Objective To provide scientific evidence for the establishment of medical specialist system in China by investigating the history, current situation, problems and countermeasures of medical specialties training at home and aboard. Method The principle and theroy of evidence-based medicine were adopted. The information before Dec. 31, 2003 of Pubmed, CBM, official website, some journals, most frequently used search engines and medical monograph were systematically reviewed. Included literatures were assessed and graded according to the pre-defined criterias. Results A total of 1 319 studies (1 298 in English, 21 in Chinese) were included, among which only 6 were related to the classification of medical specialties. Based on the information from official website of USA, Canada, UK, Singapore, Australia and China (including HK and Taiwan), it showed that China has the largest number of medical specialties, followed by that of USA. In China, the number of medical specialties has more than that of the disciplines in clinical field, which was followed by resident training programs. Some specialties were duplicate, or not international standardized. Conclusions The classification of medical specialties should be developed consecutively, which comprehensively considered the international trend, characteristics of doctor training and the current situation. Specialties whose training program are well-established and developed should initiate firstly. Others will be put into practice gradually after being fully exprienced.
The shortage of health workforce in rural and remote areas has been commonly concerned by every country around the word. It is one of world health issues, challenging the aspirations of achieving equity. In this regard, WHO developed the Global Policy Recommendations to improve the accessibility of the health workforce in rural and remote areas through improved retention. This article focuses on the key steps of the policy guideline developed from evidence-based medicine methodology and from angle of guideline development, mainly about background, issues, evidence retrieval and selection, quality grading of evidence, and the forming of recommendation plan, in order to further explore how to correctly understand, obtain, evaluate and apply currently available research evidence, and how to use the GRADE system to make scientific and feasible recommendations in the decision-making process, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the GRADE system in the evidence-based health decision-making.
Objective To investigate the decision-making situation of doctors in the township hospitals in Gaolan, Gansu province, and to discuss its scientificity and rationality. Methods Self-designed questionnaire was adopted to investigate the clinical decision-making situation of 108 doctors from 7 township hospitals in Gaolan county. The investigation contained three parts as follows: basic information of respondents, general information of clinical decision-making evidence, and comparison between respondents’ decision-making situation and current best clinical evidence. Results Among the total 108 questionnaires distributed, 89 valid were retrieved. The feedback showed that 79% of the doctors diagnosed and treated patients in accordance with medical textbooks; 53% took curative effect into consideration in the first place; 33% failed to consider patients’ willingness properly when making clinical decisions; and 52% made clinical therapy regimen for common diseases based on the evidence which was different from that in BMJ published Clinical Evidence. Conclusion While making clinical decisions, doctors in the township hospitals do not adequately refer to the best clinical evidence as their decision-making basis, and fail to take patients’ value and willingness into consideration properly. It is necessary to promote the concept of evidence-based medicine and spread the best evidence in the township health departments.
Systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis, as the highest level of evidence-based medicine, are an indispensable part of guiding medical staff to make medical decisions. At the same time, the status of patients as shared decision-making is rising. At present, the results of SR and meta-analysis are mainly presented in the form of effect (relative risk or mean difference) and forest plot. The expression is not intuitive or professional. The process of evidence-based evidence guiding clinical decision-making lags behind, which cannot meet the needs of rapid decision-making. With the continuous progress in artificial intelligence and big data analysis tools, researchers have attempted to introduce visual presentations to improve the timeliness of clinical decision-making. Through the interpretation of the outcomes of SR and meta-analysis, this paper presents different visualization results from the perspective of patients and clinical decision-makers, which not only helps the majority of people without medical background understand clinical evidence more intuitively and participate in the process of clinical decision-making, but also helps improve residents' health literacy, promotes the dissemination and sharing of knowledge, and provides references for further promoting the technology of automatic decision-making system.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of multi-disciplinary diagnosis and treatment model based on doctor-patient shared decision making on treatment outcomes, quality of life and postoperative complications of breast cancer patients. MethodsA total of 100 breast cancer patients were included in this study through a prospective randomized controlled design, and were randomly divided into control group and intervention group, with 50 patients in each group. The control group received traditional treatment mode, while the intervention group implemented a multidisciplinary treatment mode based on doctor-patient sharing decision making. The results of treatment, quality of life and postoperative complication rate were compared between the two groups. ResultsThe completion rate of adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the intervention group was 94.0%, which was higher than that in the control group (80.0%), and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.037). The satisfaction rate of postoperative breast appearance in the intervention group was 90.0%, which was higher than that in the control group (60.0%), with statistical significance (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in grade Ⅲ/Ⅳ toxicity between the two groups (P>0.05). After treatment, the scores of patients’ quality of life in the intervention group were higher than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the intervention group was 6.0%, which was lower than that in the control group (22.0%), and the difference was statistically (P=0.021). ConclusionsThe application of multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment model based on doctor-patient sharing decision-making in the treatment of breast cancer patients has significantly improved the treatment effect and quality of life, and effectively reduced the rate of postoperative complications. This model provides a new approach to the treatment of breast cancer that is more personalized, comprehensive and efficient.
Compared with traditional HTA, the most fundamental feature of HB-HTA is “organizational perspective”, which is based on the actual situation of the hospital and supports hospital management decision-making. The new health care reform has set higher goals and requirements for hospitals. HB-HTA has management, economic and technical functions, and it can provide methodological support for health care policy management and decision-making based on the current optimal evidence, and promote the transformation of hospital from administrative decision-making to evidence informed decision-making. As an integral part of HTA network, HB-HTA plays a role in health technology networks through vertical cooperation mechanism and horizontal diffusion mechanism. It can interact and cooperate with national and regional HTA, as well as spread based on a specific medical field.
Objective To systematically review the issues and countermeasures in supervising medical insurance funds under the DRG/DIP payment model. Methods The CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were electronically searched to collect studies related to objectives from inception to March 15, 2024. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Excel 2019 was used for data extraction and organization, and a thematic synthesis approach was employed for analysis. Results Nineteen qualitative studies were included. Nine studies identified key issues in fund supervision under the DRG/DIP model: inadequate regulatory mechanisms, weak regulatory capacity, low informatization, and traditional regulatory concepts. Fourteen studies proposed optimization strategies, including establishing a regulatory system, customizing regulatory indicators, creating a performance evaluation mechanism, developing talent, promoting multi-party regulation, enhancing intelligent supervision systems, and improving stakeholder collaboration and communication. Conclusion The DRG/DIP payment model faces challenges in medical insurance fund supervision, including weak mechanisms and capacity. Improving regulatory efficiency and ensuring medical service quality requires strengthening the regulatory system, customizing indicator systems, and enhancing talent development.