• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Prevention science: the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research >Commentary on “Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science”
【24h】

Commentary on “Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science”

机译：关于“预防科学经济评估的证据标准”评论

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

Abstract The current paper is a commentary on the Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science (Crowley et al. 2018). Although the standards got a lot right, some important issues were not addressed or could be explored further. Measuring rather than modeling is encouraged whenever possible. That also is in keeping with the approach taken by many prevention researchers. Pre-program planning for collection of data on resources used by individual participants (i.e., costs) is recommended, along with devotion of evaluation resources to cost assessment throughout program implementation. A “cost study” should never be an afterthought tacked on as a later aim in a research proposal. Needing inclusion or enhancement in the standards, however, are several key concepts, starting with the often-confused distinction between costs and outcomes . The importance of collecting data on individual-level variability in resource use, i.e., costs, needs to be distinguished from simplistic disaggregation-by-division of program cost totals down to individuals. In some passages of the standards, the uniqueness of individual participants seems dismissed as error variance rather than considered a primary phenomenon for study and understanding. Standards for formatting reports of economic evaluations could themselves be more evidence-based. Missing too is an explicit call for inclusion of the standards’ recommendations in peer review of prevention research proposals, and in funding of prevention research. Finally, we can be confident that the better outcomes the standards promise will come at additional costs to prevention researchers. This commentary concludes by considering whether the standards themselves are cost-beneficial.
机译：摘要目前的论文是关于进行预防科学的经济评估的证据标准的评论（Crowley等，2018）。虽然标准有很多权力，但没有解决一些重要的问题或者可以进一步探讨。尽可能鼓励测量而不是建模。这也与许多预防研究人员所采取的方法保持一致。建议将各个参与者使用的资源收集数据的预计划计划（即成本），以及在整个方案实施中致力于评估资源对成本评估的致力。 “成本研究”永远不应该是在研究方案中作为后来的宗旨。然而，在标准中纳入或提升是几个关键概念，从经常混淆的成本和结果之间的区分开始。收集资源使用中的个人级别变异性数据的重要性，即费用，需要与个人成本的简单分解，以便为个人分开。在标准的某些段落中，个人参与者的独特性似乎被视为误差方差，而不是考虑研究和理解的主要现象。格式化经济评估报告的标准本身可以更具证据。缺少也明确呼吁将标准建议纳入预防研究提案的同行审查，以及预防研究的资金。最后，我们可以自信，标准承诺的更好的结果将以预防研究人员提供额外的成本。通过考虑标准本身是成本有利的，此评论结束。

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