Frutos Pérez-Surio Alberto, Gimeno-Gracia Mercedes, Alcácera López Ma Aránzazu, Sagredo Samanes Ma Asunción, Pardo Jario Ma Del Puerto, Salvador Gómez Ma Del Tránsito
Department of Hospital Pharmacy, University Clinical Hospital Lozano Blesa. Avda. San Juan Bosco 15, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
2Department of Microbiology, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Zaragoza, C/Domingo Miral s/n 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019 Aug 21;12:21. doi: 10.1186/s40545-019-0181-2. eCollection 2019.
To identify and analyze the criteria, approaches, and conceptual frameworks, used for national/international priority setting.
We performed a search of the main biomedical databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Cochrane), and we reviewed assessment agency websites, among other sources.
An systematic review of the literature was carried out.
Eligibility criteria for inclusion were based on set of predefined criteria. Systematic reviews and/or qualitative studies (interviews, surveys, expert consensus, etc) that aimed to identify prioritization criteria or develop general operational frameworks for the selection of health priorities were included. A critical analysis is made of all the aspects that may be useful for any public body that intends to establish priorities in health.
We found that there are no standardized criteria for priority setting, although common trends have been identified regarding key elements. Eight key domains were identified: 1) need for intervention; 2) health outcomes; 3) type of benefit of the intervention; 4) economic consequences; 5) existing knowledge on the intervention/quality and uncertainties of the regarding evidence; 6) implementation and complexity of the intervention/feasibility; 7) justice and ethics; and 8) overall context.
Our review provides a thorough analysis of the relevant issues and offers key recommendations regarding considerations for developing a national prioritization framework. Findings are envisioned to be useful for different public organizations that are aiming to establish healthcare priorities.
识别并分析用于确定国家/国际卫生优先事项的标准、方法和概念框架。
我们检索了主要的生物医学数据库（Medline/PubMed、Embase、循证医学与传播中心及考克兰系统评价数据库），并查阅了评估机构网站等其他来源。
对文献进行系统评价。
纳入标准基于一组预先确定的标准。纳入旨在确定优先排序标准或制定卫生优先事项选择通用操作框架的系统评价和/或定性研究（访谈、调查、专家共识等）。对任何有意确定卫生优先事项的公共机构可能有用的所有方面进行批判性分析。
我们发现，虽然已确定了关于关键要素的常见趋势，但尚无确定优先事项的标准化标准。确定了八个关键领域：1）干预需求；2）健康结果；3）干预的益处类型；4）经济后果；5）关于干预的现有知识/相关证据的质量和不确定性；6）干预的实施与复杂性/可行性；7）公平与伦理；8）总体背景。
我们的综述对相关问题进行了全面分析，并就制定国家优先排序框架的考虑因素提出了关键建议。研究结果预计将对旨在确定医疗保健优先事项的不同公共组织有用。
