Public deliberation on health gain measures.

Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2024-09-09 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxae111
Ching-Hsuan Lin, Tara A Lavelle, Marie C Phillips, Abigail G Riley, Daniel Ollendorf
{"title":"Public deliberation on health gain measures.","authors":"Ching-Hsuan Lin, Tara A Lavelle, Marie C Phillips, Abigail G Riley, Daniel Ollendorf","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxae111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Researchers and decision-makers use health gain measures to assess the value of health interventions. However, our current understanding of how these measures are understandable and accessible to the community is limited. This study examined a diverse group of stakeholders' attitudes and preferences for 9 commonly used health gain measures. We recruited 20 stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and citizens. We conducted 2 in-person deliberative meetings in which participants learned, discussed, deliberated on, and ranked 9 health gain measures. The final ranking conducted after unified deliberation showed the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as the top-ranked measure, followed by the clinical benefit rating method used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). We identified 3 themes during deliberations: the importance of using patient values in population-based health gain measures, examining complementary measures together, and choosing measures that are intuitive and easy to understand. Future policymaking should consider incorporating the QALY, clinical benefit rating, and MCDA into prioritization decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"2 9","pages":"qxae111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412319/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Researchers and decision-makers use health gain measures to assess the value of health interventions. However, our current understanding of how these measures are understandable and accessible to the community is limited. This study examined a diverse group of stakeholders' attitudes and preferences for 9 commonly used health gain measures. We recruited 20 stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and citizens. We conducted 2 in-person deliberative meetings in which participants learned, discussed, deliberated on, and ranked 9 health gain measures. The final ranking conducted after unified deliberation showed the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as the top-ranked measure, followed by the clinical benefit rating method used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). We identified 3 themes during deliberations: the importance of using patient values in population-based health gain measures, examining complementary measures together, and choosing measures that are intuitive and easy to understand. Future policymaking should consider incorporating the QALY, clinical benefit rating, and MCDA into prioritization decisions.

公众对健康增益措施的讨论。
研究人员和决策者使用健康收益衡量标准来评估健康干预措施的价值。然而,我们目前对这些衡量标准如何为社区所理解和使用的了解还很有限。本研究考察了不同利益相关者对 9 种常用健康收益指标的态度和偏好。我们招募了 20 名利益相关者,包括患者、护理人员、药剂师、专职医疗人员和市民。我们举行了两次面对面的商议会议,与会者在会上学习、讨论、商议了 9 项健康增益措施,并对其进行了排序。经过统一商议后进行的最终排名显示,质量调整生命年 (QALY) 是排名最靠前的衡量标准,其次是美国预防服务工作组使用的临床收益评级方法和多标准决策分析 (MCDA)。在讨论过程中,我们发现了 3 个主题:在基于人群的健康收益衡量标准中使用患者价值的重要性、共同研究互补性衡量标准以及选择直观易懂的衡量标准。未来的决策应考虑将 QALY、临床收益评级和 MCDA 纳入优先级决策中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信