• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >To what extent should the public be involved in health disinvestment decision making: a mixed methods investigation into the views of health professionals in the English NHS
【2h】

To what extent should the public be involved in health disinvestment decision making: a mixed methods investigation into the views of health professionals in the English NHS

机译：公众应在多大程度上参与健康投资决策：对英国NHs健康专业人士的意见进行混合方法调查

页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Demand for health services is growing, but funding is often failing to keep pace. To ensure that budgets are balanced and that delivered services continue to be high quality, decision makers are having to set priorities, removing funding from some services- this is disinvestment. ududThis thesis details research incorporating a literature review followed by a two stage empirical investigation into the way that disinvestment decisions are made and whether or not the public should be involved. The first stage is a Q-Methodology study, the second is in-depth interviews. The population for the study is NHS health professionals (including managers and clinicians). 55 participants took part in the Q-study, and of these, 20 took part in follow-up interviews.ududThe study highlighted three distinct perspectives, all of which supported public involvement. One was unequivocal in its support, another highlighted some potential disadvantages to involving the public and the third suggested that the public should have the freedom to choose whether they became involved. The follow up interviews re-iterated participants support for involvement but suggested that the public should become involved earlier and to a greater extent in those disinvestment decisions which affected more patients and/or resulted in a tangible loss of services.ud
机译：对卫生服务的需求在增长，但资金往往无法跟上步伐。为了确保预算平衡并且所提供的服务继续保持高质量，决策者必须确定优先级，从某些服务中删除资金-这是投资不足。 ud ud本论文详细研究了文献综述，然后进行了两阶段的实证研究，以进行投资决策的方式以及是否应让公众参与。第一个阶段是Q方法研究，第二个阶段是深入访谈。该研究的人群为NHS卫生专业人员（包括管理人员和临床医生）。 55名参与者参加了Q研究，其中20名参加了后续访谈。 ud ud研究强调了三种截然不同的观点，所有这些观点都支持公众参与。一个人的支持是明确的，另一个人强调了让公众参与的潜在弊端，第三个人则建议公众应该有自由选择是否参与其中。后续采访再次重申了参与者对参与的支持，但建议公众应及早参与并在更大程度上参与那些影响更多患者和/或导致实际服务损失的撤资决定。

著录项

  • 作者

    Daniels Thomas Andrew;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2016
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 English
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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