Suppr超能文献

反思性多标准能否成为医疗保健决策的新范式?EVIDEM之旅。

Can reflective multicriteria be the new paradigm for healthcare decision-making? The EVIDEM journey.

作者信息

Goetghebeur Mireille M, Cellier Marjo S

机构信息

1School of Public Health, University of Montreal, 7101 Park Ave, Montreal, H3N QC Canada.

Montreal, QC Canada.

出版信息

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 9;16(Suppl 1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12962-018-0116-9. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Multiple technologies, procedures and programs call for fairly-based decisions for prioritization of healthcare interventions. There is a diversity of perspectives of what constitutes a legitimate decision, which depends on both the process and the reasoning applied. Current approaches focus on technical aspects while methods to support alignment of decisions with the compassionate impetus of healthcare systems is lacking.

METHODS

The framework was developed based on an analysis of the foundations of healthcare systems, the reasoning underlying decisions and fair processes. The concept of reflective multicriteria was created: it assumes that decisionmakers guided by a generic interpretative frame rooted in the compassionate impetus of healthcare systems, can sharpen their reasoning, raise awareness of their motivation and increase legitimacy of decisions. The initial framework was made available through a not for profit organization (the EVIDEM Collaboration, 2006-2017) to stimulate its development with thought leaders and stakeholders in an open source philosophy. Development was tailored to the real-life needs of decisionmakers and drew on several domains of knowledge including healthcare ethics, evidenced-based medicine, health economics, health technology assessment and multicriteria approaches.

RESULTS

The 10th edition framework builds on four dimensions: (1) the universal impetus of healthcare systems, (2) reasoning, values and ethics, (3) evidence and knowledge on interventions, and (4) a transformative process. Mathematical aspects of the framework are designed to help clarify, express and share individual reasoning; this non-conventional use of numbers requires a cultural change and needs to be phased in slowly. The framework includes four tools for easy adaptation and operationalization: (a) concepts and operationalization, (b) adapt and pilot, (c) evidence matrix, (d) mathematical representation of reasoning. Application is useful throughout all types of healthcare interventions, for all levels of decision, and across the globe.

CONCLUSION

By clarifying their reasoning while keeping decisionmakers aware of the impetus of healthcare systems, reflective multicriteria provides an effective approach to increase the legitimacy of decisions. Beyond a tool, reflective multicriteria pioneered by EVIDEM is geared to transform our vision of the value of healthcare interventions and how they might contribute to relevant, equitable and sustainable healthcare systems.

摘要

背景

多种技术、程序和方案都要求在确定医疗保健干预措施的优先顺序时做出基于公平的决策。对于什么构成合理决策存在多种观点,这既取决于过程,也取决于所应用的推理。当前的方法侧重于技术方面,而缺乏支持决策与医疗保健系统的人文关怀动力保持一致的方法。

方法

该框架是在对医疗保健系统的基础、决策背后的推理以及公平过程进行分析的基础上制定的。提出了反思性多标准的概念:它假定决策者在植根于医疗保健系统人文关怀动力的通用解释框架的指导下,可以完善他们的推理,提高对自身动机的认识,并增强决策的合理性。最初的框架通过一个非营利组织(EVIDEM协作组织,2006 - 2017年)发布,以开源理念促进其与思想领袖和利益相关者共同发展。开发过程是根据决策者的实际需求进行定制的,并借鉴了包括医疗保健伦理、循证医学、卫生经济学、卫生技术评估和多标准方法等多个知识领域。

结果

第10版框架基于四个维度构建:(1)医疗保健系统的普遍动力;(2)推理、价值观和伦理;(3)干预措施的证据和知识;(4)一个变革性过程。该框架的数学方面旨在帮助阐明、表达和分享个人推理;这种对数字的非常规使用需要文化变革,并且需要逐步引入。该框架包括四种便于调整和实施的工具:(a)概念与实施;(b)调整与试点;(c)证据矩阵;(d)推理的数学表示。该框架适用于所有类型的医疗保健干预措施、各级决策以及全球范围。

结论

通过在让决策者了解医疗保健系统动力的同时阐明他们的推理,反思性多标准提供了一种有效的方法来提高决策的合理性。超越一种工具,EVIDEM率先提出的反思性多标准旨在改变我们对医疗保健干预措施价值的看法,以及它们如何为相关、公平和可持续的医疗保健系统做出贡献。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8229/6225552/e9d6fc4aa398/12962_2018_116_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Can reflective multicriteria be the new paradigm for healthcare decision-making? The EVIDEM journey.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 9;16(Suppl 1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12962-018-0116-9. eCollection 2018.
2
Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Dec 22;8:270. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-270.
3
EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(4):504-520. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000915. Epub 2017 Oct 11.
6
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
10
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608.

引用本文的文献

2
Is a larger patient benefit always better in healthcare priority setting?
Med Health Care Philos. 2024 Sep;27(3):349-357. doi: 10.1007/s11019-024-10208-9. Epub 2024 Jun 1.
4
Identifying Attributes for a Value Assessment Framework in China: A Qualitative Study.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2023 Apr;41(4):439-455. doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01235-6. Epub 2023 Feb 2.
5
The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design in Kazakhstan.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 10;19(18):11412. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811412.
6
Knowledge Mapping of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Front Public Health. 2022 Jun 9;10:895552. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.895552. eCollection 2022.
7
The Place and Importance of Patients in Deliberative Processes.
Front Med Technol. 2021 Nov 30;3:794695. doi: 10.3389/fmedt.2021.794695. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

2
The art of priority setting.
Lancet. 2017 Jun 17;389(10087):2368-2369. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31573-8. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
3
EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(4):504-520. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000915. Epub 2017 Oct 11.
4
Ethics in HTA: Examining the "Need for Expansion".
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Oct 1;6(10):551-553. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.43.
8
HTA - Algorithm or Process? Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Aug 1;5(8):501-505. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.59.
9
TESTING MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS FOR MORE TRANSPARENT RESOURCE-ALLOCATION DECISION MAKING IN COLOMBIA.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016 Jan;32(4):307-314. doi: 10.1017/S0266462316000350. Epub 2016 Oct 3.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验