• 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
Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".基于循证的全民医保决策过程:进展、潜力与审慎——评“基于循证的卫生福利包设计决策过程:第二部分:实用指南”
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7541. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7541. Epub 2023 Feb 13.
2
Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design - Part I: Conceptual Framework.循证决策过程用于设计合理的健康福利套餐 - 第一部分:概念框架。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Oct 19;11(10):2319-2326. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.158. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
3
Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".三种方法改进健康福利套餐设计循证决策过程实用指南 述评:“健康福利套餐设计循证决策过程 - 第二部分:实用指南”
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7502. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7502. Epub 2022 Aug 31.
4
Challenges and Opportunities for Deliberative Processes for Healthcare Decision-Making Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".医疗保健决策审议程序面临的挑战与机遇 述评:“证据为基础的健康福利套餐设计审议程序——第二部分:实用指南”。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7458. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7458. Epub 2022 Aug 16.
5
Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide.循证决策过程用于医疗福利套餐设计 - 第二部分:实用指南。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Oct 19;11(10):2327-2336. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.159. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
6
Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".证据为基础的协商过程在医保目录设计中的道德和社会价值——评“证据为基础的协商过程在医保目录设计中的应用(第二部分:实用指南)”
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7480. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7480. Epub 2022 Dec 28.
7
Institutionalisation Is a Vital Element for Fairness of Priority Setting in the Package Design if the Target is Universal Health Coverage Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefits Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".如果目标是全民健康覆盖,那么在一揽子计划设计中,制度化是公平确定优先次序的重要因素 述评“基于证据的健康福利包设计审议程序 - 第二部分:实用指南”。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7544. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7544. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
8
The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan.利用循证决策过程设计巴基斯坦基本卫生服务包。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:8004. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8004. Epub 2023 Oct 24.
9
Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for HTA Around the Globe: Exploring the Next Frontiers of HTA and Best Practices Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe".全球范围内的卫生技术评估中的循证决策过程:探索卫生技术评估的下一个前沿和最佳实践 评“全球卫生技术评估机构使用循证决策过程”。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021 Mar 14;10(4):232-236. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.145.
10
Harnessing Country Experiences for Health Benefit Package Design: Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes and Experiences From the Joint Learning Network Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".利用国家经验进行健康福利包设计:循证审议过程及联合学习网络的经验——对《健康福利包设计的循证审议过程——第二部分:实用指南》的评论
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7856. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7856. Epub 2023 Oct 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Moving Towards Effective and Efficient Implementation of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: A Response to Recent Commentaries.迈向有效且高效地实施基于证据的健康福利套餐设计审议过程:对近期评论的回应
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:8647. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.8647. Epub 2024 Jul 20.

本文引用的文献

1
Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide.循证决策过程用于医疗福利套餐设计 - 第二部分:实用指南。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Oct 19;11(10):2327-2336. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.159. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
2
Barriers to Equitable Public Participation in Health-System Priority Setting Within the Context of Decentralization: The Case of Vulnerable Women in a Ugandan District.在权力下放背景下,卫生系统优先事项制定中公平的公众参与障碍:乌干达一个区弱势妇女的案例。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Jul 1;11(7):1047-1057. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.256. Epub 2020 Dec 26.
3
Legislating for public accountability in universal health coverage, Thailand.泰国全民健康覆盖中的公共问责立法。
Bull World Health Organ. 2020 Feb 1;98(2):117-125. doi: 10.2471/BLT.19.239335. Epub 2019 Dec 4.
4
Increasing the Legitimacy of Tough Choices in Healthcare Reimbursement: Approach and Results of a Citizen Forum in The Netherlands.提高医疗保健报销中艰难决策的合法性:荷兰公民论坛的方法和结果。
Value Health. 2020 Jan;23(1):32-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.07.015. Epub 2019 Sep 20.
5
Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective.在卫生技术评估中实施循证审议程序:低收入国家的视角。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(1):29-33. doi: 10.1017/S0266462319003398. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
6
The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation.民主危机与审议科学。
Science. 2019 Mar 15;363(6432):1144-1146. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw2694.
7
Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE.公共推理与医疗保健优先事项设定:以英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所为例
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017;27(1):107-134. doi: 10.1353/ken.2017.0005.
8
Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters.理清患者和公众在医疗决策中的参与:为何差异至关重要。
Sociol Health Illn. 2017 Jan;39(1):95-111. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12483. Epub 2016 Nov 11.
9
Universal Health Coverage: A Political Struggle and Governance Challenge.全民健康覆盖:一场政治斗争与治理挑战。
Am J Public Health. 2015 Nov;105 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):S637-9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302733. Epub 2015 Jul 16.
10
Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework: Perceptions of stakeholders.通过实施合理性问责框架来改善坦桑尼亚地区卫生规划和重点设定:利益相关者的看法。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Dec 1;10:322. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-322.

基于循证的全民医保决策过程:进展、潜力与审慎——评“基于循证的卫生福利包设计决策过程:第二部分:实用指南”

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

机构信息

Global Health Cluster, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7541. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7541. Epub 2023 Feb 13.

DOI:10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7541
PMID:37579471
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10125249/
Abstract

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs . It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions.

摘要

在最近一篇关于循证审议程序(EDP)在医保目录决策中应用的文章中,Oortwijn 等人研究了 EDP 的不同步骤在八个具有相对成熟的卫生技术评估(HTA)应用机构的国家中是如何实施的。本文评论探讨了 EDP 如何解决利益相关者在实现全民健康覆盖(UHC)公平进展方面的决策参与问题。它侧重于包容性的价值,需要注意 EDP 中可取特征之间的权衡,以及需要将所审查的过程范围扩大到不仅仅局限于专门用于制定和使用 HTA 的过程。它的结论是,EDP 为全球医保目录设计决策做出了重大贡献,并具有进一步应用的巨大潜力。同时,本文评论呼吁谨慎行事:应有效地投资于 EDP,以加强现有的立法、制度和政治框架,以促进公平和合法的医疗保健决策。