卫生保健优先事项的确定应以什么为指导?一项关于瑞典公众偏好的研究

Linda Ryen, N. Jakobsson, M. Svensson
{"title":"卫生保健优先事项的确定应以什么为指导?一项关于瑞典公众偏好的研究","authors":"Linda Ryen, N. Jakobsson, M. Svensson","doi":"10.5617/njhe.6159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Priority setting criteria in health care are commonly set by politicians on behalf of the public. It is desirable that these criteria are in line with societal preferences in order to gain acceptance for decisions on what health services to provide and reimburse. We study public preferences for the allocation of the health care budget based on age, disease severity and treatment cost. We use data from a web survey where 1,160 respondents provided their views on priority setting criteria in health care. The data was analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analyses and one-sample proportion tests. Between 13 to 25 percent of the respondents agree that age, disease severity and treatment cost are valid criteria for priority setting, whereas 56 to 80 percent support weaker versions of the statements. We also find significant differences within the population; young men are for example more prone to support explicit priority setting criteria. Our results imply a need for trade-offs in health care priority setting if balancing differing preferences among population groups. To achieve a greater understanding for priority setting in general, and for using economic reasoning in particular, there may be a need for more public transparency to make clear that priority setting is inevitable. \nPublished: Online December 2019","PeriodicalId":30931,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Health Economics","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What should guide priority setting in health care? A study of public preferences in Sweden\",\"authors\":\"Linda Ryen, N. Jakobsson, M. Svensson\",\"doi\":\"10.5617/njhe.6159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Priority setting criteria in health care are commonly set by politicians on behalf of the public. It is desirable that these criteria are in line with societal preferences in order to gain acceptance for decisions on what health services to provide and reimburse. We study public preferences for the allocation of the health care budget based on age, disease severity and treatment cost. We use data from a web survey where 1,160 respondents provided their views on priority setting criteria in health care. The data was analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analyses and one-sample proportion tests. Between 13 to 25 percent of the respondents agree that age, disease severity and treatment cost are valid criteria for priority setting, whereas 56 to 80 percent support weaker versions of the statements. We also find significant differences within the population; young men are for example more prone to support explicit priority setting criteria. Our results imply a need for trade-offs in health care priority setting if balancing differing preferences among population groups. To achieve a greater understanding for priority setting in general, and for using economic reasoning in particular, there may be a need for more public transparency to make clear that priority setting is inevitable. \\nPublished: Online December 2019\",\"PeriodicalId\":30931,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":\"113 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5617/njhe.6159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5617/njhe.6159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

卫生保健的优先标准通常是由政治家代表公众制定的。这些标准最好符合社会偏好,以便在决定提供和偿还何种保健服务时获得接受。我们根据年龄、疾病严重程度和治疗费用研究公众对医疗保健预算分配的偏好。我们使用来自网络调查的数据,其中1,160名受访者提供了他们对卫生保健优先设置标准的看法。采用多项逻辑回归分析和单样本比例检验对数据进行分析。13%至25%的答复者同意年龄、疾病严重程度和治疗费用是确定优先事项的有效标准,而56%至80%的答复者支持较弱的说法。我们还发现了人群内部的显著差异;例如,年轻男性更倾向于支持明确的优先级设定标准。我们的研究结果表明,如果要平衡不同人群的不同偏好,就需要在卫生保健优先级设置方面进行权衡。为了更好地理解一般的优先事项的确定,特别是经济推理的使用,可能需要提高公共透明度,以明确确定优先事项是不可避免的。出版日期:2019年12月
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What should guide priority setting in health care? A study of public preferences in Sweden
Priority setting criteria in health care are commonly set by politicians on behalf of the public. It is desirable that these criteria are in line with societal preferences in order to gain acceptance for decisions on what health services to provide and reimburse. We study public preferences for the allocation of the health care budget based on age, disease severity and treatment cost. We use data from a web survey where 1,160 respondents provided their views on priority setting criteria in health care. The data was analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analyses and one-sample proportion tests. Between 13 to 25 percent of the respondents agree that age, disease severity and treatment cost are valid criteria for priority setting, whereas 56 to 80 percent support weaker versions of the statements. We also find significant differences within the population; young men are for example more prone to support explicit priority setting criteria. Our results imply a need for trade-offs in health care priority setting if balancing differing preferences among population groups. To achieve a greater understanding for priority setting in general, and for using economic reasoning in particular, there may be a need for more public transparency to make clear that priority setting is inevitable. Published: Online December 2019
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
1
审稿时长
51 weeks
×
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