• 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

患者对医疗保健中优先次序设定的看法:一项针对一家医疗机构的访谈调查

Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice.

作者信息

Dicker A, Armstrong D

机构信息

Department of Public Health Medicine, United Medical and Dental School, London.

出版信息

BMJ. 1995 Oct 28;311(7013):1137-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1137.

DOI:10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1137
PMID:7580710
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2551058/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To explore the assumptions underlying consumers' responses to questions of resource priorities in the NHS.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with a heterogeneous sample of 16 patients drawn from a general practice.

RESULTS

Interviewees were not persuaded that they had a legitimate role to play in the prioritisation of services. They supported the principle of equity and were reluctant to use their own personal needs as a basis for resource allocation; instead they argued from what they perceived to be the needs of others.

CONCLUSIONS

Paradoxically, surveys of consumers' views on health care priorities probably do not elicit the personal ideas of respondents but tap into a more general ideological position closer to an earlier collectivist notion of health care.

摘要

目的

探讨国民保健制度(NHS)中消费者对资源优先性问题作出回应背后的假设。

设计

对从一家普通诊所抽取的16名患者的异质性样本进行半结构化访谈的定性分析。

结果

受访者不认为自己在服务优先排序中应发挥合理作用。他们支持公平原则,不愿将自身个人需求作为资源分配的依据;相反,他们从自己所认为的他人需求出发进行论证。

结论

矛盾的是,关于消费者对医疗保健优先性看法的调查可能并未引出受访者的个人想法,而是触及了一种更普遍的意识形态立场,这种立场更接近于早期医疗保健的集体主义观念。

相似文献

1
Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice.患者对医疗保健中优先次序设定的看法:一项针对一家医疗机构的访谈调查
BMJ. 1995 Oct 28;311(7013):1137-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1137.
2
Health care rationing: the public's debate.医疗保健资源分配:公众的辩论。
BMJ. 1996 Mar 16;312(7032):670-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7032.670.
3
'There is no such thing as getting sick justly or unjustly' - a qualitative study of clinicians' beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation.“没有公正或不公正的患病这回事”——一项关于临床医生对个人责任作为健康优先排序依据的相关性的信念的定性研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun 3;20(1):497. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05364-6.
4
Prioritization and resource allocation in health care: the views of older people receiving continuous public care and service.医疗保健中的优先排序与资源分配:接受持续公共护理和服务的老年人的观点。
Health Expect. 2007 Jun;10(2):117-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00426.x.
5
[Criteria for medical prioritisation: results from a regional survey and methodological reflections].[医疗优先排序标准:区域调查结果与方法学思考]
Gesundheitswesen. 2014 Apr;76(4):221-31. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1347267. Epub 2013 Aug 2.
6
Rationing in the emergency department: the good, the bad, and the unacceptable.急诊科的资源分配:好的方面、坏的方面以及不可接受的方面。
Emerg Med J. 2005 Mar;22(3):171-6. doi: 10.1136/emj.2004.020180.
7
Older people's views of prioritization in health care. The applicability of an interview study.老年人对医疗保健优先次序的看法。一项访谈研究的适用性
J Clin Nurs. 2005 Sep;14(8B):64-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01278.x.
8
Priority dilemmas in psoriasis care and visions of a future care in a group of administrators, politicians and professionals in northern Sweden.瑞典北部一群管理人员、政治家和专业人士在银屑病护理中面临的优先级困境及对未来护理的展望。
Health Policy. 2008 Aug;87(2):203-16. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.01.005. Epub 2008 Feb 25.
9
Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain.英国成年人对 NICE、癌症药物基金以及基于价值的药物优先排序定价标准的看法:一项对 4118 名成年人的横断面调查。
Health Econ. 2013 Aug;22(8):948-64. doi: 10.1002/hec.2872. Epub 2012 Sep 7.
10
Managing resources in NHS dentistry: the views of decision-makers in primary care organisations.英国国民医疗服务体系(NHS)牙科服务中的资源管理:初级保健机构决策者的观点
Br Dent J. 2008 Sep 27;205(6):E11; discussion 328-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.755. Epub 2008 Sep 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Health Democracy Index: Development and Validation of a Self-Reported Instrument for Measuring Patient Participation in Health Policy.健康民主指数:一种用于衡量患者参与卫生政策的自我报告工具的开发与验证
Front Public Health. 2018 Jul 17;6:194. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00194. eCollection 2018.
2
Assessing Patient Organization Participation in Health Policy: A Comparative Study in France and Italy.评估患者组织参与卫生政策:法国和意大利的比较研究。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Jan 1;7(1):48-58. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.44.
3
Assessing Patient Participation in Health Policy Decision-Making in Cyprus.评估塞浦路斯患者在卫生政策决策中的参与度。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Aug 1;5(8):461-466. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.78.
4
Setting priorities in primary health care--on whose conditions? A questionnaire study.基层医疗中的优先事项制定——基于谁的条件?一项问卷调查研究。
BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Nov 26;13:114. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-114.
5
Primary care patients' attitudes to priority setting in Sweden.瑞典初级保健患者对确定优先事项的态度。
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2009;27(2):123-8. doi: 10.1080/02813430902883901.
6
Citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities.公民在确定医疗保健优先事项方面的审议。
Health Expect. 2005 Jun;8(2):172-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00326.x.
7
[Citizens opinions, experiences and perceptions about waiting lists for elective cataract surgery and hip and knee replacement. ].[公民对选择性白内障手术以及髋关节和膝关节置换手术等候名单的意见、经历和看法。]
Aten Primaria. 2004 Feb 15;33(2):86-94. doi: 10.1016/s0212-6567(04)79356-7.
8
Is cost-effectiveness analysis preferred to severity of disease as the main guiding principle in priority setting in resource poor settings? The case of Uganda.在资源匮乏地区确定优先事项时,成本效益分析是否比疾病严重程度更适合作为主要指导原则?以乌干达为例。
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2004 Jan 8;2(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-2-1.
9
Eliciting reasons: empirical methods in priority setting.引出理由:优先排序中的实证方法
Health Care Anal. 2003 Mar;11(1):41-58. doi: 10.1023/A:1025385929559.
10
A study on the ethics of microallocation of scarce resources in health care.一项关于医疗保健中稀缺资源微观分配伦理的研究。
J Med Ethics. 2002 Aug;28(4):266-9. doi: 10.1136/jme.28.4.266.

本文引用的文献

1
Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district.关于伦敦市中心一个卫生区确定优先事项方面与公众和卫生专业人员进行协商的探索。
Soc Sci Med. 1993 Oct;37(7):851-7. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90138-t.