A general health policy model: update and applications.
A general health policy model: update and applications.
复制标题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1988-06
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Robert M Kaplan;John P. Anderson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Robert M Kaplan;John P. Anderson
本文描述了通用健康政策模型的开发，该模型可用于项目评估、人口监测、临床研究和政策分析。作为该模型的一个重要组成部分，幸福质量量表（QWB）结合了对症状和功能的偏好加权测量，以提供幸福的数值时间点表达，范围从0表示死亡到1.0表示无症状的最佳功能。在不同治疗（控制）变量下，特定时间点的健康水平由潜在疾病或损伤产生的预后（转换率或概率）决定。健康年是综合预期寿命期间的健康水平或与健康有关的生活质量的结果。讨论了与模型应用有关的几个问题。这表明，生活质量的衡量不需要对社会健康和心理健康有单独的组成部分。社会健康一直难以界定；社会支持可能是资源分配的不良标准；一些证据表明，一般标准涵盖了心理健康的各个方面。虽然有人建议，儿童健康的措施应不同于用于成人的措施，但我们认为，儿童健康的单独概念化为政策分析带来了新的问题。在提供了该模型在预防项目评估中的几个应用后，我们得出结论，一般措施的许多优点被忽视了，应该在未来的研究中予以认真考虑。
This article describes the development of a General Health Policy Model that can be used for program evaluation, population monitoring, clinical research, and policy analysis. An important component of the model, the Quality of Well-being scale (QWB) combines preference-weighted measures of symptoms and functioning to provide a numerical point-in-time expression of well-being, ranging from 0 for death to 1.0 for asymptomatic optimum functioning. The level of wellness at particular points in time is governed by the prognosis (transition rates or probabilities) generated by the underlying disease or injury under different treatment (control) variables. Well-years result from integrating the level of wellness, or health-related quality of life, over the life expectancy. Several issues relevant to the application of the model are discussed. It is suggested that a quality of life measure need not have separate components for social and mental health. Social health has been difficult to define; social support may be a poor criterion for resource allocation; and some evidence suggests that aspects of mental health are captured by the general measure. Although it has been suggested that measures of child health should differ from those used for adults, we argue that a separate conceptualization of child health creates new problems for policy analysis. After offering several applications of the model for the evaluation of prevention programs, we conclude that many of the advantages of general measures have been overlooked and should be given serious consideration in future studies.