优先事项设定中的公众态度和价值观。
Public attitudes and values in priority setting.
作者信息
Peacock Stuart J
机构信息
Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC), British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, V5Z 1L3 Canada ; Cancer Control Research, British Columbia Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada ; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, British Colombia, Canada.
出版信息
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015 Jun 19;4:29. doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0025-8. eCollection 2015.
Abstract
There is growing recognition that critical decisions concerning investments in new health care technologies and services should incorporate society's values along with the scientific evidence. From a normative perspective, public engagement can help realize the democratic ideals of legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. On a more pragmatic level, public engagement can help stakeholders understand the degree of popular support for policy options, and may enhance public trust in decision-making processes. To better understand public attitudes and values relating to priority setting in health care, researchers and decision-makers will have to employ a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches, drawing on different disciplines and methodological traditions.
摘要
人们越来越认识到，有关新医疗技术和服务投资的关键决策应将社会价值观与科学证据结合起来。从规范的角度来看，公众参与有助于实现合法性、透明度和问责制等民主理想。在更务实的层面上，公众参与可以帮助利益相关者了解公众对政策选择的支持程度，并可能增强公众对决策过程的信任。为了更好地理解公众对医疗保健优先事项设定的态度和价值观，研究人员和决策者将不得不采用一系列定量和定性方法，借鉴不同学科和方法传统。
相似文献
1
Public attitudes and values in priority setting.优先事项设定中的公众态度和价值观。
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015 Jun 19;4:29. doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0025-8. eCollection 2015.
2
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.
3
Involving decision-makers in the research process: Challenges of implementing the accountability for reasonableness approach to priority setting at the district level in Tanzania.让决策者参与研究过程：在坦桑尼亚地区层面实施合理性问责制以确定优先事项所面临的挑战。
Glob Public Health. 2014;9(7):760-72. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2014.922208. Epub 2014 Jun 12.
4
Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment.澳大利亚的社会价值观与卫生优先事项设定：一项应用于卫生技术评估背景的分析
Health Policy. 2015 Feb;119(2):127-36. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.003. Epub 2014 Sep 16.
5
Priority setting and cardiac surgery: a qualitative case study.优先级设定与心脏手术：一项定性案例研究
Health Policy. 2007 Mar;80(3):444-58. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.05.004. Epub 2006 Jun 6.
6
Improving the Legitimacy of Medicines Funding Decisions: A Critical Literature Review.提高药品资金决策的合理性：一项批判性文献综述
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015 May;49(3):364-368. doi: 10.1177/2168479015579519.
7
Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework.坦桑尼亚分散式医疗保健重点制定：基于合理性问责框架的评估。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Aug;71(4):751-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.035. Epub 2010 May 25.
8
Health Priority Setting in Iran: Evaluating Against the Social Values Framework.伊朗的卫生重点设定：对照社会价值观框架进行评估
Glob J Health Sci. 2016 Oct 1;8(10):53834. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v8n10p212.
9
Decision technologies as normative instruments: exposing the values within.作为规范性工具的决策技术：揭示其中的价值观。
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):426-30. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.017. Epub 2008 Sep 6.
10
A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020.补充和替代医学研究路线图——到2020年我们需要了解的内容。
Forsch Komplementmed. 2014;21(2):e1-16. doi: 10.1159/000360744. Epub 2014 Mar 24.
引用本文的文献
1
Perceptions of the seriousness of major public health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic in seven middle-income countries.七个中等收入国家在新冠疫情期间对重大公共卫生问题严重性的认知。
Commun Med (Lond). 2023 Dec 21;3(1):193. doi: 10.1038/s43856-023-00377-8.
2
Effectiveness of Narrative Messaging Styles about the Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequities in Ontario, Canada.关于加拿大安大略省健康不平等的社会决定因素的叙事信息传递方式的有效性。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 16;18(20):10881. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010881.
3
Investigating public values in health care priority - Chileans´ preference for national health care.研究医疗保健优先事项中的公共价值——智利人对国家医疗保健的偏好。
BMC Public Health. 2021 Feb 27;21(1):416. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10455-y.
4
Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs.公众对药物投资减少的看法：加拿大癌症药物协商式公众参与活动的结果。
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jul 22;19(1):977. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7303-2.
5
Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.权衡、公平与抗癌药物资金：加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省一次公众参与协商活动的主要发现
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 8;18(1):339. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3117-7.
6
The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research.用于转化研究中利益相关者参与的ECOUTER方法。
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Apr 4;18(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0167-z.
本文引用的文献
1
Personal needs versus national needs: public attitudes regarding health care priorities at the personal and national levels.个人需求与国家需求：公众对个人和国家层面医疗保健优先事项的态度。
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015 May 15;4:15. doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0010-2. eCollection 2015.
2
An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations.一项针对健康技术评估组织公众参与实践的国际调查。
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.011.
3
Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation.让公民参与生物库研究的伦理问题：通过结构化的公众讨论为机构政策提供信息。
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Nov;75(9):1604-11. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.026. Epub 2012 Jul 28.
4
Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation.让公众参与生物样本库事务：不列颠哥伦比亚省生物样本库审议的结果
Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(4):203-15. doi: 10.1159/000167801. Epub 2008 Oct 31.
5
Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review.公众参与医疗保健优先事项的设定：一项范围综述。
Health Policy. 2009 Aug;91(3):219-28. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005. Epub 2009 Mar 3.
6
What should be given a priority - costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel.应该优先考虑什么——为相对少数人提供昂贵的药物，还是为许多人提供便宜的药物？以色列的健康议会公众咨询倡议。
Health Expect. 2008 Jun;11(2):177-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00485.x. Epub 2008 Apr 21.
7
Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study.考察背景在一项协商性公众参与实验实施中的作用：一项加拿大比较研究的结果
Soc Sci Med. 2007 May;64(10):2115-28. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.013. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
8
The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations.背景对证据利用的影响：为制定卫生政策建议的专家小组构建的一个框架
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Oct;63(7):1811-24. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.020. Epub 2006 Jun 9.
9
Evidence, economics and ethics: resource allocation in health services organizations.证据、经济学与伦理学：卫生服务机构中的资源分配
Healthc Q. 2005;8(2):50-9, 4. doi: 10.12927/hcq..17099.
10
Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting.审议会产生影响吗？公民小组关于健康目标优先级设定的研究结果。
Health Policy. 2003 Oct;66(1):95-106. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(03)00048-4.
Zotero 插件