自律:在医患关系中的定位

医疗行为的特殊性，决定了医患双方在医学信息方面的不对称性和医者拥有一定的自由裁量权，因此，医者作为医疗服务的主体，如何增强自律意识，直接关系到诚信的树立及和谐的互动式医患关系的建立和发展。     

效益评价中指标筛选及其假设检验

西文介绍了综合效益评价中指标的逐步筛选及其假设检验方法，用该法选出的指标具有独立性强、代表性好的优点。同是分析处理了全国３４家县级医院的投入指标，从中筛选出５个指标参与评价。     

《内经》俞、输、腧探源

《素问》用“俞”，《灵枢》用“输”与“腧”表示腧穴，三字用法基本相同。“俞”源于用船运送，“输”源于用车运送，均引申为转运气血的穴位。“腧”是“俞”的今字，其字形代表的意义最符合中医学中腧穴的含义。应以“腧”作为规范的词语，表示腧穴的各种意义。     

2011—2020年重庆市结核病防治经费投入与效益产出分析

目的 评估重庆市2011—2020年结核病防治经费投入产生的社会效益。方法 收集《传染病监测系统》中2011—2020年重庆市登记涂阳肺结核患者（初治涂阳和复治涂阳）治疗转归情况和肺结核患者劳动人口比例,历年各级政府结核病防治经费投入,历年全市人均国内生产总值（gross domestic product,GDP）等数据,采用常用卫生经济学方法评估10年间结核病防治经费投入的社会效果、社会效用和社会效益。结果 2011—2020年,全市共投入结核病防治经费约3.60亿元,成功治疗涂阳肺结核患者60 924例,避免45.69万名健康人受传染,挽救43.41万个伤残调整生命年（disability adjusted life year,DALY）,为社会节约医疗费用3.26亿元,挽回社会经济损失约176.25亿。保持目前的设施设备和人员条件不变,每投入787.70元即可避免1名健康人被传染,每投入829.16元即可挽救1个DALY,每额外投入1元即可产生49.87元的经济效益。结论 10年间重庆市结核病防治经费投入产生了较大的卫生经济效益,建议各级政府继续加大结核病防治经费投入。     

广州市越秀区托幼机构流感样病例暴发疫情经济负担评估和流感疫苗卫生经济学评价

目的 对广州市越秀区学龄前儿童的流感经济负担进行评估,并针对流感疫苗开展卫生经济学评价,为制定免疫规划策略提供依据。方法 以广州市越秀区托幼机构2019年1—6月发生的9起流感样病例暴发疫情的患病儿童为研究对象,采用问卷调查的方式开展经济负担评估,并以其中1起暴发疫情为基础建立SEIAR动力学模型,模拟不同接种策略下的疫情趋势,评价其经济学效益。结果 患病儿童总经济负担人均1 293.56（95% UI:1 096.23~1 592.84）元,其中直接医疗费用人均422.56（95% UI:320.71~555.29）元,直接非医疗费用人均125.95（95% UI:82.41~188.80）元,间接经济损失人均797.03（95% UI:661.50~938.76）元。在流行季前接种1剂次三价流感疫苗,每投入226.19元,可减少1例流感病例,每投入1元,可获得5.72元效益;接种2剂次三价流感疫苗,每投入178.77元,可减少1例流感病例,每投入1元,可获得7.24元效益;接种四价流感疫苗,每投入315.83元,可减少1例流感病例,每投入1元,可获得4.10元效益。结论 广州市越秀区托幼机构流感样病例暴发疫情经济负担较高,如在流行季前接种2剂次三价流感疫苗,可以获得正效益和最好的效益成本比。     

Active Case Finding of Current Bornavirus Infections in Human Encephalitis Cases of Unknown Etiology,Germany, 2018–2020

Human bornavirus encephalitis is a severe and often fatal infection caused by variegated squirrel bornavirus 1 (VSBV-1) and Borna disease virus 1 (BoDV-1). We conducted a prospective study of bornavirus etiology of encephalitis cases in Germany during 2018–2020 by using a serologic testing scheme applied along proposed graded case definitions for VSBV-1, BoDV-1, and unspecified bornavirus encephalitis. Of 103 encephalitis cases of unknown etiology, 4 bornavirus infections were detected serologically. One chronic case was caused by VSBV-1 after occupational-related contact of a person with exotic squirrels, and 3 acute cases were caused by BoDV-1 in virus-endemic areas. All 4 case-patients died. Bornavirus etiology could be confirmed by molecular methods. Serologic testing for these cases was virus specific, discriminatory, and a practical diagnostic option for living patients if no brain tissue samples are available. This testing should be guided by clinical and epidemiologic suspicions, such as residence in virus-endemic areas and animal exposure.     

What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant’s health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term “incidental,” whereas “secondary” had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.     

Risk–benefit analysis of micronutrients

Traditionally, different approaches have been used to determine the recommended dietary allowances for micronutrients, above which there is a low risk of deficiency, and safe upper levels, below which there is a negligible risk of toxicity. The advice given to risk managers has been in the form of point estimates, such as the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) and the tolerable upper level (UL). In future, the gap between the two intake–response curves may become narrower, as more sensitive indicators of deficiency and toxicity are used, and as health benefits above the recommended daily allowance are taken into account. This paper reviews the traditional approaches and proposes a novel approach to compare beneficial and adverse effects across intake levels. This model can provide advice for risk managers in a form that will allow the risk of deficiency or the risk of not experiencing the benefit to be weighed against the risk of toxicity. The model extends the approach used to estimate recommended dietary allowances to make it applicable to both beneficial and adverse effects and to extend the intake–incidence data to provide a range of estimates that can be considered by the risk manager. The data-requirements of the model are the incidence of a response at one or more levels of intake, and a suitable coefficient of variation to represent the person-to-person variations within the human population. A coefficient of variation of 10% or 15% has been used for established recommended dietary allowances and a value of 15% is proposed as default for considerations of benefit. A coefficient of variation of 45% is proposed as default for considerations of toxicity, based on analyses of human variability in the fate and effects of therapeutic drugs. Using this approach risk managers, working closely with risk assessors, will be able to define ranges of intake based on a balance between the risks of deficiency (or lack of benefit) and toxicity.