Voigt Kristin, King Nicholas B
Institute for Health and Social Policy & Department of Philosophy, McGill University.
Biomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, McGill University.
Public Health Ethics. 2017 Nov;10(3):244-256. doi: 10.1093/phe/phx012. Epub 2017 Aug 11.
The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project quantifies the impact of different health conditions by combining information about morbidity and premature mortality within a single metric, the Disability Adjusted Life Year. One important goal for the GBD project has been to inform decisions about global health priorities. A number of recent studies have used GBD data to argue that global health funding fails to align with the GBD. We argue that these studies' shared assumption that global health resources should 'align' with the burden of disease is unfounded and has troubling implications. First, since the allocation of resources involves difficult trade-offs between different, potentially competing goals, any 'misalignment' of allocation and disease burdens need not necessarily indicate that the allocation of funds fails to meet recipient countries' needs or interests. Second, using alignment as a baseline implicitly makes controversial assumptions about how harms of different magnitudes affecting different numbers of individuals should be aggregated. We discuss two alternative ways in which GBD data could help inform decisions about resource allocation, neither of which gives more than a limited role to GBD data.
全球疾病负担(GBD)项目通过将发病率和过早死亡率信息整合到单一指标——伤残调整生命年中,来量化不同健康状况的影响。GBD项目的一个重要目标是为全球卫生重点事项的决策提供依据。最近的一些研究利用GBD数据认为,全球卫生资金与GBD不匹配。我们认为,这些研究共同的假设,即全球卫生资源应与疾病负担“匹配”,是没有根据的,且具有令人不安的影响。首先,由于资源分配涉及在不同的、潜在相互竞争的目标之间进行艰难的权衡,分配与疾病负担之间的任何“不匹配”不一定表明资金分配未能满足受援国的需求或利益。其次,将匹配作为基线隐含地对如何汇总影响不同数量个体的不同程度危害做出了有争议的假设。我们讨论了GBD数据可以帮助为资源分配决策提供依据的两种替代方式,这两种方式都没有赋予GBD数据超过有限的作用。