配给的维度：谁该做什么？
Dimensions of rationing: who should do what?
作者信息
Klein R
机构信息
Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy, University of Bath.
出版信息
BMJ. 1993 Jul 31;307(6899):309-11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6899.309.
Abstract
Priority setting is a complex interaction of multiple decisions at various levels in the organisation and constrained by history. There is no self evident set of ethical principles or analytical tools to determine what decisions we should take at various levels, nor is there an obvious or easy way to resolve the clash of claims on resources. To make priority setting more "rational" we should concentrate on the processes and structure of decision making and the relation of macro and micro decisions. The debate should promote reasoned, informed, and open argument, draw on a variety of perspectives, and involve a plurality of interests. The aim must be to build up, over time, the capacity to engage in continuous, collective argument.
摘要
确定优先事项是组织内各级多个决策的复杂互动，并受历史因素的制约。没有一套不言而喻的伦理原则或分析工具来决定我们在各级应做出何种决策，也没有明显或简单的方法来解决资源需求的冲突。为了使确定优先事项更具“合理性”，我们应专注于决策的过程和结构以及宏观和微观决策之间的关系。这场辩论应促进合理、明智和开放的论证，借鉴各种观点，并涉及多种利益。目标必须是随着时间的推移，建立起进行持续集体论证的能力。
相似文献
1
Dimensions of rationing: who should do what?配给的维度：谁该做什么？
BMJ. 1993 Jul 31;307(6899):309-11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6899.309.
2
Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries?确定优先事项：公民陪审团能发挥作用吗？
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1591-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1591.
3
The rationing debate. Rationing health care by age.配给制辩论。按年龄配给医疗保健服务。
BMJ. 1997 Mar 15;314(7083):820-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7083.820.
4
Resource allocation--what is the first priority?资源分配——首要优先事项是什么？
J Med Ethics. 1992 Jun;18(2):99-100. doi: 10.1136/jme.18.2.99.
5
The rationing agenda in the NHS. Rationing Agenda Group.英国国家医疗服务体系中的配给议程。配给议程小组。
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1593-601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1593.
6
The ethics of allocation of scarce health care resources: a view from the centre.稀缺医疗资源分配的伦理：来自中心的观点。
J Med Ethics. 1994 Jun;20(2):71-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.20.2.71.
7
The rationing debate. Rationing within the NHS should be explicit. The case for.配给制辩论。国民医疗服务体系内的配给制应该是明确的。支持的理由。
BMJ. 1997 Apr 12;314(7087):1114-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7087.1114.
8
Muddling through elegantly: finding the proper balance in rationing.巧妙应对：在资源分配中找到恰当平衡。
Health Aff (Millwood). 1997 Sep-Oct;16(5):83-92. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.16.5.83.
9
Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience.医疗保健中的优先事项设定：借鉴国际经验。
Health Policy. 1997 Oct;42(1):49-66. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(97)00054-7.
10
Rationing and resource management.配给与资源管理。
Br J Plast Surg. 1994 Apr;47(3):162-6. doi: 10.1016/0007-1226(94)90047-7.
引用本文的文献
1
Variation in spend on young mental health across Clinical Commissioning Groups in England: a cross-sectional observational study.英格兰临床委托组内青年心理健康支出的差异：一项横断面观察性研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 7;9(10):e030011. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030011.
2
What Factors Do Allied Health Take Into Account When Making Resource Allocation Decisions?当做出资源分配决策时，辅助医疗人员会考虑哪些因素？
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 May 1;7(5):412-420. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.105.
3
An assessment of priority setting process and its implication on availability of emergency obstetric care services in Malindi District, Kenya.肯尼亚马林迪区产科急诊服务优先次序设定流程及其影响评估
Pan Afr Med J. 2015 Oct 20;22:156. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2015.22.156.7296. eCollection 2015.
4
Lonely at the top and stuck in the middle? The ongoing challenge of using cost-effectiveness information in priority setting : Comment on "Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden".处于顶端却感到孤独，夹在中间进退两难？在优先排序中使用成本效益信息的持续挑战：对“在优先排序决策中使用成本效益数据：来自瑞典心脏病国家指南的经验”一文的评论。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Feb 15;4(3):185-7. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.32. eCollection 2015 Mar.
5
Strengthening fairness, transparency and accountability in health care priority setting at district level in Tanzania.加强坦桑尼亚地区医疗优先事项设定中的公平性、透明度和问责制。
Glob Health Action. 2011;4. doi: 10.3402/gha.v4i0.7829. Epub 2011 Nov 7.
6
Priority setting in health care: on the relation between reasonable choices on the micro-level and the macro-level.医疗保健中的优先事项设定：微观层面与宏观层面合理选择之间的关系。
Theor Med Bioeth. 2008;29(2):87-102. doi: 10.1007/s11017-008-9063-3. Epub 2008 Jun 5.
7
Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study.公众参与等待时间管理倡议的优先级设定活动：一项定性案例研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Nov 16;7:186. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-186.
8
Resource allocation within the National AIDS Control Program of Pakistan: a qualitative assessment of decision maker's opinions.巴基斯坦国家艾滋病控制项目中的资源分配：对决策者意见的定性评估
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Jan 23;7:11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-11.
9
An integrated approach to resource allocation.资源分配的综合方法。
Health Care Anal. 2004 Jun;12(2):171-80. doi: 10.1023/B:HCAN.0000041189.67995.96.
10
A review of alternative approaches to healthcare resource allocation.医疗资源分配替代方法综述。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Jul;18(1):33-43. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200018010-00004.
本文引用的文献
1
Epidemic herpetic stomatitis in an orphanage nursery.
JAMA. 1963 Mar 30;183:1068-72. doi: 10.1001/jama.1963.03700130036008.
2
Public disagrees with professionals over NHS rationing.公众在国民医疗服务体系（NHS）的资源分配问题上与专业人士意见相左。
BMJ. 1993 Mar 13;306(6879):673.
3
Six years experience with herpes simplex virus in a children's home.
Am J Epidemiol. 1969 Nov;90(5):416-22. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a121087.
4
Clinical manifestations of primary herpes simplex virus type 1 infection in a closed community.封闭社区中单纯疱疹病毒1型原发性感染的临床表现
Pediatrics. 1991 Feb;87(2):152-8.
Zotero 插件