...
  • 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 >Understanding public preferences for prioritizing health care interventions in England: does the type of health gain matter?
【24h】

Understanding public preferences for prioritizing health care interventions in England: does the type of health gain matter?

机译：了解英国优先考虑医疗保健干预措施的公众偏好：健康获得的类型重要吗？

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: Health care budgets are finite and decisions must be made about which interventions to providenand, by implication, which will not be provided. The aim of this study was to investigate what features ofnhealth care interventions, including the type of health gain, are important to members of the public innEngland in making priority-setting decisions and to understand why.nMethods: Q methodology was used with 52 members of the public in north east England. Respondentsnrank ordered 36 health care interventions from those they would give highest priority to through to thosenthey would give lowest priority to. A form of factor analysis was used to reveal a small number of sharednviewpoints.nResults: Five factors emerged: ‘life saving to maximize the size of the health gain’, ‘everyone deserves a chancenat life’, ‘(potential for) own benefit’, ‘maximum benefit for (perceived) lowest cost’ and ‘quality of life and socialnresponsibility’. There were different views about which interventions should be given priority. Respondentsnconsidered not only the type of health gain received from an intervention as important, but also the size ofnthe health gain, who received the health gain and an individual’s personal responsibility.nConclusions: Aspects other than health gain need to be considered when soliciting the public’s views ofnpriorities for health care interventions.
机译：目标：卫生保健预算是有限的，必须决定要提供哪些干预措施，并暗示不提供哪种干预措施。这项研究的目的是调查n保健干预措施的哪些特征（包括健康收益的类型）对公共英国成员在制定优先级确定决策方面很重要，并了解其原因。n方法：Q方法与52个成员一起使用了Q方法英格兰东北部的公众。受访者从36种医疗干预措施中选择了最优先考虑的干预措施，一直到最低干预措施。结果分析：出现了五个因素：“通过挽救生命以最大程度地增加健康收益”，“每个人都应享有机会生活”，“（可能的）自有收益”，出现了五个因素。 ，“（感知的）最低成本的最大收益”和“生活质量和社会责任”。对于应优先考虑哪些干预措施，存在不同的看法。受访者不仅考虑从干预措施中获得的健康收益的类型很重要，而且还考虑了获得健康收益和个人责任的健康收益的大小。结论：征求公众意见时，除健康收益外，还需要考虑其他方面。卫生保健干预措施的优先级。

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