{"title":"亚洲卫生政策:政策设计方法","authors":"A. He","doi":"10.1080/13876988.2022.2150547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Coda (“Lessons from COVID”) is clearly written and convincing. Overall, one can appreciate the effort it takes to compare a large set of countries with interviews, fieldwork, and observatory methods. The coverage of countries is impressive and clearly the researchers working for Emanuel made a significant contribution to this comparative effort (Mattei and Del Pino 2021). Having said this, the critique of quantitative ranking data and measurement is naïve, superficial, and broad-brush. One can identify two additional major flaws: first, the analysis lacks any methodological rigor; secondly, there are missing dimensions of comparison that seem important to readers; equity is not discussed, nor are digitalization and artificial intelligence (the US is still leading on these). It is not clear why the author has decided to exclude these key future challenges for comparative health-care systems, which are central to the scholarly debates (Marmor et al. 2009; Mattei 2016). Overall, the book offers an interesting text for readers who wish to learn some basic notions of OECD healthcare systems and compare them across different dimensions. The summarizing tables and concluding discussion deserve attention. However, this investigation does not do justice to the scholarly field of comparative health-care policy and the serious and rigorous analysis of lessons drawing from different countries.","PeriodicalId":15486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","volume":"7 1","pages":"364 - 365"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Policy in Asia: A Policy Design Approach\",\"authors\":\"A. He\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13876988.2022.2150547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Coda (“Lessons from COVID”) is clearly written and convincing. Overall, one can appreciate the effort it takes to compare a large set of countries with interviews, fieldwork, and observatory methods. The coverage of countries is impressive and clearly the researchers working for Emanuel made a significant contribution to this comparative effort (Mattei and Del Pino 2021). Having said this, the critique of quantitative ranking data and measurement is naïve, superficial, and broad-brush. One can identify two additional major flaws: first, the analysis lacks any methodological rigor; secondly, there are missing dimensions of comparison that seem important to readers; equity is not discussed, nor are digitalization and artificial intelligence (the US is still leading on these). It is not clear why the author has decided to exclude these key future challenges for comparative health-care systems, which are central to the scholarly debates (Marmor et al. 2009; Mattei 2016). Overall, the book offers an interesting text for readers who wish to learn some basic notions of OECD healthcare systems and compare them across different dimensions. The summarizing tables and concluding discussion deserve attention. However, this investigation does not do justice to the scholarly field of comparative health-care policy and the serious and rigorous analysis of lessons drawing from different countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"364 - 365\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2022.2150547\",\"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 Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2022.2150547","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
结束语(“COVID的教训”)写得很清楚,令人信服。总的来说,通过访谈、实地考察和观察方法来比较一大批国家所付出的努力是值得赞赏的。国家的覆盖范围令人印象深刻,显然,为伊曼纽尔工作的研究人员为这一比较努力做出了重大贡献(Mattei和Del Pino 2021)。话虽如此,对定量排名数据和测量的批评是naïve、肤浅和笼统的。人们可以发现另外两个主要缺陷:首先,分析缺乏任何方法上的严谨性;其次,缺少对读者来说似乎很重要的比较维度;公平没有被讨论,数字化和人工智能也没有被讨论(美国在这些方面仍处于领先地位)。目前尚不清楚为什么作者决定排除比较医疗保健系统的这些关键未来挑战,这是学术辩论的核心(Marmor et al. 2009;加尼姆2016)。总的来说,这本书提供了一个有趣的文本为读者谁希望学习经合组织医疗保健系统的一些基本概念,并在不同的维度进行比较。总结表和结论性讨论值得注意。然而,这项调查没有公正地对待比较保健政策的学术领域以及对从不同国家吸取的经验教训进行认真而严谨的分析。
Coda (“Lessons from COVID”) is clearly written and convincing. Overall, one can appreciate the effort it takes to compare a large set of countries with interviews, fieldwork, and observatory methods. The coverage of countries is impressive and clearly the researchers working for Emanuel made a significant contribution to this comparative effort (Mattei and Del Pino 2021). Having said this, the critique of quantitative ranking data and measurement is naïve, superficial, and broad-brush. One can identify two additional major flaws: first, the analysis lacks any methodological rigor; secondly, there are missing dimensions of comparison that seem important to readers; equity is not discussed, nor are digitalization and artificial intelligence (the US is still leading on these). It is not clear why the author has decided to exclude these key future challenges for comparative health-care systems, which are central to the scholarly debates (Marmor et al. 2009; Mattei 2016). Overall, the book offers an interesting text for readers who wish to learn some basic notions of OECD healthcare systems and compare them across different dimensions. The summarizing tables and concluding discussion deserve attention. However, this investigation does not do justice to the scholarly field of comparative health-care policy and the serious and rigorous analysis of lessons drawing from different countries.