• 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

运用成本效益分析解决健康公平问题。

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns.

作者信息

Cookson Richard, Mirelman Andrew J, Griffin Susan, Asaria Miqdad, Dawkins Bryony, Norheim Ole Frithjof, Verguet Stéphane, J Culyer Anthony

机构信息

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

出版信息

Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):206-212. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027.

DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027
PMID:28237196
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5340318/
Abstract

This articles serves as a guide to using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to address health equity concerns. We first introduce the "equity impact plane," a tool for considering trade-offs between improving total health-the objective underpinning conventional CEA-and equity objectives, such as reducing social inequality in health or prioritizing the severely ill. Improving total health may clash with reducing social inequality in health, for example, when effective delivery of services to disadvantaged communities requires additional costs. Who gains and who loses from a cost-increasing health program depends on differences among people in terms of health risks, uptake, quality, adherence, capacity to benefit, and-crucially-who bears the opportunity costs of diverting scarce resources from other uses. We describe two main ways of using CEA to address health equity concerns: 1) equity impact analysis, which quantifies the distribution of costs and effects by equity-relevant variables, such as socioeconomic status, location, ethnicity, sex, and severity of illness; and 2) equity trade-off analysis, which quantifies trade-offs between improving total health and other equity objectives. One way to analyze equity trade-offs is to count the cost of fairer but less cost-effective options in terms of health forgone. Another method is to explore how much concern for equity is required to choose fairer but less cost-effective options using equity weights or parameters. We hope this article will help the health technology assessment community navigate the practical options now available for conducting equity-informative CEA that gives policymakers a better understanding of equity impacts and trade-offs.

摘要

本文旨在指导如何运用成本效益分析(CEA)来解决健康公平问题。我们首先介绍“公平影响平面”,这是一种用于权衡改善总体健康(传统CEA的核心目标)与公平目标(如减少健康方面的社会不平等或优先照顾重症患者)之间关系的工具。改善总体健康可能与减少健康方面的社会不平等相冲突,例如,向弱势社区有效提供服务需要额外成本时。一个成本增加的健康项目中谁受益谁受损,取决于人们在健康风险、接受程度、质量、依从性、受益能力方面的差异,以及至关重要的是,谁承担了将稀缺资源从其他用途转移过来的机会成本。我们描述了运用CEA解决健康公平问题的两种主要方式:1)公平影响分析,即按与公平相关的变量(如社会经济地位、地理位置、种族、性别和疾病严重程度)对成本和效果的分布进行量化;2)公平权衡分析,即对改善总体健康与其他公平目标之间的权衡进行量化。分析公平权衡的一种方法是以放弃的健康为代价,计算更公平但成本效益较低的选项的成本。另一种方法是利用公平权重或参数,探索选择更公平但成本效益较低选项需要多大程度地关注公平。我们希望本文能帮助健康技术评估界应对目前可用于进行具有公平信息的CEA的实际选项选择,使政策制定者更好地理解公平影响和权衡。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8f3d/5340318/0f10bc1c7e7c/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8f3d/5340318/edb775005f6d/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8f3d/5340318/0f10bc1c7e7c/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8f3d/5340318/edb775005f6d/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8f3d/5340318/0f10bc1c7e7c/gr2.jpg

相似文献

1
Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns.运用成本效益分析解决健康公平问题。
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):206-212. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027.
2
Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.将公平性问题纳入成本效益分析中:系统文献回顾。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2022 Jan;40(1):45-64. doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01094-7. Epub 2021 Oct 29.
3
Equity-efficiency trade-offs in health technology assessment.卫生技术评估中的公平与效率权衡
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006 Winter;22(1):1-9. doi: 10.1017/s026646230605077x.
4
Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Illustration of an Aggregate Analysis and its Key Drivers.非小细胞肺癌治疗的分布成本效益分析:综合分析及其关键驱动因素的说明。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2023 Aug;41(8):1011-1025. doi: 10.1007/s40273-023-01281-8. Epub 2023 Jun 9.
5
Equity-informative methods of health services research.卫生服务研究的公平信息方法。
J Health Organ Manag. 2021 Jul 2;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). doi: 10.1108/JHOM-07-2020-0275.
6
Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users.用于支持国民保健制度健康检查计划决策的建模工具:研讨会、系统评价以及与用户的共同制作。
Health Technol Assess. 2021 May;25(35):1-234. doi: 10.3310/hta25350.
7
Examining Equity Effects of Health Interventions in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Review.卫生干预措施成本效果分析中的公平性效应评估:系统综述。
Value Health. 2021 Jan;24(1):136-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.010. Epub 2020 Dec 3.
8
Accounting for equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis: a systematic review of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries.成本效益分析中公平性考量因素:低收入和中等收入国家轮状病毒疫苗的系统评价
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 May 18;16:18. doi: 10.1186/s12962-018-0102-2. eCollection 2018.
9
An eye on equity: faricimab-driven health equity improvements in diabetic macular oedema using a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK societal perspective.关注公平:从英国社会角度出发,采用分布成本效益分析,评估 faricimab 治疗糖尿病黄斑水肿对公平性的影响。
Eye (Lond). 2024 Jul;38(10):1917-1925. doi: 10.1038/s41433-024-03043-y. Epub 2024 Mar 30.
10
Aggregate Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Technologies.健康技术的综合分布成本效益分析。
Value Health. 2019 May;22(5):518-526. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.006.

