基于一般偏好的措施:经济学家如何衡量健康效益

Chris Sampson
{"title":"基于一般偏好的措施:经济学家如何衡量健康效益","authors":"Chris Sampson","doi":"10.47795/ziwx7131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Resources are always scarce, but the possible uses of these resources are limitless. This simple observation underlies much of what economists do. It leads to competing demands from different parties and requires individuals and organisations to make choices about their use of scarce resources. The primary purpose of economics is to help us understand how decisions about the distribution of scarce resources are made and to identify optimal decisions. It shouldn’t take too much of an intellectual leap to see how adopting an economist’s perspective might contribute to the improvement of patient care and health outcomes. The process of evaluating health care interventions is well-established, with the randomised controlled trial maintaining its place as the gold standard method. A crucial decision that must be made in figuring out if an intervention works is which indicator should be used. The purpose of the intervention might be to reduce mortality, improve functioning or prevent falls. It could be all three. If the intervention produces an improvement in these indicators it is probably of value – but of what value? How do we value this intervention? And why might we want to?","PeriodicalId":34274,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Clinical Neuroscience Rehabilitation","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Generic preference-based measures: how economists measure health benefit\",\"authors\":\"Chris Sampson\",\"doi\":\"10.47795/ziwx7131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Resources are always scarce, but the possible uses of these resources are limitless. This simple observation underlies much of what economists do. It leads to competing demands from different parties and requires individuals and organisations to make choices about their use of scarce resources. The primary purpose of economics is to help us understand how decisions about the distribution of scarce resources are made and to identify optimal decisions. It shouldn’t take too much of an intellectual leap to see how adopting an economist’s perspective might contribute to the improvement of patient care and health outcomes. The process of evaluating health care interventions is well-established, with the randomised controlled trial maintaining its place as the gold standard method. A crucial decision that must be made in figuring out if an intervention works is which indicator should be used. The purpose of the intervention might be to reduce mortality, improve functioning or prevent falls. It could be all three. If the intervention produces an improvement in these indicators it is probably of value – but of what value? How do we value this intervention? And why might we want to?\",\"PeriodicalId\":34274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Clinical Neuroscience Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Clinical Neuroscience Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47795/ziwx7131\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Clinical Neuroscience Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47795/ziwx7131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

资源总是稀缺的,但这些资源的可能用途是无限的。这个简单的观察奠定了经济学家所做的大部分工作的基础。它导致来自不同方面的竞争需求,并要求个人和组织对稀缺资源的使用做出选择。经济学的主要目的是帮助我们理解关于稀缺资源分配的决策是如何做出的,并确定最佳决策。不需要太多的智力飞跃就能看出,采用经济学家的观点如何有助于改善病人的护理和健康状况。评估卫生保健干预措施的过程是完善的,随机对照试验保持其作为金标准方法的地位。在确定干预是否有效时,必须做出的一个关键决定是应该使用哪个指标。干预的目的可能是降低死亡率,改善功能或防止跌倒。可能三者都有。如果干预措施改善了这些指标,可能是有价值的——但有什么价值呢?我们如何评价这种干预?我们为什么要这么做呢?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Generic preference-based measures: how economists measure health benefit
Resources are always scarce, but the possible uses of these resources are limitless. This simple observation underlies much of what economists do. It leads to competing demands from different parties and requires individuals and organisations to make choices about their use of scarce resources. The primary purpose of economics is to help us understand how decisions about the distribution of scarce resources are made and to identify optimal decisions. It shouldn’t take too much of an intellectual leap to see how adopting an economist’s perspective might contribute to the improvement of patient care and health outcomes. The process of evaluating health care interventions is well-established, with the randomised controlled trial maintaining its place as the gold standard method. A crucial decision that must be made in figuring out if an intervention works is which indicator should be used. The purpose of the intervention might be to reduce mortality, improve functioning or prevent falls. It could be all three. If the intervention produces an improvement in these indicators it is probably of value – but of what value? How do we value this intervention? And why might we want to?
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
18
审稿时长
8 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