健康界最新的三字母时尚:HTA能逃脱NHA、CEA、GBD的命运吗?

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2016-04-02 DOI:10.1080/23288604.2016.1164278

A. Yazbeck

{"title":"健康界最新的三字母时尚:HTA能逃脱NHA、CEA、GBD的命运吗?","authors":"A. Yazbeck","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2016.1164278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What Can We Learn from the National Health Account Story? Other Misused Three-Letter Tools A Way Forward for HTA References Prioritization in health has always fascinated me, so when I saw that the 2016 Prince Mahidol Awards Conference (PMAC) had “Priority Setting” as the theme for the event (http://pmaconference.mahidol.ac.th/), I was really excited. An early draft of the agenda, however, tempered some of the excitement and raised in my mind an issue that the health sector continues to struggle with when it comes to approaches to prioritization: falling in love with technocratic approaches. Global conversations about prioritization always risk being dominated by a highly technocratic agenda that caters more to a donor-focused environment than national needs for lowand middle-income countries. The most recent of these technocratic approaches, on display at PMAC, is health technology assessments (HTAs). Though there is no doubt that HTAs can and should play an important role in prioritization of limited resources for health, there is a long history of overselling technical answers and in some cases causing more harm than good. The January 2016 issue of Health Systems and Reform, “Special Issue: PrinceMahidol AwardConference 2016: Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage,” offers some hope. The issue included several commentaries and articles that urge a balanced approach to prioritization, and others explore the limitations of empirical tools like cost effectiveness and HTA. The main question for me is the following: Will the zeal for a technical answer win over the more pragmatic commentary presented in these articles ofHealth Systems&Reform?","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Newest Three-Letter Fad in Health: Can HTA Escape the Fate of NHA, CEA, GBD?\",\"authors\":\"A. Yazbeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23288604.2016.1164278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What Can We Learn from the National Health Account Story? Other Misused Three-Letter Tools A Way Forward for HTA References Prioritization in health has always fascinated me, so when I saw that the 2016 Prince Mahidol Awards Conference (PMAC) had “Priority Setting” as the theme for the event (http://pmaconference.mahidol.ac.th/), I was really excited. An early draft of the agenda, however, tempered some of the excitement and raised in my mind an issue that the health sector continues to struggle with when it comes to approaches to prioritization: falling in love with technocratic approaches. Global conversations about prioritization always risk being dominated by a highly technocratic agenda that caters more to a donor-focused environment than national needs for lowand middle-income countries. The most recent of these technocratic approaches, on display at PMAC, is health technology assessments (HTAs). Though there is no doubt that HTAs can and should play an important role in prioritization of limited resources for health, there is a long history of overselling technical answers and in some cases causing more harm than good. The January 2016 issue of Health Systems and Reform, “Special Issue: PrinceMahidol AwardConference 2016: Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage,” offers some hope. The issue included several commentaries and articles that urge a balanced approach to prioritization, and others explore the limitations of empirical tools like cost effectiveness and HTA. The main question for me is the following: Will the zeal for a technical answer win over the more pragmatic commentary presented in these articles ofHealth Systems&Reform?\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2016.1164278\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2016.1164278","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

我们能从国民健康账户的故事中学到什么?卫生领域的优先排序一直让我着迷，所以当我看到2016年玛希隆王子奖会议(PMAC)以“优先设置”为主题(http://pmaconference.mahidol.ac.th/)时，我真的很兴奋。然而，议程的早期草案缓和了一些兴奋情绪，并在我的脑海中提出了卫生部门在确定优先次序的方法方面仍在努力解决的一个问题:爱上技术官僚方法。关于优先次序的全球对话总是有被高度技术官僚主义议程主导的风险，这种议程更多地迎合以捐助者为重点的环境，而不是低收入和中等收入国家的国家需求。在PMAC上展示的这些技术官僚方法中，最新的是卫生技术评估(hta)。毫无疑问，hta能够而且应该在确定有限的卫生资源的优先次序方面发挥重要作用，但长期以来一直存在过度推销技术答案的现象，在某些情况下造成的危害大于益处。《卫生系统与改革》2016年1月号《特刊:2016年玛希隆亲王奖会议:确定全民健康覆盖的重点》提供了一些希望。这期杂志包括几篇评论和文章，敦促采取平衡的方法来确定优先次序，还有一些评论和文章探讨了成本效益和HTA等经验工具的局限性。对我来说，主要问题如下:对技术答案的热情是否会战胜《卫生系统与改革》这些文章中更为务实的评论?

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Newest Three-Letter Fad in Health: Can HTA Escape the Fate of NHA, CEA, GBD?

What Can We Learn from the National Health Account Story? Other Misused Three-Letter Tools A Way Forward for HTA References Prioritization in health has always fascinated me, so when I saw that the 2016 Prince Mahidol Awards Conference (PMAC) had “Priority Setting” as the theme for the event (http://pmaconference.mahidol.ac.th/), I was really excited. An early draft of the agenda, however, tempered some of the excitement and raised in my mind an issue that the health sector continues to struggle with when it comes to approaches to prioritization: falling in love with technocratic approaches. Global conversations about prioritization always risk being dominated by a highly technocratic agenda that caters more to a donor-focused environment than national needs for lowand middle-income countries. The most recent of these technocratic approaches, on display at PMAC, is health technology assessments (HTAs). Though there is no doubt that HTAs can and should play an important role in prioritization of limited resources for health, there is a long history of overselling technical answers and in some cases causing more harm than good. The January 2016 issue of Health Systems and Reform, “Special Issue: PrinceMahidol AwardConference 2016: Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage,” offers some hope. The issue included several commentaries and articles that urge a balanced approach to prioritization, and others explore the limitations of empirical tools like cost effectiveness and HTA. The main question for me is the following: Will the zeal for a technical answer win over the more pragmatic commentary presented in these articles ofHealth Systems&Reform?

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

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.