ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To explore standardized evaluation process for clinical comprehensive evaluation of blood lipid- regulating drugs and perform rapid assessment of clinical comprehensive evaluation of blood lipid-regulating drugs with different mechanisms so as to provide reference for the drug catalogue selection and rational drug use of medical institutions. METHODS Referring to guidelines and consensus such as the guideline for the management of comprehensive clinical evaluation of drugs， the methods such as literature research， expert interviews， and Delphi expert consultation were used to establish a multi-dimensional and multi-criteria clinical comprehensive evaluation index system and quantitative scoring table for blood lipid-regulating drugs around the two main lines of technical evaluation and policy evaluation. Then 13 blood lipid-regulating drugs with different mechanisms in 21 third-grade class-A medical institutions from five provinces and regions of Northwest China were scored from both technical and policy dimensions to form a comprehensive evaluation result. RESULTS The clinical comprehensive evaluation index system and corresponding rapid evaluation quantitative scoring table were constructed for blood lipid-regulating drugs in the five northwest provinces and regions. The technicalevaluation section included 6 primary indicators， 13 secondary indicators， and 34 tertiary indicators， totaling 110 points. The policy evaluation section included 4 primary indicators and 6 secondary indicators， with a total score of 40 points （30 points for some drugs） and a total score of 150 points （or 140 points）. The scoring results showed that the highest score was atorvastatin， followed by rosuvastatin and simvastatin. CONCLUSIONS Statins are still the cornerstone of drug therapy for patients with dyslipidemia； the rapid evaluation quantitative scoring table constructed in this study is comprehensive， systematic and operable. The evaluation process in this study can provide empirical references for other groups to exploring the standardized path and quality control mechanism of clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs.
ABSTRACT
Objective:By analyzing State Science and Technology Awards in the medical fields from 2000 to 2020, this paper aims to provide possible references for the development, transformation and application of scientific and technological achievements under the context of new evaluation mechanism, to further improve the effectiveness of scientific research management.Methods:Accessing in to the website of National Office For Science & Technology Awards to obtain information of Science & Technology Awards in the field of Medicine, analyze and characterize the different types of awarded scientific and technological achievements.Results:The awarded medical achievements in the past 21 years were mainly aimed at the common and frequently encountered diseases in China, with the most achievements related to cancer and tumor disease, followed by cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. Universities accounted the highest proportion of awards thus becoming the main force of medical scientific and technological innovation, while more balance was needed in regional and organizational distribution. The first prizes of State Natural Science Award and State Technological Invention Award are visibly vacant.Conclusions:Priorities should be given to foster original scientific and technological achievements, to train elite medical talent, to solve the regional imbalance of medical innovation strength and to develop high-tech medical enterprises with international competitiveness, thus solving major medical challenges.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE：To prom ote the implementation of clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs in China ，promote the return of drugs to clinical value ，improve the utilization efficiency of limited resources ，and provide reference for decision makers of health departments. METHODS ：By combing the relevant policy documents and literatures of clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs，the evolution and research progress of relevant policies in China were introduced ；the advanced experiences （including evaluation subjects ，evaluation value dimensions ，evaluation methods ，evaluation procedures and results applications ）of Canada ，the United States ，the United Kingdom ，Australia，Europe，International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and other countries （regions/organizations）were analyzed and summarized ；relevant suggestions on the construction of China ’s clinical comprehensive evaluation mechanism for drugs were put forward. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS ：It is suggested that the following measures should be taken to construct the clinical comprehensive evaluation mechanism of drugs in China including that the development goal and orientation of clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs should be further clarified with the guidance of decision-making needs ；the government should play a leading role and strengthen inter departmental cooperation and policy coordination；the traceability quality control system of internal and external standards should be established ，adhere to openness ， fairness and fair ；at the same time ，it is suggested to give full play to the role of informatization and big data ，strengthen the exploration of evaluation methodology and standards ，strengthen the transformation and application of evaluation results ，and promote the service of evaluation results to policy decision-making.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to understand and describe the hospital workers' experience related to the hospital evaluation program implemented in Korea between 2004 and 2009. METHODS: During 2010, data were collected using focus group interviews. Four focus group interviews were held with a total of 28 hospital workers participating. All interviews were recorded and transcribed as they were spoken, and data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Nine themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Positive change in the necessity of the evaluation; 2) Improvement in the hospital system, facilities, and human resources; 3) Unity through cooperation among departments; 4) Nursing work overload; 5) Lack of physicians' awareness and responsibilities; 6) Unfair and unrealistic evaluation items; 7) Lack of credibility of the outcome; 8) Shifting responsibility for negative outcomes to the workers; 9) Lack of pragmatic utility. CONCLUSION: The results of the study demonstrate that the hospital evaluation program played a key role in improving some work environments and communication among departments. At the same time, they show various negative themes resulting from the context of very authoritarian hospital systems and a connection-oriented society in Korea.