• 1. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Political Science, McMaster University;2. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services;3. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Health Systems Research Unit, Medical Research Council of South Africa;4. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo;
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

决策者开展或支持知证决策与项目的资源有限。所需资源包括员工的工作时间、员工开展工作的基础设施(如电子图书馆的使用权限或购买期刊文章)和不断更新专业知识。决策者们也许更愿意将这样的工作承包给具备恰当技能和设施的独立机构,但决策者的资金有限。不管为知证决策提供的支持来自外部还是内部,是集中还是分散,资源都需要合理最大化利用。不恰当设定优先次序的例子包括:① 采取逐个评价个案的方式支持知证决策制定时间进度表, 而不是为每一个时间进度表提供明确规范的支持力度;② 优先次序设定的标准含糊不清;尤其设定优先次序的过程不清楚或不系统不准确;③ 无交流和监测评价计划。本文提出用于指导在查找和使用研究证据支持知证决策的过程中如何设定优先次序的问题,包括:① 设定优先次序的方法可否明确地为以不同方式解决最优先问题制定时间表?② 该方法是否采用了设定优先次序的清晰标准?③ 该方法是否采用了设定优先次序的清晰流程?④ 该方法是否采用了交流策略和监测与评估计划?

Citation: John N Lavis,Andrew D Oxman,Simon Lewin,Atle Fretheim. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 3: Setting priorities for supporting evidence-informed policymaking*. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2010, 10(3): 255-261. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20100395 Copy

  • Previous Article

    SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 2: Improving how your organisation supports the use of research evidence to inform policymaking*
  • Next Article

    SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4:? Using research rvidence to clarify a problem*