Cost of illness studies: what is good about them?
Cost of illness studies: what is good about them?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/ip.6.3.177
复制
发表时间：
2000-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Rice, D P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rice, D P
Currie等人的文章对伤害研究的成本提出了高度批评，指出“......这些研究对制订资源分配和研究活动的优先次序并无帮助。[1]作者假设，伤害研究的成本对已知的情况几乎没有增加，例如车祸死亡、住院和急诊室就诊。他们说，这些例行收集的数据提供了关于问题规模的直接和有意义的信息，如果这是决策者确定资源分配和研究活动优先事项所需要的话。那么，为什么要花费额外的资源和研究时间来描述机动车碰撞伤害的负担时，这个问题是充分量化的？他们的结论是，研究资金将更好地用于评估与不同伤害预防策略相关的有效性，成本和收益。
The article by Currie et al is highly critical of cost of injury studies, stating that “... such studies are not helpful in the context of setting priorities for resource allocation and research activities”. 1 The authors postulate that cost of injury studies add little to what is already known, such as deaths from motor vehicle crashes, hospital admissions, and emergency department visits. These routinely collected data, they say, provide direct and meaningful information about the size of the problem, if that is what is needed by decision makers for setting priorities for resource allocation and research activities. So, why spend additional resources and research time to describe the burden of motor vehicle crash injuries when the problem is adequately quantified? They conclude that research funds would be better spent by estimation of the eVectiveness, costs, and benefits associated with diVerent injury prevention strategies.