Suppr超能文献

医疗保健资源分配:公众的辩论。

Health care rationing: the public's debate.

作者信息

Bowling A

机构信息

Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education (CHIME), University College London Medical School, Whittington Hospital, UK.

出版信息

BMJ. 1996 Mar 16;312(7032):670-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7032.670.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To elicit the views of a large nationally representative sample of adults on priorities for health services.

DESIGN

An interview survey based on a random sample of people aged 16 and over in Great Britain taken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

SUBJECTS

The response rate to the survey was 75%, and the total number of adults interviewed was 2005.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A priority ranking exercise of health services supplemented with attitude questions about priorities, who should set priorities, and budget allocation.

RESULTS

The results of the main priority ranking exercise of 12 health services showed that the highest priority (rank 1) was accorded to "treatments for children with life threatening illness," the next highest priority (rank 2) was accorded to "special care and pain relief for people who are dying." The lowest priorities (11 and 12) were given to "treatment for infertility" and "treatment for people aged 75 and over with life threatening illness." Most respondents thought that surveys like this one should be used in the planning of health services.

CONCLUSIONS

The public prioritise treatments specifically for younger rather than older people. There is some public support for people with self inflicted conditions (for example, through tobacco smoking) receiving lower priority for care, which raises ethical issues.

摘要

目的

了解全国具有广泛代表性的大量成年人对卫生服务优先事项的看法。

设计

基于人口普查与调查办公室在英国对16岁及以上人群随机抽样进行的访谈调查。

对象

调查的回应率为75%,接受访谈的成年人总数为2005人。

主要观察指标

对卫生服务进行优先排序,并辅以关于优先事项、应由谁设定优先事项以及预算分配的态度问题。

结果

对12项卫生服务进行的主要优先排序结果显示,“对患有危及生命疾病的儿童进行治疗”被列为最高优先级(第1位),“对临终者的特殊护理和疼痛缓解”被列为次高优先级(第2位)。最低优先级(第11位和第12位)被给予“不孕症治疗”和“对75岁及以上患有危及生命疾病的人进行治疗”。大多数受访者认为,像这样的调查应用于卫生服务规划。

结论

公众将针对年轻人而非老年人的治疗列为优先事项。对于自我造成健康问题的人群(例如通过吸烟)在医疗护理方面获得较低优先级,公众存在一定支持,这引发了伦理问题。

相似文献

1
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
The public's priorities in health services.公众在医疗服务方面的优先事项。
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):904-17. doi: 10.1111/hex.12064. Epub 2013 Apr 3.
6
Public opinion and purchasing.公众舆论与购买行为。
BMJ. 1992 Mar 14;304(6828):680-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6828.680.

引用本文的文献

6
Age in the Time of COVID-19: An Ethical Analysis.新冠疫情时代的年龄:伦理分析
Aging Dis. 2021 Feb 1;12(1):7-13. doi: 10.14336/AD.2020.0929. eCollection 2021 Feb.

本文引用的文献

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