制定有效的成本效益指南:英格兰北部循证指南制定项目的方法学报告。

M Eccles, J Mason, N Freemantle
{"title":"制定有效的成本效益指南:英格兰北部循证指南制定项目的方法学报告。","authors":"M Eccles, J Mason, N Freemantle","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.2.127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade clinical practice guidelines have become an increasingly familiar part of clinical care. Defined as “systematically developed statements to assist both practitioner and patient decisions in specific circumstances”,1 they are viewed as useful tools for making care more consistent and efficient and for closing the gap between what clinicians do and what scientific evidence supports.2 The broad interest in clinical guidelines is international34 and has its origin in issues that most healthcare systems face: rising healthcare costs; variations in service delivery with the presumption that at least some of this variation stems from inappropriate care; and the intrinsic desire of healthcare professionals to offer, and patients to receive, the best care possible. Within the UK there is ongoing interest in the development of guidelines5 and a fast developing clinical effectiveness agenda within which guidelines figure prominently.67\n\nDuring the same 10 year period the methods of developing guidelines have steadily improved, moving from solely consensus methods to methods that take explicit account of relevant evidence. This improvement should make guidelines more valid; guidelines are valid if “when followed, they lead to the improvements in health status and costs predicted by them”.1 In order to maximise validity, three areas of the guideline development process are important8–10: \n\n1. identification and synthesis of the evidence should be done using the methods of systematic review11 to maximise the appropriate identification of evidence;\n\n2. the guideline development group should be appropriately multidisciplinary to ensure full discussion of relevant evidence, associated service delivery issues, and the appropriate construction of recommendations;\n\n3. the recommendations in the guideline should be clearly and explicitly linked to the evidence supporting them.\n\nTo date, however, most guidelines have taken a relatively narrow view of evidence, focusing predominantly on effectiveness …","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 2","pages":"127-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.127","citationCount":"29","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing valid cost effectiveness guidelines: a methodological report from the north of England evidence based guideline development project.\",\"authors\":\"M Eccles, J Mason, N Freemantle\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/qhc.9.2.127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last decade clinical practice guidelines have become an increasingly familiar part of clinical care. Defined as “systematically developed statements to assist both practitioner and patient decisions in specific circumstances”,1 they are viewed as useful tools for making care more consistent and efficient and for closing the gap between what clinicians do and what scientific evidence supports.2 The broad interest in clinical guidelines is international34 and has its origin in issues that most healthcare systems face: rising healthcare costs; variations in service delivery with the presumption that at least some of this variation stems from inappropriate care; and the intrinsic desire of healthcare professionals to offer, and patients to receive, the best care possible. Within the UK there is ongoing interest in the development of guidelines5 and a fast developing clinical effectiveness agenda within which guidelines figure prominently.67\\n\\nDuring the same 10 year period the methods of developing guidelines have steadily improved, moving from solely consensus methods to methods that take explicit account of relevant evidence. This improvement should make guidelines more valid; guidelines are valid if “when followed, they lead to the improvements in health status and costs predicted by them”.1 In order to maximise validity, three areas of the guideline development process are important8–10: \\n\\n1. identification and synthesis of the evidence should be done using the methods of systematic review11 to maximise the appropriate identification of evidence;\\n\\n2. the guideline development group should be appropriately multidisciplinary to ensure full discussion of relevant evidence, associated service delivery issues, and the appropriate construction of recommendations;\\n\\n3. the recommendations in the guideline should be clearly and explicitly linked to the evidence supporting them.\\n\\nTo date, however, most guidelines have taken a relatively narrow view of evidence, focusing predominantly on effectiveness …\",\"PeriodicalId\":20773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in health care : QHC\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"127-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.2.127\",\"citationCount\":\"29\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in health care : QHC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.127\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in health care : QHC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.2.127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Developing valid cost effectiveness guidelines: a methodological report from the north of England evidence based guideline development project.
Over the last decade clinical practice guidelines have become an increasingly familiar part of clinical care. Defined as “systematically developed statements to assist both practitioner and patient decisions in specific circumstances”,1 they are viewed as useful tools for making care more consistent and efficient and for closing the gap between what clinicians do and what scientific evidence supports.2 The broad interest in clinical guidelines is international34 and has its origin in issues that most healthcare systems face: rising healthcare costs; variations in service delivery with the presumption that at least some of this variation stems from inappropriate care; and the intrinsic desire of healthcare professionals to offer, and patients to receive, the best care possible. Within the UK there is ongoing interest in the development of guidelines5 and a fast developing clinical effectiveness agenda within which guidelines figure prominently.67 During the same 10 year period the methods of developing guidelines have steadily improved, moving from solely consensus methods to methods that take explicit account of relevant evidence. This improvement should make guidelines more valid; guidelines are valid if “when followed, they lead to the improvements in health status and costs predicted by them”.1 In order to maximise validity, three areas of the guideline development process are important8–10: 1. identification and synthesis of the evidence should be done using the methods of systematic review11 to maximise the appropriate identification of evidence; 2. the guideline development group should be appropriately multidisciplinary to ensure full discussion of relevant evidence, associated service delivery issues, and the appropriate construction of recommendations; 3. the recommendations in the guideline should be clearly and explicitly linked to the evidence supporting them. To date, however, most guidelines have taken a relatively narrow view of evidence, focusing predominantly on effectiveness …
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
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