Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Resource Allocation”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Allocation of resources and psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: This commentary reviews current expenditure on psychosis in Australia, identifies discretionary expenditure that could be used more efficiently, discusses the factors influencing resource allocation and intervention selection decisions, and suggests priorities for change. METHOD: Cost-of-illness findings from the Low Prevalence Disorders Study (LPDS), and related service use and psychosocial data, are used to highlight patterns of expenditure on psychosis and potential resource allocation issues. Arguments are also presented suggesting that mental health resource allocation in Australia should be informed primarily by treatment efficiency, equity and humanitarian considerations, not differences in the global burden of disease. However, our evidence-base about the effectiveness and costs associated with individual treatments, programmes, and organizational structures is also shown to be limited. CONCLUSIONS: The patterns of service use and expenditure on psychosis suggest certain imbalances, including an over-reliance on hospitalization, low levels of supported community accommodation, and inadequate provision of evidence-based psychosocial treatments, rehabilitation and supported employment programmes. We need to identify and develop efficient interventions and programmes, re-orientate our services to better utilize those interventions, increase community awareness, improve monitoring of outcomes and costs, and undertake timely evaluations at multiple levels, from the individual to the societal perspective.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2003

Evidence-based medicine: a new tool for resource allocation?

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is defined as the conscious, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The greater the level of evidence the greater the grade of recommendation. This pioneering explicit concept of EBM is embedded in a particular view of medical practice namely the singular nature of the patient-physician relation and the commitment of the latter towards a specific goal: the treatment and the well being of his or her client. Nevertheless, in many European countries as well as in the United States, this "integration of the best evidence from systematic research with clinical expertise and patient values" appears to be re-interpreted in light of the scarcity of healthcare resources. The purpose of this paper is double. First, to claim that from an ethical perspective EBM should be a guideline to clinical practice; and second, that in specific circumstances EBM might be a useful tool in macro-allocation of healthcare resources. Methodologically the author follows Norman Daniels' theory of "democratic accountability" to justify this assumption. That is, choices in healthcare must be accountable by democratic procedures. This perspective of distributive justice is responsible for the scope and limits of healthcare services. It follows that particular entitlements to healthcare--namely expensive innovative treatments and medicines--may be fairly restricted as long as this decision is socially and democratically accountable and imposed by financial restrictions of the system. In conclusion, the implementation of EBM, as long as it limits the access to drugs and treatments of unproven scientific results is in accordance with this perspective. The use of EBM is regarded as an instrument to facilitate the access of all citizens to a reasonable level of healthcare and to promote the efficiency of the system.

Europe↗
PubMed1993

Resource allocation and the beginning of life.

Like many other countries, Australia is increasingly being forced to face the spiralling costs of health care. Population increases, an aging population, and the high cost of many items of modern medical equipment and of medical care generally, have all contributed to the pressure on health care resources. Within this climate of resource scarcity, more and more questions are being asked about the prioritization of items of health expenditure. The aim of this article is to consider the claim of reproductive technology, prenatal care, and prenatal diagnosis on health care resources and to evaluate the balance between treatments and preventative measures.

Australia↗