S)方法。
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Oct;166:205-213. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.036. Epub 2016 Aug 22.
4
Understanding public preferences for prioritizing health care interventions in England: does the type of health gain matter?了解英格兰民众对医疗干预措施进行优先排序的偏好:健康收益的类型是否重要?
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011 Apr;16(2):81-9. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2010.010039.
5
Q-ing for health--a new approach to eliciting the public's views on health care resource allocation.为健康提问——一种获取公众对医疗资源分配看法的新方法。
Health Econ. 2014 Mar;23(3):283-97. doi: 10.1002/hec.2914. Epub 2013 May 10.
6
Are pricing and reimbursement decision-making criteria aligned with public preferences regarding allocation principles in the Polish healthcare sector?波兰医疗保健部门的定价和报销决策标准是否与公众在分配原则方面的偏好一致?
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014 Oct;14(5):751-62. doi: 10.1586/14737167.2014.940903. Epub 2014 Jul 23.
7
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.人类健康与环境风险的风险管理框架。
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608.
8
Citizen's preferences regarding principles to guide health-care allocation decisions in Thailand.泰国公民对指导医疗保健资源分配决策原则的偏好。
Value Health. 2008 Dec;11(7):1194-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00321.x. Epub 2008 May 20.
9
Preferences for the normative basis of health care priority setting: some evidence from two countries.医疗保健优先排序的规范基础偏好:来自两个国家的一些证据。
Health Econ. 2013 Apr;22(4):480-5. doi: 10.1002/hec.2805. Epub 2012 Feb 23.
10
Understanding what matters: An exploratory study to investigate the views of the general public for priority setting criteria in health care.了解重要事项:一项探索性研究,旨在调查公众对医疗保健优先排序标准的看法。
Health Policy. 2017 Jun;121(6):653-662. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.003. Epub 2017 Mar 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Building a Safe Sports Environment: Coaches' Strategies for Peer Bullying Prevention.构建安全的运动环境:教练预防同伴欺凌的策略
J Prev (2022). 2025 May 18. doi: 10.1007/s10935-025-00853-y.
2
Challenges of palliative care integration into routine hospital care in Iran: A Q-method inquiry on key healthcare providers' prospects.伊朗将姑息治疗融入常规医院护理的挑战:对关键医疗服务提供者观点的Q方法探究。
Health Promot Perspect. 2024 Dec 30;14(4):360-368. doi: 10.34172/hpp.43513. eCollection 2024.
3
Patients' perspectives on ethical principles to fairly allocate scarce surgical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a Q-methodology study.
荷兰 COVID-19 大流行期间公平分配稀缺外科资源的伦理原则:一项 Q 方法学研究 。
BMJ Open. 2024 Sep 23;14(9):e086681. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086681.
4
From polarity to plurality: Perceptions of COVID-19 and policy measures in England and Scotland.从两极到多元:英格兰和苏格兰对 COVID-19 及政策措施的看法。
Health Expect. 2024 Jun;27(3):e14069. doi: 10.1111/hex.14069.
5
Public Attitudes Toward Priority Setting Principles in Health Care During COVID-19.新冠疫情期间公众对医疗保健资源分配优先原则的态度。
Front Health Serv. 2022 May 13;2:886508. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2022.886508. eCollection 2022.
6
Justification of principles for healthcare priority setting: the relevance and roles of empirical studies exploring public values.医疗保健优先事项设定原则的正当性:探索公众价值观的实证研究的相关性及作用
J Med Ethics. 2025 Mar 26;51(4):285-292. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108702.
7
Stakeholders' Perspectives on the Application of New Diagnostic Devices for Urinary Schistosomiasis in Oyo State, Nigeria: A Q-Methodology Approach.利益相关者对尼日利亚奥约州新型尿血吸虫病诊断设备应用的看法:一种 Q 方法学研究。
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022 Aug 30;10(4). doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00780.
8
How should ICU beds be allocated during a crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic.在危机期间应如何分配 ICU 床位?来自 COVID-19 大流行的证据。
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 10;17(8):e0270996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270996. eCollection 2022.
9
Perception of Medical Students on the Need for End-of-Life Care: A Q-Methodology Study.医学生对临终关怀需求的认知:一项 Q 方法学研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 28;19(13):7901. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19137901.
10
Societal perspectives on disease and treatment attributes characterizing rare diseases: a qualitative study from the United States.美国关于罕见病疾病及治疗特征的社会观点:一项定性研究
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Jan 24;6(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00413-6.