All health care systems face problems of justice and efficiency related to setting priorities for allocating a limited pool of resources to a population. Because many of the central issues are the same in all systems, the United States and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of countries that have explicitly addressed the question of health care priorities.We review explicit priority setting efforts in Norway, Sweden, Israel, the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the state of Oregon in the US. The approaches used can be divided into those centered on outlining principles versus those that define practices. In order to establish the main lessons from their experiences we consider (1) the process each country used, (2) criteria to judge the success of these efforts, (3) which approaches seem to have met these criteria, and (4) using their successes and failures as a guide, how to proceed in setting priorities. We demonstrate that there is little evidence that establishment of a values framework for priority setting has had any effect on health policy, nor is there evidence that priority setting exercises have led to the envisaged ideal of an open and participatory public involvement in decision making.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The internet hospital is an innovative organizational form and service mode under the tide of internet plus in the Chinese medical industry. It is the product of the interaction between consumer health needs and supply-side reform. However, there has still been no systematic summary of its establishment and definition, nor has there been an analysis of its service content. Objective The primary purpose of this study was to understand the definition, establishment, and development status of internet hospitals. Methods Data on internet hospitals were obtained via the Baidu search engine for results up until January 1, 2019. Based on the results of the search, we obtained more detailed information from the official websites and apps of 130 online hospitals and formed a database for descriptive analysis. Results By January 2019, the number of registered internet hospitals had expanded to approximately 130 in 25 provinces, accounting for 73.5% of all provinces or province-level municipalities in China. Internet hospitals, as a new telehealth model, are distinct but overlap with online health, telemedicine, and mobile medical. They offer four kinds of services—convenience services, online medical services, telemedicine, and related industries. In general, there is an underlying common treatment flowchart of care in ordinary and internet hospitals. There are three different sponsors—government-led integration, hospital-led, and enterprise-led internet hospitals—for which stakeholders have different supporting content and responsibilities. Conclusions Internet hospitals are booming in China, and it is the joint effort of the government and the market to alleviate the coexistence of shortages of medical resources and wasted medical supplies. The origin of internet hospitals in the eastern and western regions, the purpose of the establishment initiator, and the content of online and offline services are different. Only further standardized management and reasonable industry freedom can realize the original intention of the internet hospital of meeting various health needs.

The World Medical Association’s revised Declaration of Helsinki endorses the view that all trial participants in every country are entitled to the worldwide best standard of care. In this paper the authors show that this requirement has been rejected by every national and international committee that has examined this issue. They argue that the consensus view now holds that it is ethically permissible, in some circumstances, to provide research participants less than the worldwide best care. Finally, the authors show that there is also consensus regarding the broad conditions under which this is acceptable.

To avoid exploitation of host communities, many commentators argue that subjects must receive the best methods available worldwide. Others worry that this requirement may block important research intended to improve health care, especially in developing countries. To resolve this dilemma, we propose a framework for the conditions under which it is acceptable to provide subjects with less than the best methods. Specifically, institutional review boards should assume a default of requiring the "worldwide best" methods, meaning the best methods available anywhere in the world, in all cases.However, institutional review boards should be willing to grant exceptions to this default for research studies that satisfy the following 4 conditions: (1) scientific necessity, (2) relevance for the host community, (3) sufficient host community benefit, and (4) subject and host community non-maleficence.

No abstract

BackgroundAlthough the amount of detail in informed consent documents has increased over time and the documents have therefore become very long, there is little research on whether longer informed consent documents actually result in (1) better informed research subjects or (2) higher consent rates. We therefore conducted an add-on randomized controlled trial to the Takashima Study, a prospective Japanese population-based genetic cohort study, to test the hypothesis that a shorter informed consent form would satisfy both of the above goals.MethodsStandard (10 459 words, 11 pages) and short (3602 words, 5 pages) consent forms in Japanese were developed and distributed using cluster-randomization to 293 potential cohort subjects living in 9 medico-social units and 288 subjects in 8 medico-social units, respectively.ResultsFew differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to outcome measures, including participants’ self-perceived understanding, recall of information, concerns, voluntariness, trust, satisfaction, sense of duty, and consent rates.ConclusionsA short informed consent form was no less valid than a standard form with regard to fulfilling ethical requirements and securing the scientific validity of research.