基因组医学的分配成本效益分析:解决卫生公平问题的考虑。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Hadley Stevens Smith, James Buchanan, Ilias Goranitis, Maarten J IJzerman, Tara A Lavelle, Deborah A Marshall, Dean A Regier, Wendy J Ungar, Deirdre Weymann, Sarah Wordsworth, Kathryn A Phillips, Jeroen P Jansen
{"title":"基因组医学的分配成本效益分析:解决卫生公平问题的考虑。","authors":"Hadley Stevens Smith, James Buchanan, Ilias Goranitis, Maarten J IJzerman, Tara A Lavelle, Deborah A Marshall, Dean A Regier, Wendy J Ungar, Deirdre Weymann, Sarah Wordsworth, Kathryn A Phillips, Jeroen P Jansen","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) supports equitable resource allocation by quantifying equity-efficiency trade-offs. DCEA may be particularly useful to understand equity impacts in the context of genomic medicine, a rapidly growing clinical area that has prompted concerns about its potential to exacerbate health inequities by differentially benefitting some population groups over others because of disparities in research inclusion and access to specialty care. This article critically examines the application of DCEA in the context of genomic medicine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We articulate steps for distributional impact assessment in the context of genomic medicine by adapting an existing conceptual framework for understanding the causal pathway between a healthcare intervention and the distribution of costs and effects among social groups, the inequality staircase. We discuss related data equity considerations and evidence requirements specific to genomic medicine interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The need for and receipt of a genomic medicine intervention, as well as an intervention's short-term and long-term effects, may vary across equity-relevant subgroups. Research to enhance the relevance of DCEA in genomic medicine should avoid conflation of biological and social factors, empower populations that are underrepresented in genomics research, accurately assess variation in outcomes across equity-relevant subgroups, and develop methods for incorporation of nonhealth outcomes within a DCEA framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Best practice-aligned applications of DCEA may facilitate transparent discussions of health equity in coverage and implementation decisions. This article provides guidance to researchers on the use of DCEA in genomic medicine and other clinical areas with similarly complex considerations around equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Genomic Medicine: Considerations for Addressing Health Equity.\",\"authors\":\"Hadley Stevens Smith, James Buchanan, Ilias Goranitis, Maarten J IJzerman, Tara A Lavelle, Deborah A Marshall, Dean A Regier, Wendy J Ungar, Deirdre Weymann, Sarah Wordsworth, Kathryn A Phillips, Jeroen P Jansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) supports equitable resource allocation by quantifying equity-efficiency trade-offs. DCEA may be particularly useful to understand equity impacts in the context of genomic medicine, a rapidly growing clinical area that has prompted concerns about its potential to exacerbate health inequities by differentially benefitting some population groups over others because of disparities in research inclusion and access to specialty care. This article critically examines the application of DCEA in the context of genomic medicine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We articulate steps for distributional impact assessment in the context of genomic medicine by adapting an existing conceptual framework for understanding the causal pathway between a healthcare intervention and the distribution of costs and effects among social groups, the inequality staircase. We discuss related data equity considerations and evidence requirements specific to genomic medicine interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The need for and receipt of a genomic medicine intervention, as well as an intervention's short-term and long-term effects, may vary across equity-relevant subgroups. Research to enhance the relevance of DCEA in genomic medicine should avoid conflation of biological and social factors, empower populations that are underrepresented in genomics research, accurately assess variation in outcomes across equity-relevant subgroups, and develop methods for incorporation of nonhealth outcomes within a DCEA framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Best practice-aligned applications of DCEA may facilitate transparent discussions of health equity in coverage and implementation decisions. This article provides guidance to researchers on the use of DCEA in genomic medicine and other clinical areas with similarly complex considerations around equity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2162\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2162","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:分配成本效益分析(DCEA)通过量化公平效率权衡来支持公平的资源分配。DCEA对于理解基因组医学背景下的公平影响可能特别有用,基因组医学是一个快速发展的临床领域,由于研究纳入和获得专业护理方面的差异,一些人群比其他人群受益不同,这引起了人们对其可能加剧卫生不平等的担忧。本文批判性地探讨了DCEA在基因组医学中的应用。方法:我们通过采用现有的概念框架来理解卫生保健干预与社会群体之间的成本和效果分配之间的因果途径,即不平等阶梯,阐明了基因组医学背景下分配影响评估的步骤。我们讨论了基因组医学干预的相关数据公平考虑和证据要求。结果:基因组医学干预的需求和接受,以及干预的短期和长期效果,可能在股权相关亚组中有所不同。加强DCEA在基因组医学中的相关性的研究应避免将生物因素和社会因素合并,赋予基因组学研究中代表性不足的人群权力,准确评估公平相关亚组之间结果的变化,并制定将非健康结果纳入DCEA框架的方法。结论:与最佳实践相一致的DCEA应用可促进在覆盖面和实施决策方面透明地讨论卫生公平问题。本文为研究人员在基因组医学和其他临床领域中使用DCEA提供了指导,这些领域具有类似的复杂公平性考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Genomic Medicine: Considerations for Addressing Health Equity.

Objectives: Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) supports equitable resource allocation by quantifying equity-efficiency trade-offs. DCEA may be particularly useful to understand equity impacts in the context of genomic medicine, a rapidly growing clinical area that has prompted concerns about its potential to exacerbate health inequities by differentially benefitting some population groups over others because of disparities in research inclusion and access to specialty care. This article critically examines the application of DCEA in the context of genomic medicine.

Methods: We articulate steps for distributional impact assessment in the context of genomic medicine by adapting an existing conceptual framework for understanding the causal pathway between a healthcare intervention and the distribution of costs and effects among social groups, the inequality staircase. We discuss related data equity considerations and evidence requirements specific to genomic medicine interventions.

Results: The need for and receipt of a genomic medicine intervention, as well as an intervention's short-term and long-term effects, may vary across equity-relevant subgroups. Research to enhance the relevance of DCEA in genomic medicine should avoid conflation of biological and social factors, empower populations that are underrepresented in genomics research, accurately assess variation in outcomes across equity-relevant subgroups, and develop methods for incorporation of nonhealth outcomes within a DCEA framework.

Conclusions: Best practice-aligned applications of DCEA may facilitate transparent discussions of health equity in coverage and implementation decisions. This article provides guidance to researchers on the use of DCEA in genomic medicine and other clinical areas with similarly complex considerations around equity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
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