Suppr超能文献

埃塞俄比亚实施医疗保险福利包的公平性考虑:专家德尔菲法的结果。

Equity considerations for the implementation of health insurance benefit package in Ethiopia: result of expert Delphi exercise.

机构信息

Addis Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Bergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

出版信息

Int J Equity Health. 2024 Sep 11;23(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12939-024-02226-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Efficiency, equity and financial risk protection are key health systems objectives. Equitable distribution of health care is among the priority strategic initiative of the government of Ethiopia. However, data on the distribution of interventions benefits or on disease burden disaggregated by subpopulations to guide health care priority setting is not available in Ethiopia.

METHODS

Aligned with policy documents, we identified the following groups to be the worse off in the Ethiopian context: under-five children, women of reproductive age, the poor, and rural residents. We used the Delphi technique by a panel of 28 experts to assign a score for 253 diseases/conditions over a period of two days, in phases. The expert panel represented different institutes and professional mix. Experts assigned a score 1 to 4; where 4 indicates disease/condition predominantly affecting the poor and rural residents and 1 indicates a condition more prevalent among the wealthy and urban residents. Subsequently, the average equity score was computed for each disease/condition.

RESULTS

The average scores ranged from 1.11 (for vitiligo) to 3.79 (for obstetric fistula). We standardized the scores to be bounded between 1 and 2; 1 the lowest equity score and 2 the highest equity score. The scores for each disease/condition were then assigned to their corresponding interventions. We used these equity scores to adjust the CEA values for each of the interventions. To adjust the CEA values for equity, we multiplied the health benefits (the denominator of the cost-effectiveness value) of each intervention by the corresponding equity scores, resulting in equity adjusted CEA values. The equity adjusted CEA was then used to rank the interventions using a league table.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi method can be useful in generating equity scores for prioritizing health interventions where disaggregated data on the distribution of diseases or access to interventions by subpopulation groups are not available.

摘要

背景

效率、公平和财务风险保护是卫生系统的关键目标。公平分配医疗保健是埃塞俄比亚政府的优先战略举措之一。然而,埃塞俄比亚没有关于干预措施效益或按亚人群细分的疾病负担分布的数据来指导医疗保健优先事项的制定。

方法

我们根据政策文件,确定了以下在埃塞俄比亚情况下处境较差的群体:五岁以下儿童、育龄妇女、贫困人口和农村居民。我们使用德尔菲技术,由 28 名专家组成的小组在两天内分两个阶段为 253 种疾病/状况分配分数。专家组代表不同的机构和专业组合。专家为每个疾病/状况分配 1 到 4 的分数;其中 4 表示主要影响贫困人口和农村居民的疾病/状况,1 表示在富裕人口和城市居民中更为普遍的状况。随后,计算了每种疾病/状况的平均公平分数。

结果

平均分数范围从 1.11(用于白癜风)到 3.79(用于产科瘘)。我们将分数标准化为 1 到 2 之间的范围;1 是最低公平分数,2 是最高公平分数。然后将每个疾病/状况的分数分配给相应的干预措施。我们使用这些公平分数来调整每个干预措施的 CEA 值。为了根据公平调整 CEA 值,我们将每个干预措施的健康效益(成本效益值的分母)乘以相应的公平分数,得出公平调整后的 CEA 值。然后使用公平调整后的 CEA 值使用联赛表对干预措施进行排名。

结论

在没有按亚人群细分的疾病分布或干预措施获取情况的数据的情况下,德尔菲法可用于为优先考虑卫生干预措施生成公平分数。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/46ee/11389339/318d2285f344/12939_2024_2226_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验