Solberg Carl Tollef, Sørheim Preben, Müller Karl Erik, Gamlund Espen, Norheim Ole Frithjof, Barra Mathias
Bergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting-BCEPS, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen.
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, University of Bergen.
Public Health Ethics. 2020 Oct 29;13(3):259-274. doi: 10.1093/phe/phaa030. eCollection 2020 Nov.
In recent years, it has become commonplace among the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study authors to regard the (DALY) primarily as a health metric. During the first phase of the GBD (1990-1996), it was widely acknowledged that the DALY had built-in assumptions. However, from the publication of the 2010 GBD and onwards, two central evaluative practices- and -have been omitted from the DALY model. After this substantial revision, the emerging view now appears to be that the DALY is primarily a descriptive measure. Our aim in this article is to argue that the DALY, despite changes, remains largely evaluative. Our analysis focuses on the understanding of the DALY by comparing the DALY as a measure of disease burden in the two most significant phases of GBD publications, from their beginning (1990-1996) to the most recent releases (2010-2017). We identify numerous assumptions underlying the DALY and group them as descriptive or evaluative. We conclude that while the DALY model arguably has become more descriptive, it remains, by necessity, largely evaluative.
近年来,在全球疾病负担(GBD)研究的作者中,将伤残调整生命年(DALY)主要视为一种健康衡量指标已变得司空见惯。在GBD的第一阶段(1990 - 1996年),人们普遍认识到DALY存在内在假设。然而,从2010年GBD发布至今,两种核心评估方法——[此处原文缺失两种评估方法的具体内容]——已从DALY模型中被省略。经过这一重大修订后,新出现的观点似乎是DALY主要是一种描述性指标。我们撰写本文的目的是论证,尽管DALY有所变化,但在很大程度上它仍然是评估性的。我们的分析重点是通过比较在GBD发布的两个最重要阶段(从开始的1990 - 1996年到最近发布的2010 - 2017年)中作为疾病负担衡量指标的DALY,来理解DALY。我们识别出DALY背后的众多假设,并将它们归类为描述性或评估性假设。我们得出的结论是,虽然DALY模型可以说变得更具描述性了,但从必要性来讲,它在很大程度上仍然是评估性的。