Tuyển tập các báo cáo nghiên cứu về y học được đăng trên tạp chí y học Critical Care giúp cho các bạn có thêm kiến thức về ngành y học đề tài: The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions. | Youngkong et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011 9 8 http content 9 1 8 COST EFFECTIVENESS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION COMMENTARY Open Access The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions Sitaporn Youngkong1 2 Noor Tromp1t and Dereck Chitama1 3t Commentary This commentary responds to the article by Goetghe-beur et al 1 which applies the EVIDEM Evidence and Value Impact on DEcision-Making framework to evaluate growth hormone therapy for Turner syndrome patients. The EVIDEM framework is developed to assist decision-makers in healthcare decisions and encompasses a multi-criteria decision analysis MCDA matrix consisting of 15 quantifiable and six qualitative components of decision. With this comprehensive set of criteria relevant experts can assess the performance of health interventions and results are input for informed and transparent healthcare decisions. Goetghebeur et al 1 propose that the EVIDEM can be used to compare various interventions across disease areas in order to prioritize interventions. They suggest that the EVIDEM can analyze single interventions and the performance of competing interventions can subsequently be compared in a performance matrix. While we value the qualities of the EVIDEM because of its scope and breadth we have doubts on the results consistency of the EVIDEM to compare competing interventions particularly when setting priorities across broad healthcare service areas . in designing the national health benefit package for two main reasons. First the EVIDEM framework ignores the contextual nature of priority setting process by assuming a set of universal priority setting criteria 2 . In reality the priority setting process is context specific and different sets of criteria lead priority setting of health interventions in different contexts. As the examples of studies in Nepal 3 Chile 4 and Ghana 5 show the set of criteria .
