статья свещинского Mz08 2013 lr

  • Published on
    25-Jun-2015

  • View
    184

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li> 1. 16 . , , - - , - [2, 4, 5, 6]. - , , - , -, - , - [3, 7, 8]. , - , . - , - , . .. , ..., . , , sveschin@mail.ru 614; 614.2 .. (. , ) . . . , 10 , . OECD. : ; ; ; . .. , 2013 . </li></ul> <p> 2. 17 , - . - , , - - , , - , . , - , - , . - , , , . () - . - () - 20092011 . - , 30. , - , . - , , - . - , - , - - . - 1 . (2009 2010 ), 2011 1 2011 . . - . - OECD 2 . 2011 732 802 3 . 1104 -- , 207 - . - 987 (89,4%), , - 1 29 2009 . 154 - - . 2 URL: http://stats.oecd.org data extracted on 22 Jan 2013 07:34 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat. 3 , , . 3. 18 , . 177 (18,8%) . 2009 2011 . (. 1). , - - - - . - , . , , , , - . - - . - , , 10 - . , , , . 746 . - 32 64 , 30 64 . 30 - 14 . 4 -. , 94 121 . - - 10 3% - 10 . 2011 , - - 7,2 . 4 - - 12 . . - ( 10 ) 6,1, 1 (20092011 .) (%) 10 (%) 32,5 42,3 26,6 39,6 - 33,0 48,2 40,4 28,7 - 66,7 48,6 45,7 59,5 5,3 39,1 18,3 26,1 77,8 60,8 4. 19 4,3 8,8, . - - 55,6%. - . 2009 2011 . 43%, - , , 2 511 329 3 598 532. , 2011 , - - - 251,9 - . 2011 . - (35,5%), (19,3%). - (12,2 12,1%, ). 9% , 8,6% - , 1,65% - . - 0,33%. - , , - [2, 7, 8]. - - [5, 6]. , - 1000 - 2007 . 1,51, - 1,43. 2002 . 36%, 3,6 - . - . [1]. - . () : = R r = 1 (Yr ln Yr ), Y Y / R Yr r, R , . Y : = R r = 1 Yr , - - ln(R) - 4,4. 2011 0,63 0,45 , - . , - , - (. 1). - , - , , 20% - 20% . , , - . - - ( B), , 43% - , 41% . 5. 20 ( ), . - - - . , , , 60% - 27% - - ( ). , 2011 . 58% - -- . , - , 2011 - - - . - . , , 10 . 2011 . 251,9 - 10 , - (CAGR) 2009 . 19%. - , 139,2 10 . , - 2011 . 25% . - . 1. -, - , 2011 . 6. 21 , 323,6 - 10 , - 21 - , 500 10 - . 2011 . - . 2. - 2011 - 569,7 10 . - 26,4 . , 2011 . 2009 58,9 53,6%. - . -- OECD. - 2009 - (. 2). 2 , OECD, , , , . - - 10 . , - . . 2. -, 2011 . 7. 22 , - , - - (. 3). - (- 1 . ) 10 . - p= 0,001 0,66. - , - , - , . - - - , - -- . - , / . - - 2009 . OECD (. 4) OECD - (Cluster 1). , , - 1 . ( - 2 = 27,6, p &lt; 0,001) , - ( - 2 = 39,2, p &lt; 0,001). , (Cluster 2) 28 - 2 - OECD (2009 .) 10 . 1 . / 1562,0 34 4594 11 1527,0 15 10 180 20 1389,0 29 4790 245 1387,0 11 12 609 715 1254,0 14 8957 464 1218,0 9 13 533 70 958,0 12 7983 838 875,0 14 6250 148 691,0 15 4607 68 657,0 11 5973 186 (2009) 177,0 5 3540 745 ( 2011) 251,9 7 3646 987 8. 23 . 3. - ( , OECD ) . 4. OECD (VAR15 1 . , VAR 18 - , ), 2009 . 9. 24 , - , (Cluster 3). , , - - . , , - . - . - (. 5). - 2009 2011 . - : 43,7% 2009 . 39,1% 2011 . - - 2009 . 8,8, 2011 . 8,1. 2011 . 3482 , 3489 . - 2401 4077 - , . , - , 2011 - 8590 7189 , . - . , - . 5. - ( , 2011 .) 10. 25 , -, 500 . , , OECD. . - - . - - , . , - , - -. - , - , - - . - , - , - , . , - - - [3, 4]. , DICOM4 , M. Hu - , , - - .. , - Table Utilization5 . - . -, - - , [4], - ( ) . , - , - , , - . , 2011 80,8%, - 10,9% . , - - . - - - , - . 4 , , . 5 . 11. 26 OECD - . , , , , , - , , : 2011 = V2011 / (N2011 + N2010) : 2, 2011 - , V2011 , N2011, N2010 . 2011. 5,9%, 2,9%. - . . UDC 614; 614.2 Sveshchinskiy M. Regional differences in the utilization of CT in the goverment health care sector of Russia (Moscow, Russia) Abstract. Investigated availability and utilization of CT services in the public healthcare system in Russia. Presented differ- ences in availability of diagnostic equipment in Russian regions. Identified inequality among regions in the volumes of carried CT exams, CT exams per 10000 population as well as a significant difference in technical efficiency of equip- ment utilization. Presented differences in key performance indicators of CT service between Russia and OECD countries. Keywords: CT; Utilization; Regional Variation; Russia, Public Health Sector. 1. . : - // . 2013. 2. C. 132150. 2. Ameryoun A., Meskarpour-Amiri M., Dezfuli-Nejad M., Khoddami-Vishteh H., To-fighi G. The Assessment of Inequality on Geographical Distribution of Non-Cardiac Intensive Care Beds in Iran//Iranian J Publ Health. 2011. Vol. 40. 2. P. 2533. 3. Boland G.W., Houghton M.P., Marchione D.G., McCormick W. Maximizing outpatient compu- ted tomography productivity using multiple technologists//J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Feb. 5(2). P. 119125. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.07.009. 4. Hu M., Pavlicek W., Liu P., Zhang M., Langer S., Wang S., Place V., Miranda R., Wu T. Effici- ency Metrics for Imaging Device Productivity//RadioGraphics. 2011. 31. P. 603616. 5. Lysdahl K., Borretzen I. Geographical variation in radiological services: a nationwide survey// BMC Health Services Research. 2007. 7:21. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-2. 6. Oliveira M., Bevan G. Measuring geographic inequities in the Portuguese health care system: an estimation of hospital care needs//Health Policy. 2003. Vol 66. P. 277293. 7. Parker L., Levin D., Frangos A., Rao V. Geographic variation in the Utilization of Nononvasive Diag- nostic Imaging: National Medicare Date, 19982007//AJR. 2010. Vol. 1954. P. 10341039. 8. Tanikava T., Obha H.,Ogazavara K.,Okuda Y., Ando Y. Geographical Distribution of Radiotherapy Resources in Japan:Investigating the Inequitable Distribution of Human Resources by Using the Gini Coefficient//J Radiat. Res.. 2012. Vol. 53. P. 489491. </p>