Marcus Sellars, Joanna Coast, Emily Lancsar, Cam Donaldson, Stacy M Carter
{"title":"“条条框框是行不通的”:对儿童和成人质量调整生命年(QALY)收益在卫生技术评估中的相对价值进行定性探索。","authors":"Marcus Sellars, Joanna Coast, Emily Lancsar, Cam Donaldson, Stacy M Carter","doi":"10.1017/S0266462325000194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Effective allocation of scarce healthcare resources involves complex ethical and technical evaluations, with decision makers sometimes utilizing a societal perspective in health technology assessment (HTA). This study aimed to explore societal perspectives on healthcare resource allocation within Australia's HTA framework, focusing on the valuation of health gains for children and young people (CYP) compared to adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with ten young people (aged 15-17) and twenty adults between October 2021 and April 2022. Participants were purposively sampled for diverse characteristics and completed an online information survey prior to the interviews, introducing relevant concepts. Interviews were analyzed using inductive coding, categorization, and constant comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants expressed nuanced perspectives on HTA processes, generally opposing numeric weighting and preferring a deliberative approach based on committee judgment. Although most participants acknowledged some moral relevance of CYP status in HTA, opinions varied on its operationalization. A sizable minority, including those with extensive health system experience, did not view CYP status as morally relevant, though some noted specific service gaps for CYP (e.g., mental health care, pain management). Participants identified a spectrum of factors, both person-centered and intervention related, that often surpassed the relevance of CYP status, including addressing severity, unmet needs, prevention, and early intervention, with an emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings highlight the inherent challenges in navigating the complexities of HTA and the critical need for HTA frameworks to be adaptable and inclusive, effectively integrating societal preferences to enhance healthcare policy's equity and responsiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"e23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12019764/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Blanket rules just don't work\\\": Qualitative exploration of the relative value of child and adult quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains for health technology assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Marcus Sellars, Joanna Coast, Emily Lancsar, Cam Donaldson, Stacy M Carter\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266462325000194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Effective allocation of scarce healthcare resources involves complex ethical and technical evaluations, with decision makers sometimes utilizing a societal perspective in health technology assessment (HTA). This study aimed to explore societal perspectives on healthcare resource allocation within Australia's HTA framework, focusing on the valuation of health gains for children and young people (CYP) compared to adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with ten young people (aged 15-17) and twenty adults between October 2021 and April 2022. Participants were purposively sampled for diverse characteristics and completed an online information survey prior to the interviews, introducing relevant concepts. Interviews were analyzed using inductive coding, categorization, and constant comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants expressed nuanced perspectives on HTA processes, generally opposing numeric weighting and preferring a deliberative approach based on committee judgment. Although most participants acknowledged some moral relevance of CYP status in HTA, opinions varied on its operationalization. A sizable minority, including those with extensive health system experience, did not view CYP status as morally relevant, though some noted specific service gaps for CYP (e.g., mental health care, pain management). Participants identified a spectrum of factors, both person-centered and intervention related, that often surpassed the relevance of CYP status, including addressing severity, unmet needs, prevention, and early intervention, with an emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings highlight the inherent challenges in navigating the complexities of HTA and the critical need for HTA frameworks to be adaptable and inclusive, effectively integrating societal preferences to enhance healthcare policy's equity and responsiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12019764/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325000194\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325000194","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
"Blanket rules just don't work": Qualitative exploration of the relative value of child and adult quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains for health technology assessment.
Objectives: Effective allocation of scarce healthcare resources involves complex ethical and technical evaluations, with decision makers sometimes utilizing a societal perspective in health technology assessment (HTA). This study aimed to explore societal perspectives on healthcare resource allocation within Australia's HTA framework, focusing on the valuation of health gains for children and young people (CYP) compared to adults.
Methods: In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with ten young people (aged 15-17) and twenty adults between October 2021 and April 2022. Participants were purposively sampled for diverse characteristics and completed an online information survey prior to the interviews, introducing relevant concepts. Interviews were analyzed using inductive coding, categorization, and constant comparison.
Results: Participants expressed nuanced perspectives on HTA processes, generally opposing numeric weighting and preferring a deliberative approach based on committee judgment. Although most participants acknowledged some moral relevance of CYP status in HTA, opinions varied on its operationalization. A sizable minority, including those with extensive health system experience, did not view CYP status as morally relevant, though some noted specific service gaps for CYP (e.g., mental health care, pain management). Participants identified a spectrum of factors, both person-centered and intervention related, that often surpassed the relevance of CYP status, including addressing severity, unmet needs, prevention, and early intervention, with an emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
Conclusion: Our findings highlight the inherent challenges in navigating the complexities of HTA and the critical need for HTA frameworks to be adaptable and inclusive, effectively integrating societal preferences to enhance healthcare policy's equity and responsiveness.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.