Premium
生活质量测量指南是否与以患者为中心的护理相悖?
Author(s) -
Disher Timothy,
Beaubien Louis,
CampbellYeo Marsha
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/jan.13820
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , guideline , health care , quality (philosophy) , quality of life (healthcare) , resource (disambiguation) , public health , resource allocation , population , psychology , actuarial science , nursing , medicine , public relations , business , economics , political science , computer science , environmental health , economic growth , market economy , paleontology , computer network , philosophy , epistemology , pathology , biology
Abstract Aims A discussion of how quality‐adjusted life years are used to inform resource allocation decisions and highlight how assumptions underpinning the measurement of quality of life are contrary to the principles of patient‐centred care. Background Cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can provide influential guidance for health resource allocation, particularly in the context of a budget‐constrained public health insurance plan. Most national economic guideline bodies recommend that quality‐adjusted life year weights for CEA be elicited indirectly (public preferences). This has potentially important implications for healthcare provision and research, as it discounts the ability of a person experiencing an illness to describe how it affects their quality of life. Design Discussion paper. Data sources Guidelines for the conduct of health economic evaluations, influential methodological and theoretical texts, and a review of PubMed conducted in April 2017. Implications for Nursing Nurses are increasingly interested in leveraging methods from health economics to aid in decision‐making and advocacy. In this analysis, we highlight how taken‐for‐granted approaches to the measurement of quality of life may discount the experience of patients and lead to decisions that are contrary to the principles of patient‐centred care. Nurses conducting or reading research using these methods should consider whether the approach used to measure the quality of life are appropriate for the population under consideration. Conclusion Since patient and public health preferences can differ in both magnitude and direction, guideline bodies should re‐evaluate their partiality for public preferences in the reference case.