• 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

相似文献

1
Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study.医疗资源分配委员会的公众合法性:从评估以色列案例研究中吸取的教训。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Jun 2;22(1):737. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07992-6.
2
The process of updating the National List of Health Services in Israel: is it legitimate? Is it fair?以色列更新国家医疗服务清单的过程:它合法吗?公平吗?
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25(3):255-61. doi: 10.1017/S026646230999016X.
3
"Following orders" as a critique on healthcare allocation committees: An anthropological perspective on the role of public memory in bioethical legitimacy.“奉命行事”作为对医疗保健分配委员会的批评:公共记忆在生命伦理合法性中的作用的人类学视角。
Bioethics. 2021 Jul;35(6):549-556. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12890.
4
Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation.在坦桑尼亚地区一级实施合理性问责框架:一个现实主义评估。
Implement Sci. 2011 Feb 10;6:11. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-11.
5
Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.迈向合理性问责制 - 以罕见病和再生疗法为例的合法医疗保健覆盖决策过程特征的系统探索。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019 Jul 1;8(7):424-443. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.24.
6
Healthcare priority setting in Kenya: a gap analysis applying the accountability for reasonableness framework.肯尼亚的医疗保健优先事项设定:运用合理性问责框架的差距分析
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2014 Oct-Dec;29(4):342-61. doi: 10.1002/hpm.2197. Epub 2013 Jun 15.
7
Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework.坦桑尼亚分散式医疗保健重点制定:基于合理性问责框架的评估。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Aug;71(4):751-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.035. Epub 2010 May 25.
8
The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)对成本效益的运用:并非(尚未成为)审慎程序的典范。
J Med Ethics. 2008 Jul;34(7):534-9. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.021683.
9
Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs.介绍家庭和社区护理项目中的优先事项设定与资源分配。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Jan;13 Suppl 1:41-5. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007064.
10
Priority setting and cardiac surgery: a qualitative case study.优先级设定与心脏手术:一项定性案例研究
Health Policy. 2007 Mar;80(3):444-58. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.05.004. Epub 2006 Jun 6.

引用本文的文献

1
Aging With Grace: The Quest for Integrated, Compassionate Care for Older Adults.优雅老去:寻求为老年人提供综合、关怀备至的护理
SAGE Open Nurs. 2024 Aug 16;10:23779608241274209. doi: 10.1177/23779608241274209. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
2
Digital Health Reimbursement Strategies of 8 European Countries and Israel: Scoping Review and Policy Mapping.8 个欧洲国家和以色列的数字健康报销策略:范围综述和政策映射。
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2023 Sep 29;11:e49003. doi: 10.2196/49003.

本文引用的文献

1
Inequitable access to healthcare in Africa: reconceptualising the "accountability for reasonableness framework" to reflect indigenous principles.非洲医疗保健服务获取的不公平现象:重新构想“合理性问责框架”,以反映本土原则。
Int J Equity Health. 2021 Jun 13;20(1):139. doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01482-7.
2
Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries.描述高收入国家公共资助的医疗保健系统中优先排序和资源分配的实践。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jan 27;21(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06078-z.
3
Rethinking patient involvement in healthcare priority setting.重新思考患者在医疗保健优先级设定中的参与。
Bioethics. 2020 May;34(4):403-411. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12730.
4
Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.迈向合理性问责制 - 以罕见病和再生疗法为例的合法医疗保健覆盖决策过程特征的系统探索。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019 Jul 1;8(7):424-443. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.24.
5
Stakeholder Participation for Legitimate Priority Setting: A Checklist.利益相关者参与合法的优先级设定:检查表。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Nov 1;7(11):973-976. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.57.
6
The Need for Global Application of the Accountability for Reasonableness Approach to Support Sustainable Outcomes Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".需要在全球范围内应用合理性问责方法来支持可持续结果 评论“扩展的 HTA:增强公平性和合法性”。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Feb 1;6(2):115-118. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.106.
7
If You're a Rawlsian, How Come You're So Close to Utilitarianism and Intuitionism? A Critique of Daniels's Accountability for Reasonableness.如果你是罗尔斯主义者,为何你如此接近功利主义和直觉主义?对丹尼尔斯“合理的可问责性”观点的批判
Health Care Anal. 2018 Mar;26(1):1-16. doi: 10.1007/s10728-017-0343-9.
8
Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation.宏观和中观层面的医疗保健重点设定:评估框架。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Sep 16;4(11):719-32. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.167.
9
Priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West Java Indonesia: an evaluation based on the accountability for reasonableness framework.印度尼西亚西爪哇省艾滋病病毒/艾滋病防控中的优先事项设定:基于合理性问责框架的评估
Health Policy Plan. 2015 Apr;30(3):345-55. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czu020. Epub 2014 Apr 15.
10
Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework.坦桑尼亚分散式医疗保健重点制定:基于合理性问责框架的评估。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Aug;71(4):751-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.035. Epub 2010 May 25.

