Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study

被引:92
作者
Singer, PA [1 ]
Martin, DK
Giacomini, M
Purdy, L
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Joint Ctr Bioeth, Toronto, ON M5G 1L4, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2000年 / 321卷 / 7272期
关键词
D O I
10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine. Design Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory. Setting Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada. Participants The two committees and their 26 members. Main outcome measures Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings. Results Six interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institution sin which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making,and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions. Conclusion These domains constitute a model of priority etting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made.
引用
收藏
页码:1316 / 1319
页数:4
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
*CARD CAR NETW ONT, 1998, FIN REP REC
[2]   Last chance therapies and managed care - Pluralism, fair procedures, and legitimacy [J].
Daniels, N ;
Sabin, JE .
HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 1998, 28 (02) :27-41
[3]   Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers [J].
Daniels, N ;
Sabin, J .
PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 1997, 26 (04) :303-350
[4]   The ethics of accountability in managed care reform [J].
Daniels, N ;
Sabin, J .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 1998, 17 (05) :50-64
[5]   Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritising new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold [J].
Foy, R ;
So, J ;
Rous, E ;
Scarffe, JH .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 318 (7181) :456-459
[6]  
Green J, 1999, BRIT MED J, V319, P421
[7]   Tragic choices in health care: lessons from the Child B case [J].
Ham, C .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 319 (7219) :1258-1261
[8]   Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience [J].
Ham, C .
HEALTH POLICY, 1997, 42 (01) :49-66
[9]   Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care [J].
Holm, S .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 317 (7164) :1000-1002
[10]  
Hope T, 1998, BRIT MED J, V317, P1067