• 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

Giving a Voice to Marginalised Groups for Health Care Decision Making.

作者信息

De Abreu Lourenço Richard, Devlin Nancy, Howard Kirsten, Ong Jason J, Ratcliffe Julie, Watson Jo, Willing Esther, Huynh Elisabeth

机构信息

Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Health Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

出版信息

Patient. 2021 Jan;14(1):5-10. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00456-1. Epub 2020 Oct 1.

DOI:10.1007/s40271-020-00456-1
PMID:33000424
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
Giving a Voice to Marginalised Groups for Health Care Decision Making.为医疗保健决策中边缘化群体发声。
Patient. 2021 Jan;14(1):5-10. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00456-1. Epub 2020 Oct 1.
2
Health care equity and access for marginalised young people: a longitudinal qualitative study exploring health system navigation in Australia.卫生保健公平性和边缘化年轻人的可及性：一项在澳大利亚探索卫生系统导航的纵向定性研究。
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Mar 4;18(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s12939-019-0941-2.
3
Inclusive public participation in health: Policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare.包容性公众参与健康：促进边缘化群体参与医疗保健的政策、实践及理论贡献。
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Jun;135:31-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.019. Epub 2015 Apr 23.
4
Exploring qualitative research synthesis: the role of patients' perspectives in health policy design and decision making.探索定性研究综合：患者观点在卫生政策设计和决策中的作用。
Patient. 2011;4(3):143-52. doi: 10.2165/11539880-000000000-00000.
5
Qualitative evidence to improve guidelines and health decision-making.用于改进指南和健康决策的定性证据。
Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Feb 1;96(2):79-79A. doi: 10.2471/BLT.17.206540.
6
Giving Patients a Meaningful Voice in United States Regulatory Decision Making: The Role for Health Preference Research.让患者在美国监管决策中拥有有意义的发言权：健康偏好研究的作用。
Patient. 2017 Aug;10(4):523-526. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0250-z.
7
[The power of data to support political decision making in health care].[数据在支持医疗保健领域政治决策方面的力量]
G Ital Cardiol (Rome). 2023 May;24(5):380-382. doi: 10.1714/4026.40012.
8
External factors affecting decision-making and use of evidence in an Australian public health policy environment.在澳大利亚公共卫生政策环境中影响决策和证据使用的外部因素。
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;108:120-7. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.046. Epub 2014 Mar 1.
9
Conceptualizing the use of public involvement in health policy decision-making.概念化公众参与卫生政策决策的使用。
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Aug;138:14-21. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.023. Epub 2015 May 14.
10
Developing the National Knowledge Platform in India: a policy and institutional analysis.发展印度国家知识平台：政策与制度分析。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 20;16(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0283-3.

引用本文的文献

1
Ethical Frameworks and Global Health: A Narrative Review of the "Leave No One Behind" Principle.伦理框架与全球健康：“不让任何人掉队”原则的叙事性综述。
Inquiry. 2024 Jan-Dec;61:469580241288346. doi: 10.1177/00469580241288346.
2
Preferences for HIV prevention strategies among newly arrived Asian-born men who have sex with men living in Australia: A discrete choice experiment.新抵澳的亚裔男男性行为者对 HIV 预防策略的偏好：一项离散选择实验。
Front Public Health. 2023 Mar 13;11:1018983. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1018983. eCollection 2023.
3
Preferences for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

本文引用的文献

1
Hiring, training, and supporting Peer Research Associates: Operationalizing community-based research principles within epidemiological studies by, with, and for women living with HIV.招聘、培训和支持同伴研究助理：通过女性参与的、为了女性的、由女性主导的社区为基础的研究原则，在艾滋病毒感染者流行病学研究中付诸实践。
Harm Reduct J. 2019 Jul 18;16(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12954-019-0309-3.
2
Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines.患者及公众对健康状态的偏好：呼吁重新审视现行指南。
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Sep;165:66-74. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.043. Epub 2016 Jul 31.
3
Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm.
HIV暴露前预防的偏好：离散选择实验的系统评价
EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Jul 9;51:101507. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101507. eCollection 2022 Sep.
4
Life-Course Marginalities of Positive Health and Aging: A Participatory Approach Integrating the Lived Experiences of Older Irish Travelers and Older Homeless Adults in Multistakeholder Research Processes.积极健康和老龄化的生命历程边缘化：一种参与式方法，将老年爱尔兰旅行者和多利益攸关方研究过程中的无家可归成年老年人的生活经历整合在一起。
Qual Health Res. 2022 Jun;32(7):1139-1152. doi: 10.1177/10497323221100346. Epub 2022 May 16.
儿童健康效用9D的评估：运用轮廓案例最佳-最差标度法开发一种新的针对青少年的评分算法。
Soc Sci Med. 2016 May;157:48-59. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.042. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
4
Inclusive public participation in health: Policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare.包容性公众参与健康：促进边缘化群体参与医疗保健的政策、实践及理论贡献。
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Jun;135:31-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.019. Epub 2015 Apr 23.
5
Community participation in formulating the post-2015 health and development goal agenda: reflections of a multi-country research collaboration.社区参与制定2015年后健康与发展目标议程：多国研究合作的思考
Int J Equity Health. 2014 Oct 10;13:66. doi: 10.1186/s12939-014-0066-6.
6
Nothing About Us Without Us? A Comparison of Adolescent and Adult Health-State Values for the Child Health Utility-9D Using Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling.没有我们参与还算我们的事吗？使用轮廓案例最佳-最差标度法比较儿童健康效用9D量表中青少年和成人的健康状态值。
Health Econ. 2016 Apr;25(4):486-96. doi: 10.1002/hec.3165. Epub 2015 Feb 16.
7
Scoring the Icecap-a capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff.对冰帽（一种能力评估工具）进行评分。英国普通人群费用估算。
Health Econ. 2015 Mar;24(3):258-69. doi: 10.1002/hec.3014. Epub 2013 Nov 20.
8
Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods.用青少年样本评估儿童健康效用值 9D 健康状态：比较最佳最差标度离散选择实验、标准博弈和时间权衡方法的可行性研究。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(1):15-27. doi: 10.2165/11536960-000000000-00000.
9
The validity and reliability of EQ-5D health state valuations in a survey of Măori.在一项针对毛利人的调查中，EQ-5D健康状态评估的有效性和可靠性。
Qual Life Res. 2004 Feb;13(1):271-4. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000015300.28109.38.