Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 2 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a1923
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1923
Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ
fgodlee@bmj.com
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Many factors influence health and are influenced by it. What does this mean for how we decide which interventions to invest in? In an editorial this week (doi:10.1136/bmj.a1204), Michael Drummond and colleagues say we must do what the textbooks tell us: consider all costs and benefits, no matter whether its the health service or other sectors that pick up the bill.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence gives "mixed messages" on this at the moment, says the editorial. When it appraises drugs and procedures, NICE takes the narrow health service view. When it appraises public health interventions it looks at the impact on employment, education, crime. (As an aside, NICE itself gets a mixed appraisal from Nigel Hawkes (doi:10.1136/bmj.a1906). He concludes that at least some of the medias recent nastiness is down to NICEs failure to engage critical clinicians, its refusal to offer up
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses