Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Sağlık Sistemleri Performans Ölçümü, Önemi ve Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Yaklaşımı

Health Systems Performance Measurement, Importance and World Health Organization Approach

Journal Name:

  • Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2005

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The interest on measuring health systems performance in the world has been increasing because of the realities about both health care resource scarcity and achieving better health status. This interest got the greatest emphasis with World Health Report 2000. The interest is not only about just measuring health system performance but also about changing definition and criteria of performance. Three main objectives of a country’s health care system were defined as health gain attainment, responsiveness, and fairness in financial contribution in World Health Report 2000. The attainment level of these three objectives were used as a performance criteria in ranking and benchmarking 191 member states. In this study, three main objectives used as performance criteria and the methodology used by WHO in ranking countries in terms of attainment levels ofobjectives were discussed, and necessary recommendations were made for Turkish Health Care System based on the place of Turkey among 191 countries in terms of three objectives.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Dünya’da sağlık sistemlerinin performansınıölçmeye yönelik ilgi, hem kaynakların kıtlığıhem de daha iyi bir sağlık seviyesine ulaşabilme gerçekleri yüzünden giderek artmaktadır. Dünya Sağlık Raporu 2000 ile bu ilgi, belki de en yüksek seviyesine çıkmıştır. Bu ilgi, sağlık sistemlerinin sadece ölçülmesiyle ilgili olmayıp aynızamanda performansın tanımıve kriterlerini de değiştirmektedir. Dünya Sağlık Raporu 2000’de bir sağlık sisteminin ulaşmayıarzuladığıüç temel amaç sağlık seviyesinin yükseltilmesi, yeterlilik ve finansmanda adalet olarak sıralanmıştır. 191 ülkenin sağlık sistemlerinin sıralanmasında ve birbirleriyle kıyaslanmasında ise bu amaçlara ulaşma derecesi önemli bir kriter olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada, performans kriteri olarak kullanılan üç temel amaç ve bu amaçlara ulaşma seviyesi açısından ülkelerin sıralanmasında DSÖ tarafından kullanılan yöntem tartışılmışve 191 ülke arasında Türkiye’nin konumuna bakılarak Türk Sağlık Sistemi için gerekli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-saglik-sistemleri-performans-olcumu-onemi-dunya-saglik-orgutu-yaklasimi.pdf
  • 1
5-29
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Aalto A. M. (2000) Measuring The Responsiveness of Health Care System in The
World Health Report 2000, The World Health Report 2000: What Does It Tell
About Health Systems? Analyses by Finnish Experts. National Research and
Development Centre for Welfare and Health (Stakes), Helsinki, Finland.
2. Almeida C., Braveman P., Gold M. R., Szwarcwald C. L., Riberio J. M.,
Miglionico A., Millar J. S., Porto S., Costa N. R., Rubio V. O., Segall M., Starfield
B., Travessos C., Ugá A., Valente J., Viacava F. (2001) Metodological Concerns
and Recommendations on Policy Consesquences of The World Health Report
2000. The Lancet357(26): 1692-1697.
3. Anderson G. and Hussey P. S. (2001) Comparing Health Systems Performance in
OECD Countries. Health Affairs20(3).
Sağlık Sistemleri Performans Ölçümü ve Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Yaklaşımı 27
4. Anell A. and Willis M. (2000) International Comparison of Health Care Systems
Using Resource Profiles. Bulletin of the World Health Organization78(6): 770-778.
5. Blendon R. J., Kim M., Benson J. M. (2001) The Public Versus The World Health
Organization on Health System Performance. Health Affairs20(3): 10-20.
6. D’Ambrosia R. and Kilpatrick J. A. (2001)Comparing World Health-Care
Systems: Does Quality Translate?. http://orthobluejournal.com.
7. Daniels N., Bryant J., Castano R. A., Dantes O. G., Khan K. H., Pannarunothai S.
(2000) Benchmarks of Fairness for Health Care Reform: A Policy Tool for
Developing Countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization78(6): 740-750.
8. Darby C., Valentine N., Murray C.J.L., Silva A. (2000) WHO: Strategy on
Measuring Responsiveness. GPE Discussion Paper Series: No. 23, Geneva,
WHO.
9. Evans D. B., Tandon A., Murray C.J.L., Lauer J.A. (2001) Comparative Efficiency
of National Econometric Analysis. BMJ323: 307-310.
10. Gakidou E., Murray C.J.L., Frenk J. (2000) Measuring Preferences on Health
System Performance Assesment. GPE Discussion Paper Series: No. 20, Geneva,
WHO.
11. IHSD (The Institute for HealthSector Development) (2000) Improving Health
Systems by Measuring Health Status: Is WHO Serious?. An IHSD Issues Note.
12. IHSD (The Institute for Health Sector Development) (2000a) World Health
Report 2000- Summary and Comments. London.
13. McCallum L. (2000) Responsiveness of The Australian Health System.
Consumers’s Health Forum Australia AIHW Workshop on the WHO World
Health Report, Canberra.
14. McKee M. (2001) Measuring Efficiency of Health Systems. BMJ323:295-296.
15. Murray C.J.L. and Frenk J. (2000) A Framework for Assesing the Performance of
Health Systems. Bulletin of the World Health Organization78(6): 717-731.
Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt:8, Sayı:1 (2005) 28
16. Murray C.J.L. and Frenk J. (2000a) A WHO Framework for Health System
Performance Assessment. GPE Discussion Paper Series: No. 6, Geneva, WHO.
17. Murray C.J.L. and Frenk J. (2001) World Health Report 2000: A Step Towards
Evidence-Based Health Policy. The Lancet357(26): 1698-1700.
18. Murray C.J.L., Kawabata K., Valentine N. (2001) People’s Experience Versus
People’s Expectations. Health Affairs20(3): 21-24.
19. Navarro V. (2000) Assessment of The World Health Report 2000. The Lancet356
(4): 1598-1601.
20. Nord E. (2002) Measures of Goal Attainment and Performance in The World
Health Report 2000: A Brief, Crutical Consumer Guide. Health Policy59:183-191.
21. PAHO (Pan American HealthOrganization) (2001) Work Group of The Region
of Americas on Health Systems Performance Assessment. Report of The
Meeting Held in Ottawa, Canada, 4-6 September.
22. Pransky G., Benjamin K., Dembe A. E. (2001) Performance and Quality
Measurment in Occupational Health Services: Current Status and Agenda for
Further Research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine40:295-306.
23. Silva A. (2000) A Framework for Measuring Responsiveness.GPE Discussion
Paper Series: No. 32, Geneva, WHO.
24. Silva A. and Valentine N. (2000) Measuring Responsiveness: Results of A Key
Informants Survey in 35 Countries. GPE Discussion Paper Series: No. 21,
Geneva, WHO.
25. Tandon A., Murray C.J.L., Lauer J.A., Evans D. B. (2000) Measuring Overall
Health Systems Performance for 191 Countries. GPE Discussion Paper Series:
No. 30, Geneva, WHO.
26. Ugá A. D., Almeida C. M., Szwarcwald C.L., Travassos C., Viacava F., Costa N.
R., Buss P. M., Porto S. (2001) Considerations on Metodology Used in the WHO
2000 Report, Cad. Saude Publica, Rio de Janerio 17(3): 705-712.
27. Uğurluoğlu Ö. (2003) Ankara Metropolitan Alanda Görev Yapan Yataklı
Tedavi KurumlarıYöneticilerinin Türk Sağlık Sisteminin Yeterliliğine İlişkin
Görüşleri: DSÖ 2000 Dünya Sağlık Raporu Işığında Bir Değerlendirme.
Sağlık Sistemleri Performans Ölçümü ve Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Yaklaşımı 29
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Sağlık KurumlarıYönetimi
Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara.
28. Valentine N. B., Silva A., Murray C.J.L. (2000) Estimating Responsiveness
Level and Distribution for 191 Countries: Methods and Results. GPE
Discussion Paper Series: No. 22, Geneva, WHO.
29. WHO (2000) World Health Report 2000: Health Systems-Improving
Performance. Geneva, Switzerland.
30. WHO (2000a) A Quick Reference Compendium of Selected Key Terms Used
in The World Health Report 2000. Geneva.
31. WHO (2001) European Ragional Consultation on Health System Performance
Assessment.Geneva.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com