Bowling A, Jacobson B, Southgate L
Department of Public Health, St Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College, London, U.K.
Soc Sci Med. 1993 Oct;37(7):851-7. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90138-t.
The methodology for eliciting the public's priorities for health services is in its infancy. This paper presents the results from a series of exploratory exercises on priorities in City and Hackney. The authors surveyed the opinions of members of community groups and tenants' associations, and compared their responses with those of a random sample of the public as well as general practitioners, consultants and public health doctors. This revealed some disagreement on priorities between these groups. The public, in consistency with the results from other studies, prioritised perceived life saving technologies as high, in contrast to community services and services for people with mental illnesses, which they prioritised as medium to low, in contrast to all the samples of doctors; the public also prioritised health education and family planning as fairly low, as did the GPs and consultants, in contrast to the public health doctors who prioritised them as high. Before DHAs embark on these studies as part of priority setting, they must answer the question: "what will they do if they disagree with the results?"
确定公众对医疗服务优先事项的方法尚处于起步阶段。本文展示了在城市与哈克尼地区针对优先事项开展的一系列探索性活动的结果。作者调查了社区团体和租户协会成员的意见,并将他们的回答与公众随机样本以及全科医生、顾问医生和公共卫生医生的回答进行了比较。这揭示了这些群体在优先事项上存在一些分歧。与其他研究结果一致,公众将被视为能挽救生命的技术列为高优先级,而社区服务和为精神疾病患者提供的服务则被列为中低优先级,这与所有医生样本的看法形成对比;公众还将健康教育和计划生育列为相当低的优先级,全科医生和顾问医生也是如此,而公共卫生医生则将它们列为高优先级。在地区卫生局将这些研究作为确定优先事项的一部分开展之前,他们必须回答这个问题:“如果他们不同意研究结果,他们会怎么做?”