Value judgment of health interventions from different perspectives: arguments and criteria.
Value judgment of health interventions from different perspectives: arguments and criteria.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12962-018-0099-6
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Krabbe PFM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vermeulen KM;Krabbe PFM
医疗保健部门正在发展，而预期寿命正在增加。这些趋势给医疗资源带来了更大的压力，促进了医疗改革，并要求透明的论据和标准来评估卫生干预措施的整体价值。在评价干预措施并确定其优先次序的核心标准上没有达成共识，各个利益攸关方对具体内容的评价可能不同。本研究是基于文献回顾，检索最广泛认可的参数和标准，用于决策。目的是汇编一套较小的、似乎与不同利益攸关方最相关的论点和标准。在Medline和EMBASE中进行文献综述。初步检索检索到相关委员会的2000多篇文章和文件。根据他们对医疗保健，政策问题或社会正义的参考进行了选择。共收录论文84篇。在文章评价后进行数据提取。制作了一个完整的表格，包括所有的论点和标准;接下来，排除了相同或大部分重叠的论点。对其余论点和标准进行了相关性评估，并汇编了一套精简的论点和标准。最后一组包括25个参数和标准，按类型（临床，社会正义，伦理和政策）分类。对于每一个论点和标准，对利益攸关方的相关性分为三个级别（不相关、部分相关和完全相关）。许多论点和标准在对卫生干预措施进行价值判断时发挥作用，但并非所有论点和标准都与所有干预措施相关。此外，它们可能相互作用。处理相互影响和可能相互冲突的论点和标准的一个可行办法可能是安排公开讨论，以唤起不同利益攸关方的观点。
The healthcare sector is evolving while life expectancy is increasing. These trends put greater pressure on healthcare resources, prompt healthcare reforms, and demand transparent arguments and criteria to assess the overall value of health interventions. There is no consensus on the core criteria by which to value and prioritize interventions, and individual stakeholders might value specific elements differently. The present study is based on a literature review that retrieved the most widely recognized arguments and criteria used in decision-making. The aim was to compile a smaller set of arguments and criteria that would seem most relevant to different stakeholders. A literature review was performed in Medline and EMBASE. The initial search retrieved over 2000 articles and documents of relevant committees. A selection was made based on their reference to healthcare, policy issues, or social justice. Finally, 84 papers were included. Data extraction took place after appraisal of the articles. A full table was made, including all arguments and criteria found; next, identical or largely overlapping arguments were excluded. The remaining arguments and criteria were assessed for relevance and a reduced set was compiled. The final set included 25 arguments and criteria, categorized by type (clinical, social justice, ethical, and policy). For each argument and criterion, relevance to stakeholders was scored on three levels (not, partly, and completely relevant). Many arguments and criteria play a role in making value judgments on health interventions, but not all are relevant to all interventions. Moreover, they may interact with each other. A viable way to deal with interacting and possibly conflicting arguments and criteria might be to arrange public discussions that would evoke different stakeholders’ perspectives.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.2165/11539470-000000000-00000
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
The patient
影响因子：
--
作者：
Dolan JG
通讯作者：
Dolan JG
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Golan, Ofra;Hansen, Paul;Tal, Orna
通讯作者：
Tal, Orna
DOI：
10.1007/s00103-010-1113-0
发表时间：
2010-09-01
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Diederich, A.;Schreier, M.
通讯作者：
Schreier, M.
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Goetghebeur, Mireille M.;Wagner, Monika;Rindress, Donna
通讯作者：
Rindress, Donna
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Cookson, R.;McCabe, C.;Tsuchiya, A.
通讯作者：
Tsuchiya, A.