引用本文的文献

1
Cost effectiveness of mono, dual, and triple therapy of antihypertensive drugs: a retrospective cohort study.抗高血压药物单药、联合及三联疗法的成本效益:一项回顾性队列研究。
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2025 Aug 14;23(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s12962-025-00614-y.
2
Enhancing Naloxone Distribution for Opioid Users in the USA: A Cost-Utility Analysis of Academic Detailing to Clinicians.在美国为阿片类药物使用者增加纳洛酮的分发:对临床医生进行学术推广的成本效用分析。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 Jul 20. doi: 10.1007/s40258-025-00991-8.
3
Reflecting Social Values in HTA Methods: A Case Study of South Africa.

本文引用的文献

1
"Equity-informative health technology assessment - A commentary on Ngalesoni, Ruhago, Mori, Robberstad & Norheim".公平性信息丰富的卫生技术评估——对恩加莱索尼、鲁哈戈、森、罗贝施塔德和诺海姆的评论
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.10.022.
2
HTA - Algorithm or Process? Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".HTA - 算法还是流程?评“扩展 HTA:增强公平性和合法性”。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Aug 1;5(8):501-505. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.59.
3
Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Policy Assessment: A Tutorial.
卫生技术评估方法中反映的社会价值观:以南非为例的研究。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 Jul 14. doi: 10.1007/s40258-025-00990-9.
4
Public preferences for allocating health system resources in Canada: a systematic review.加拿大公众对卫生系统资源分配的偏好:一项系统综述。
Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 12;14(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13643-025-02864-6.
5
The effectiveness, equity and explainability of health service resource allocation-with applications in kidney transplantation & family planning.卫生服务资源分配的有效性、公平性与可解释性——在肾移植与计划生育中的应用
Front Health Serv. 2025 May 15;5:1545864. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1545864. eCollection 2025.
6
How Is Scale Incorporated Into the Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Prevent Obesity or to Improve Obesity-Related Risk Factors: A Systematic Scoping Review.如何将量表纳入预防肥胖或改善肥胖相关危险因素干预措施的经济评估:一项系统综述。
Obes Rev. 2025 Sep;26(9):e13942. doi: 10.1111/obr.13942. Epub 2025 May 21.
7
Methodological opportunities in genomic data analysis to advance health equity.基因组数据分析中促进健康公平的方法学机遇。
Nat Rev Genet. 2025 May 15. doi: 10.1038/s41576-025-00839-w.
8
Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Genomic Medicine: Considerations for Addressing Health Equity.基因组医学中的分布成本效益分析:解决健康公平问题的考量因素
Value Health. 2025 May 6. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2162.
9
Aggregate Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biologics for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis in Chile.智利生物制剂治疗强直性脊柱炎的总体分布成本效益分析
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 May 6. doi: 10.1007/s40258-025-00972-x.
10
Evaluating Access Improving Interventions: An Economic Evaluation of Surgical Task-Shifting for C-Sections in Sierra Leone.评估改善医疗服务可及性的干预措施:塞拉利昂剖宫产手术任务转移的经济学评估
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 Apr 30. doi: 10.1007/s40258-025-00965-w.
用于卫生政策评估的扩展成本效益分析:教程
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Sep;34(9):913-23. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0414-z.
4
Cardiovascular screening to reduce the burden from cardiovascular disease: microsimulation study to quantify policy options.心血管疾病筛查以减轻心血管疾病负担:量化政策选项的微观模拟研究
BMJ. 2016 Jun 8;353:i2793. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2793.
5
Equity in Health Care Financing in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Evidence from Studies Using Benefit and Financing Incidence Analyses.低收入和中等收入国家医疗保健筹资公平性:对使用受益和筹资发生率分析的研究证据的系统评价
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 11;11(4):e0152866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152866. eCollection 2016.
6
Estimated Effects of Different Alcohol Taxation and Price Policies on Health Inequalities: A Mathematical Modelling Study.不同酒精税和价格政策对健康不平等的估计影响:一项数学建模研究
PLoS Med. 2016 Feb 23;13(2):e1001963. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001963. eCollection 2016 Feb.
7
A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair.挪威一项关于确定优先事项的新提议:公开且公平。
Health Policy. 2016 Mar;120(3):246-51. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.01.012. Epub 2016 Jan 18.
8
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force.用于医疗保健决策的多标准决策分析——简介:ISPOR多标准决策分析新兴良好实践工作组报告1
Value Health. 2016 Jan;19(1):1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003. Epub 2016 Jan 8.
9
Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy.扩大卫生技术评估:增强公平性和合法性。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Nov 6;5(1):1-3. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.187.
10
Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life.获取社会对疾病负担和生命末期质量调整生命年(QALY)加权的偏好。
Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):210-22. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15619389. Epub 2015 Dec 15.