• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Health Policy and Management >Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies: A Reflection on Legitimacy Values and Patient and Public Involvement Comment on Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe
【2h】

Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies: A Reflection on Legitimacy Values and Patient and Public Involvement Comment on Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

机译：健康技术评估机构的审议流程：关于合法性价值观和患者和公众参与评论通过全球卫生技术评估机构使用证据知识的审议程序的思考

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Legitimacy of deliberation processes leading to recommendations for public financing or clinical practice depends on the data considered, stakeholders involved and the process by which both of these are selected and organised. Oortwijn et al provides an interesting exploration of processes currently in place in health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. However, agencies are struggling with core issues central to their legitimacy that goes beyond the procedural exploration of Oortwijn et al, such as: how processes reflect the mission and values of the agencies? How they ensure that recommendations are fair and reasonable? Which role should be given to public and patient involvement? Do agencies have a positive impact on the healthcare system and the populations served? What are the drivers of their evolution? We concur with Culyer commentary on the need of learning from doing what works best and that a reflection is indeed needed to "enhance the fairness and legitimacy of HTA."
机译：审议流程的合法性导致公共融资或临床实践的建议取决于所审议的数据，参与的利益攸关方以及所选择的过程和组织的过程。 Oortwijn等人提供了目前在健康技术评估（HTA）机构的流程的有趣探索。但是，机构正在努力与核心问题的核心问题，以超越Oortwijn等人的程序探索，例如：如何反映机构的使命和价值观？他们如何确保建议是公平合理的？应该向公众和患者参与提供哪些角色？代理商对医疗保健系统和人口有积极影响吗？他们的演变有什么样的驱动因素？我们同意组合者评论对学习的需求，从而做出最能做的工作，并且确实需要反思“提高HTA的公平性和合法性”。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号