• 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

视角在质量调整生命年测量中的重要性。

The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years.

作者信息

Richardson J, Nord E

机构信息

Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Fairfield Hospital, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 1997 Jan-Mar;17(1):33-41. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9701700104.

DOI:10.1177/0272989X9701700104
PMID:8994149
Abstract

Scaling instruments for the measurement of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) incorporate either a personal or an impersonal perspective on the benefits of a health intervention and either do or do not incorporate considerations of equity. This paper sets out three hypotheses concerning perspective and equity: 1) that more equally distributed benefits will be preferred to less equally distributed benefits; 2) that the preference value elicited for a health benefit will be greater when the respondent to a QALY questionnaire is a potential beneficiary; and 3) that, by comparison with personal preferences, individuals will be more concerned with the quantity than the quality of life in other people. These hypotheses were tested using two existing instruments and two other instruments that were created for this study. Results gave no support to the third hypothesis; some support to the first hypothesis, and strong support for the second hypothesis. It is concluded that perspective can significantly alter the values incorporated in a QALY instrument. The policy implications of the results are twofold. First, they give some support to the view that distributional consequences of health programs are of importance to the population and that they should be included in the evaluation of any health program. Second, they indicate that an evaluation should consider whether the health-state values to be obtained should incorporate an impersonal perspective reflecting the purely "social" judgment of a health planner or a perspective reflecting self-interest.

摘要

用于衡量质量调整生命年(QALYs)的衡量工具,对于健康干预措施的益处,要么纳入个人视角,要么纳入非个人视角,并且要么考虑公平性,要么不考虑公平性。本文提出了关于视角和公平性的三个假设:1)更公平分配的益处比分配较不公平的益处更受青睐;2)当质量调整生命年问卷的受访者是潜在受益者时,对健康益处得出的偏好值会更大;3)与个人偏好相比,个体将更关注他人生活的数量而非质量。使用两种现有工具以及为该研究创建的另外两种工具对这些假设进行了检验。结果不支持第三个假设;部分支持第一个假设,强烈支持第二个假设。得出的结论是,视角能够显著改变质量调整生命年工具中纳入的值。这些结果的政策影响是双重的。首先,它们为以下观点提供了一些支持,即健康项目的分配后果对民众很重要,并且应将其纳入任何健康项目的评估中。其次,它们表明评估应考虑所获取的健康状态值是应纳入反映健康规划者纯粹“社会”判断的非个人视角,还是反映自身利益的视角。

相似文献

1
The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years.视角在质量调整生命年测量中的重要性。
Med Decis Making. 1997 Jan-Mar;17(1):33-41. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9701700104.
2
Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health.质量调整生命年在儿科护理中缺乏质量:对已发表的儿童健康成本效用研究的批判性综述。
Pediatrics. 2005 May;115(5):e600-14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2127.
3
Inquiry into the relationship between equity weights and the value of the QALY.探究股权权重与 QALY 值之间的关系。
Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1119-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.002. Epub 2012 Sep 25.
4
Discounting life-years: whither time preference?
Health Econ. 1998 Mar;7(2):121-7. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199803)7:2<121::aid-hec318>3.0.co;2-h.
5
Health utility indices and equity considerations.健康效用指数与公平性考量。
J Health Econ. 1997 Feb;16(1):65-91. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(96)00508-5.
6
What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule?现代医学的价值对于每质量调整生命年5万美元的决策规则有何看法?
Med Care. 2008 Apr;46(4):349-56. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31815c31a7.
7
Preferences for health outcomes and cost-utility analysis.对健康结果的偏好与成本效用分析。
Am J Manag Care. 1997 May;3 Suppl:S8-20.
8
Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life.评估基于体征的社会对生活质量的偏好。
J Health Econ. 2015 Sep;43:229-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.07.006. Epub 2015 Jul 31.
9
Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities.健康结果的经济评价:QALY 和效用。
Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldq033. Epub 2010 Oct 29.
10
QALYs: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain?QALYs:治疗的价值是否与健康收益的大小成正比?
Health Econ. 2010 May;19(5):596-607. doi: 10.1002/hec.1497.

引用本文的文献

1
Valuation of health states in the US study to establish disability weights: lessons from the literature.美国建立失能权重研究中的健康状态评估:文献综述。
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2010 Mar;19(1):18-33. doi: 10.1002/mpr.300.
2
Quantifying the value of stroke disability outcomes: WHO global burden of disease project disability weights for each level of the modified Rankin Scale.量化卒中残疾结局的价值:世界卫生组织全球疾病负担项目对改良 Rankin 量表每个级别进行的残疾权重评估。
Stroke. 2009 Dec;40(12):3828-33. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.561365. Epub 2009 Oct 1.
3
Réfléchir, c'est déjà prendre une décision: Le processus décisionnel des pédiatres face à une situation de fin de vie.
思考,已然是在做决定:儿科医生面对临终情况时的决策过程。
Paediatr Child Health. 2005 Apr;10(4):209-13. doi: 10.1093/pch/10.4.209.
4
Ethics in American health 1: ethical approaches to health policy.美国医疗中的伦理1:卫生政策的伦理方法
Am J Public Health. 2008 Oct;98(10):1751-6. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.121343. Epub 2008 Aug 13.
5
Trading people versus trading time: what is the difference?交易人还是交易时间:有何不同?
Popul Health Metr. 2005 Nov 10;3:10. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-3-10.
6
Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status.使用效应量来模拟描述性健康状况下偏好值的变化。
Qual Life Res. 2004 Sep;13(7):1255-64. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000037482.92757.82.
7
Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals.通过评定量表、时间权衡法和标准博弈法测量的效用:给医疗保健专业人员的综述与参考
J Epidemiol. 2002 Mar;12(2):160-78. doi: 10.2188/jea.12.160.
8
The equivalence of numbers: the social value of avoiding health decline: an experimental Web-based study.数字的等效性:避免健康衰退的社会价值:一项基于网络的实验性研究。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2002;2:3. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-2-3. Epub 2002 Mar 5.
9
Measuring women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing.衡量女性对乳腺癌治疗及BRCA1/BRCA2检测的偏好。
Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):595-607. doi: 10.1023/a:1013123915272.
10
A national burden of disease calculation: Dutch disability-adjusted life-years. Dutch Burden of Disease Group.一项全国疾病负担计算:荷兰伤残调整生命年。荷兰疾病负担研究小组
Am J Public Health. 2000 Aug;90(8):1241-7. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.8.1241.