• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Health Services Research & Policy >Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think?
【24h】

Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think?

机译：基于证据的优先级设定：决策者如何看待？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objectives: Resource scarcity dictates the need for health organisations to set priorities. Although such activitynshould be based, at least in part, on evidence, there are limited examples in the literature of decision-makersnreflecting on their use of evidence in priority-setting.nMethods: A participatory action-research project was conducted in a single health authority in Alberta. It includednin-depth interviews and focus groups with senior decision-makers both before and after development andnimplementation of a macro-level priority-setting framework (programme budgeting and marginal analysis, PBMA).nData were thematically coded and information on the use of evidence in priority-setting is reported.nResults: Barriers to the use of evidence in priority-setting identified by decision-makers included crisis-orientatednmanagement, time constraints and a lack of skills. Decision-makers suggested using a mix of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ formsnof evidence in priority-setting. Following PBMA implementation, decision-makers wanted better information onncapacity to benefit, but preferred to do this pragmatically from multiple sources of information rather than using ansingle metric.nConclusion: In examining the perspectives of decision-makers in using evidence to support priority-setting,nvaluable information was derived which should provide insight for such processes in other jurisdictions. The mainnfinding of a desire for pragmatic assessment of benefit is informative for those involved in both decision-makingnand research.
机译：目标：资源稀缺表明卫生组织必须确定优先事项。尽管此类活动至少应部分基于证据，但决策者在文献中仅举几个例子，他们在优先级确定中反省了证据的使用。n方法：在一个卫生局中进行了一项参与性行动研究项目在艾伯塔省。它包括在制定和实施宏观优先事项设定框架（方案预算和边际分析，PBMA）之前和之后与高级决策者进行的深入访谈和焦点小组会议。 n结果：决策者发现在优先级确定中使用证据的障碍包括以危机为导向的管理，时间限制和缺乏技能。决策者建议在优先级确定中结合使用“软”和“硬”形式的证据。实施PBMA后，决策者希望获得更多关于丧失能力的信息，以从中受益，但他们更希望从多种信息来源中务实地做到这一点，而不是使用单一指标。n结论：在研究决策者使用证据支持优先级确定的观点时，得出了宝贵的信息，这些信息应为其他司法管辖区的此类程序提供见识。对利益进行务实评估的愿望对那些参与决策和研究的人们都是有益的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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