作者: David B. Matchar , Anthony G. Rudd
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000153068.73805.43
关键词:
摘要: Health policy research and its kin, outcomes research, are primarily aimed at informing decision-makers. Although we know of no clear line separating these 2 types an apparent convention is to term performed specifically for decisions typically reported in nonacademic publications as “health research,”1 whereas the more academic counterpart. Outcomes has been defined follows: study “… impact health care on patients populations… general, real-world settings… (measuring) a wide range outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, functional status, mental well-being, other aspects health-related quality life… (and) may entail any primary data collection methods synthesis that combine from studies.”2 Whatever one wishes use, this report focuses several studies published peer-review journals past year potential importance thinking actions decision-makers. Policy decision-makers can be said—at risk oversimplifying—to driven by dominant questions. The first question is, does particular problem deserve my attention? second there solution credible, practical, otherwise politically attractive? A condition deserving maker’s attention affects many worthy individuals disconcerting ways consumes large volumes shared resources. Several recent reinforce contention metric, stroke deserves attention. Particularly salient Elkins Johnston3 which demographic projection techniques used estimate US, number deaths will double 2032. This burden (and indeed is) unevenly distributed population. Confirming previous studies, black population (particularly noted …