让他们说话,还是让他们为所欲为?参与是否加强了患者在国家临床卓越研究所的“发言权”?

P. Quennell
{"title":"让他们说话,还是让他们为所欲为?参与是否加强了患者在国家临床卓越研究所的“发言权”?","authors":"P. Quennell","doi":"10.1108/EUM0000000005509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Examines the interaction of patient organisations with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) during the first two years of its existence. In particular, it considers the intersection of two policy areas prominent in the Labour Government's health reforms--patient participation and evidence-based medicine. Data has been obtained from unstructured interviews with patient/carer representatives from NICE's committees and patient/carer groups with an interest in NICE's technology appraisals, supplemented by observation of NICE's Board and Partners' Council meetings, and analysis of documentary evidence. The paper focuses on \"formal\" and \"informal\" involvement of patient groups in NICE's structures and appraisals process. Most interviewees felt that the patient voice had been strengthened in these areas, though there was concern about the relative weights of patient and scientific evidence. Thus NICE illustrates two paradoxes in Labour's policy objectives--centralisation/participation and evidence-based medicine/patient perspective--which may become problematic.","PeriodicalId":80033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of management in medicine","volume":"15 3 1","pages":"202-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/EUM0000000005509","citationCount":"32","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Getting their say, or getting their way? Has participation strengthened the patient \\\"voice\\\" in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence?\",\"authors\":\"P. Quennell\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/EUM0000000005509\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Examines the interaction of patient organisations with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) during the first two years of its existence. In particular, it considers the intersection of two policy areas prominent in the Labour Government's health reforms--patient participation and evidence-based medicine. Data has been obtained from unstructured interviews with patient/carer representatives from NICE's committees and patient/carer groups with an interest in NICE's technology appraisals, supplemented by observation of NICE's Board and Partners' Council meetings, and analysis of documentary evidence. The paper focuses on \\\"formal\\\" and \\\"informal\\\" involvement of patient groups in NICE's structures and appraisals process. Most interviewees felt that the patient voice had been strengthened in these areas, though there was concern about the relative weights of patient and scientific evidence. Thus NICE illustrates two paradoxes in Labour's policy objectives--centralisation/participation and evidence-based medicine/patient perspective--which may become problematic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of management in medicine\",\"volume\":\"15 3 1\",\"pages\":\"202-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/EUM0000000005509\",\"citationCount\":\"32\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of management in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005509\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of management in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005509","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

摘要

检查患者组织与国家临床卓越研究所(NICE)在其存在的头两年的互动。特别是,它考虑了工党政府卫生改革中两个突出的政策领域的交集——患者参与和循证医学。数据来自对NICE委员会和对NICE技术评估感兴趣的患者/护理人员团体的患者/护理人员代表的非结构化访谈,辅以对NICE董事会和合作伙伴理事会会议的观察,以及对文件证据的分析。这篇论文的重点是在NICE的结构和评估过程中患者群体的“正式”和“非正式”参与。大多数受访者认为,在这些领域,患者的声音得到了加强,尽管有人担心患者和科学证据的相对权重。因此,NICE说明了工党政策目标中的两个悖论——集中/参与和循证医学/患者视角——这可能会成为问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Getting their say, or getting their way? Has participation strengthened the patient "voice" in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence?
Examines the interaction of patient organisations with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) during the first two years of its existence. In particular, it considers the intersection of two policy areas prominent in the Labour Government's health reforms--patient participation and evidence-based medicine. Data has been obtained from unstructured interviews with patient/carer representatives from NICE's committees and patient/carer groups with an interest in NICE's technology appraisals, supplemented by observation of NICE's Board and Partners' Council meetings, and analysis of documentary evidence. The paper focuses on "formal" and "informal" involvement of patient groups in NICE's structures and appraisals process. Most interviewees felt that the patient voice had been strengthened in these areas, though there was concern about the relative weights of patient and scientific evidence. Thus NICE illustrates two paradoxes in Labour's policy objectives--centralisation/participation and evidence-based medicine/patient perspective--which may become problematic.
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