GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Ihre E-Mail wurde erfolgreich gesendet. Bitte prüfen Sie Ihren Maileingang.

Leider ist ein Fehler beim E-Mail-Versand aufgetreten. Bitte versuchen Sie es erneut.

Vorgang fortführen?

Exportieren
Filter
  • Barra, Mathias  (4)
Materialart
Sprache
Erscheinungszeitraum
FID
Fachgebiete(RVK)
  • 1
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    Oxford University Press (OUP) ; 2020
    In:  Public Health Ethics Vol. 13, No. 3 ( 2020-12-26), p. 259-274
    In: Public Health Ethics, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 13, No. 3 ( 2020-12-26), p. 259-274
    Kurzfassung: In recent years, it has become commonplace among the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study authors to regard the disability-adjusted life year (DALY) primarily as a descriptive health metric. During the first phase of the GBD (1990–1996), it was widely acknowledged that the DALY had built-in evaluative assumptions. However, from the publication of the 2010 GBD and onwards, two central evaluative practices—time discounting and age-weighting—have been omitted from the DALY model. After this substantial revision, the emerging view now appears to be that the DALY is primarily a descriptive measure. Our aim in this article is to argue that the DALY, despite changes, remains largely evaluative. Our analysis focuses on the understanding of the DALY by comparing the DALY as a measure of disease burden in the two most significant phases of GBD publications, from their beginning (1990–1996) to the most recent releases (2010–2017). We identify numerous assumptions underlying the DALY and group them as descriptive or evaluative. We conclude that while the DALY model arguably has become more descriptive, it remains, by necessity, largely evaluative.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 1754-9981
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publikationsdatum: 2020
    ZDB Id: 2438463-X
    SSG: 5,1
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 2
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    BMJ ; 2019
    In:  Journal of Medical Ethics Vol. 45, No. 12 ( 2019-12), p. 830-831
    In: Journal of Medical Ethics, BMJ, Vol. 45, No. 12 ( 2019-12), p. 830-831
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 0306-6800 , 1473-4257
    RVK:
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: BMJ
    Publikationsdatum: 2019
    ZDB Id: 2026397-1
    SSG: 0
    SSG: 1
    SSG: 5,1
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 3
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Library ; 2021
    In:  Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics ( 2021-12-02)
    In: Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Library, ( 2021-12-02)
    Kurzfassung: In Norway, priority for health interventions is assigned on the basis of three official criteria: health benefit, resources, and severity. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly happened through intersectoral public health efforts such as lockdowns, quarantines, information campaigns, social distancing and, more recently, vaccine distribution. The aim of this article is to evaluate potential priority setting criteria for public health interventions. We argue in favour of the following three criteria for public health priority setting: benefit, resources and improving the well-being of the worse off. We argue that benefits and priority to the worse off may reasonably be understood in terms of individual well-being, rather than only health, for public health priority setting. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic support our conclusions. Keywords: COVID-19, Prioritarianism, Priority Setting, Public Health, Severity
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 1890-4009 , 1890-3991
    Sprache: Unbekannt
    Verlag: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Library
    Publikationsdatum: 2021
    ZDB Id: 2576885-2
    SSG: 5,1
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 4
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    BMJ ; 2018
    In:  Journal of Medical Ethics Vol. 44, No. 3 ( 2018-03), p. 192-198
    In: Journal of Medical Ethics, BMJ, Vol. 44, No. 3 ( 2018-03), p. 192-198
    Kurzfassung: In the Global Burden of Disease study, disease burden is measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The paramount assumption of the DALY is that it makes sense to aggregate years lived with disability (YLDs) and years of life lost (YLLs). However, this is not smooth sailing. Whereas morbidity (YLD) is something that happens to an individual, loss of life itself (YLL) occurs when that individual’s life has ended. YLLs quantify something that involves no experience and does not take place among living individuals. This casts doubt on whether the YLL is an individual burden at all. If not, then YLDs and YLLs are incommensurable. There are at least three responses to this problem, only one of which is tenable: a counterfactual account of harm. Taking this strategy necessitates a re-examination of how we count YLLs, particularly at the beginning of life.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 0306-6800 , 1473-4257
    RVK:
    Sprache: Englisch
    Verlag: BMJ
    Publikationsdatum: 2018
    ZDB Id: 2026397-1
    SSG: 0
    SSG: 1
    SSG: 5,1
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
Schließen ⊗
Diese Webseite nutzt Cookies und das Analyse-Tool Matomo. Weitere Informationen finden Sie hier...