Literature DB >> 8863150

Random paired scenarios--a method for investigating attitudes to prioritisation in medicine.

O P Ryynänen1, M Myllykangas, T Vaskilampi, J Takala.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This article describes a method for investigating attitudes towards prioritisation in medicine.
SETTING: University of Kuopio, Finland.
DESIGN: The method consisted of a set of 24 paired scenarios, which were imaginary patient cases, each containing three different ethical indicators randomly selected from a list of indicators (for example, child, rich patient, severe disease etc.). The scenarios were grouped into 12 random pairs and the procedure was repeated four times, resulting in 12 scenario pairs arranged randomly in five different sets. SURVEY: This method was tested with four groups of subjects (n = 8, n = 47, n = 104 and n = 36).
RESULTS: Children and patients with a severe disease were prioritised in all groups. The aged, patients with a mild disease and patients with a self-acquired disease were negatively prioritised in all groups. Poor or rich patients were prioritised in some groups but negatively prioritised in others.
CONCLUSIONS: The validity and reliability of this method are good and it is suitable for investigating attitudes towards medical prioritisation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8863150      PMCID: PMC1377004          DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.4.238

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  6 in total

1.  Public disagrees with professionals over NHS rationing.

Authors:  Trish Groves
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-03-13

2.  Contemporary theme. Rationing: at the cutting edge.

Authors:  M Cochrane; C Ham; C Heginbotham; R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-10-26

3.  Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS.

Authors:  M C Charny; P A Lewis; S C Farrow
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district.

Authors:  A Bowling; B Jacobson; L Southgate
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Measuring public priorities for insurable health care.

Authors:  F J Fowler; D M Berwick; A Roman; M P Massagli
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.903

  6 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Emily Lancsar; Kylie Rixon; Xanthe Golenko; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.