医疗资源分配委员会的公众合法性:从评估以色列案例研究中吸取的教训。

Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study.

机构信息

Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Jun 2;22(1):737. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07992-6.

DOI:10.1186/s12913-022-07992-6
PMID:35655271
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9161764/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The National Health Insurance Law enacted in 1995 stipulates a list of health services to which all Israeli residents are entitled. For the past 20 years, the list has been updated annually, as a function of a predetermined budget, according to recommendations from the Public National Advisory Committee (PNAC), which evaluates and prioritizes candidate technologies. We assessed the legitimacy of this resource-allocation process as reflected in Israeli public discourse and its congruence with the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework.

METHODS

A qualitative analysis of public discourse documents (articles in the print media, court rulings and parliamentary debates (N = 119) was conducted to assess the perceived legitimacy by the Israeli public of the PNAC. Further content analysis of these documents and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (N = 70) revealed the mainstays and threats to its legitimacy. Based on these data sources, on governmental documents specifying PNAC's procedures, and on data from participant observations, we assessed its congruence with A4R's four conditions: publicity, relevance, revision and appeals, regulation.

RESULTS

The PNAC enjoys ongoing support for its legitimacy in Israeli public discourse, which stem from its perceived professional focus and transparency. These strengths are consistent with the A4R's emphasis on the publicity and the relevance conditions. The three major threats to PNAC's legitimacy pertain to: (1) the composition of the committee; (2) its operating procedures; (3) its guiding principles. These perceived shortcomings are also consistent with incongruencies between PNAC's work model and A4R. These findings thus further support the empirical validity of the A4R.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of the fit between the PNAC and A4R points to refinements in all four conditions that could make the A4R a more precise evaluative framework. Concurrently, it highlights areas that the PNAC should improve to increase its legitimacy, such as incorporating cost-effectiveness analyses and including patient representatives in the decision-making process. Hebrew and Arabic abstracts for this article are available as an additional file.

摘要

背景

1995 年颁布的《国家健康保险法》规定了所有以色列居民有权享受的一系列健康服务。在过去的 20 年里,该清单每年都会根据公共国家咨询委员会(PNAC)的建议进行更新,该委员会根据对候选技术的评估和优先级排序,对预算进行预定。我们评估了这一资源分配过程在以色列公共话语中的合法性及其与合理性问责制(A4R)框架的一致性。

方法

对公共话语文件(印刷媒体上的文章、法院裁决和议会辩论)进行定性分析(N=119),以评估以色列公众对 PNAC 的看法。对这些文件进行进一步的内容分析,并对利益相关者进行半结构化访谈(N=70),揭示了其合法性的主要支柱和威胁。基于这些数据源、政府指定 PNAC 程序的文件以及参与者观察的数据,我们评估了其与 A4R 的四个条件(公开性、相关性、修订和上诉、监管)的一致性。

结果

PNAC 在以色列公共话语中因其专业性和透明度而获得持续的合法性支持。这些优势与 A4R 对公开性和相关性条件的强调是一致的。PNAC 合法性的三个主要威胁涉及:(1)委员会的组成;(2)其运作程序;(3)其指导原则。这些感知到的缺点也与 PNAC 的工作模式与 A4R 之间的不匹配一致。这些发现进一步支持了 A4R 的实证有效性。

结论

对 PNAC 与 A4R 之间契合度的分析指出了所有四个条件都需要改进,以使 A4R 成为一个更精确的评估框架。同时,它突出了 PNAC 应该改进的领域,例如纳入成本效益分析和让患者代表参与决策过程。本文的希伯来语和阿拉伯语摘要作为附加文件提供。