Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27775247›Full record

ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2016

Burden of Disease Study and Priority Setting in Korea: an Ethical Perspective.

So Youn Park, Ivo Kwon, In Hwan Oh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

So Youn ParkDepartment of Medical Education and Humanities, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-5381
Ivo KwonDepartment of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2690-1849
In Hwan OhDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. parenchyme@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5450-9887

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When thinking about priority setting in access to healthcare resources, decision-making requires that cost-effectiveness is balanced against medical ethics. The burden of disease has emerged as an important approach to the assessment of health needs for political decision-making. However, the disability adjusted life years approach hides conceptual and methodological issues regarding the claims and value of disabled people. In this article, we discuss ethical issues that are raised as a consequence of the introduction of evidence-based health policy, such as economic evidence, in establishing resource allocation priorities. In terms of ethical values in health priority setting in Korea, there is no reliable rationale for the judgment used in decision-making as well as for setting separate and distinct priorities for different government bodies. An important question, therefore, is which ethical values guiding the practice of decision-making should be reconciled with the economic evidence found in Korean healthcare. The health technology assessment core model from the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) project is a good example of incorporating ethical values into decision-making. We suggest that a fair distribution of scarce healthcare resources in South Korea can be achieved by considering the ethical aspects of healthcare.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareGlobal Burden of DiseaseHealth PolicyHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeRepublic of KoreaBurden of DiseaseCost of IllnessEthical AnalysisHealth PolicyKorea

Identifiers

PMID27775247
PMCPMC5081291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.