Dataset Information

Polarized Citizen Preferences for the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in 20 Countries.

ABSTRACT: Objective. When medical resources are scarce, clinicians must make difficult triage decisions. When these decisions affect public trust and morale, as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts will benefit from knowing which triage metrics have citizen support. Design. We conducted an online survey in 20 countries, comparing support for 5 common metrics (prognosis, age, quality of life, past and future contribution as a health care worker) to a benchmark consisting of support for 2 no-triage mechanisms (first-come-first-served and random allocation). Results. We surveyed nationally representative samples of 1000 citizens in each of Brazil, France, Japan, and the United States and also self-selected samples from 20 countries (total N = 7599) obtained through a citizen science website (the Moral Machine). We computed the support for each metric by comparing its usability to the usability of the 2 no-triage mechanisms. We further analyzed the polarizing nature of each metric by considering its usability among participants who had a preference for no triage. In all countries, preferences were polarized, with the 2 largest groups preferring either no triage or extensive triage using all metrics. Prognosis was the least controversial metric. There was little support for giving priority to healthcare workers. Conclusions. It will be difficult to define triage guidelines that elicit public trust and approval. Given the importance of prognosis in triage protocols, it is reassuring that it is the least controversial metric. Experts will need to prepare strong arguments for other metrics if they wish to preserve public trust and morale during health crises.

Highlights

We collected citizen preferences regarding triage decisions about scarce medical resources from 20 countries.We find that citizen preferences are universally polarized.Citizens either prefer no triage (random allocation or first-come-first served) or extensive triage using all common triage metrics, with "prognosis" being the least controversial.Experts will need to prepare strong arguments to preserve or elicit public trust in triage decisions.

SUBMITTER: Awad E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9326829 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Polarized Citizen Preferences for the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in 20 Countries.

Awad Edmond E Bago Bence B Bonnefon Jean-François JF Christakis Nicholas A NA Rahwan Iyad I Shariff Azim A

MDM policy & practice 20220725 2

<b>Objective.</b> When medical resources are scarce, clinicians must make difficult triage decisions. When these decisions affect public trust and morale, as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts will benefit from knowing which triage metrics have citizen support. <b>Design.</b> We conducted an online survey in 20 countries, comparing support for 5 common metrics (prognosis, age, quality of life, past and future contribution as a health care worker) to a benchmark consisting of supp ...[more]

PMID: 35911175

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStark gaps exist between projected health needs in a pandemic situation and the current capacity of health care and medical countermeasure systems. Existing pandemic ethics discussions have advocated to engage the public in scarcity dilemmas and attend the local contexts and cultural perspectives that shape responses to a global health threat. This public engagement study thus considers the role of community and culture in the ethical apportionment of scarce health resources, specifically ventilators, during an influenza pandemic. It builds upon a previous exploration of the values and preferences of Maryland residents regarding how a finite supply of mechanical ventilators ought to be allocated during a severe global outbreak of influenza. An important finding of this earlier research was that local history and place within the state engendered different ways of thinking about scarcity.ObjectiveGiven the intrastate variation in the themes expressed by Maryland participants, the project team sought to examine interstate differences by implementing the same protocol elsewhere to answer the following questions. Does variation in ethical frames of reference exist within different regions of the United States? What practical implications does evidence of sameness and difference possess for pandemic planners and policymakers at local and national levels?MethodsResearch using the same deliberative democracy process from the Maryland study was conducted in Central Texas in March 2018 among 30 diverse participants, half of whom identified as Hispanic or Latino. Deliberative democracy provides a moderated process through which community members can learn facts about a public policy matter from experts and explore their own and others' views.ResultsParticipants proposed that by evenly distributing supplies of ventilators and applying clear eligibility criteria consistently, health authorities could enable fair allocation of scarce lifesaving equipment. The strong identification, attachment, and obligation of persons toward their nuclear and extended families emerged as a distinctive regional and ethnic core value that has practical implications for the substance, administration, and communication of allocation frameworks.ConclusionsMaryland and Central Texas residents expressed a common, overriding concern about the fairness of allocation decisions. Central Texas deliberants, however, more readily expounded upon family as a central consideration. In Central Texas, family is a principal, culturally inflected lens through which life and death matters are often viewed. Conveners of other pandemic-related public engagement exercises in the United States have advocated the benefits of transparency and inclusivity in developing an ethical allocation framework; this study demonstrates cultural competence as a further advantage.

Project description:The allocation strategies during challenging situations among the different social groups is based on 9 principles which can be considered either individually: sickest first, waiting list, prognosis, youngest first, instrumental values, lottery, monetary contribution, reciprocity, and individual behavior, or in combination; youngest first and prognosis, for example. In this study, we aim to look into the most important prioritization principles amongst different groups in the Jordanian population, in order to facilitate the decision-making process for any potential medical crisis. We conducted an online survey that tackled how individuals would deal with three different scenarios of medical scarcity: (1) organ donation, (2) limited hospital beds during an influenza epidemic, and (3) allocation of novel therapeutics for lung cancer. In addition, a free-comment option was included at the end of the survey if respondents wished to contribute further. Seven hundred and fifty-four survey responses were gathered, including 372 males (49.3%), and 382 females (50.7%). Five groups of individuals were represented including religion scholars, physicians, medical students, allied health practitioners, and lay people. Of the five surveyed groups, four found "sickest-first" to be the most important prioritization principle in all three scenarios, and only the physicians group documented a disagreement. In the first scenario, physicians regarded "sickest-first" and "combined-criteria" to be of equal importance. In general, no differences were documented between the examined groups in comparison with lay people in the preference of options in all three scenarios; however, physicians were more likely to choose "combination" in both the second and third scenarios (OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.62-8.44, and 2.62, 95% CI 1.48-4.59; p < 0.01), and were less likely to choose "sickest-first" as the single most important prioritization principle (OR 0.57, CI 0.37-0.88, and 0.57; 95% CI 0.36-0.88; p < 0.01). Out of 100 free comments, 27 (27.0%) thought that the "social-value" of patients should also be considered, adding the 10th potential allocation principle. Our findings are concordant with literature in terms of allocating scarce medical resources. However, "social-value" appeared as an important principle that should be addressed when prioritizing scarce medical resources in Jordan.

Project description:BackgroundRadiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles.ResultsParticipants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier.ConclusionsMultiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Project description:BackgroundSocieties are facing medical resource scarcities, inter alia due to increased life expectancy and limited health budgets and also due to temporal or continuous physical shortages of resources like donor organs. This makes it challenging to meet the medical needs of all. Ethicists provide normative guidance for how to fairly allocate scarce medical resources, but legitimate decisions require additionally information regarding what the general public considers to be fair. The purpose of this study was to explore how lay people, general practitioners, medical students and other health professionals evaluate the fairness of ten allocation principles for scarce medical resources: 'sickest first', 'waiting list', 'prognosis', 'behaviour' (i.e., those who engage in risky behaviour should not be prioritized), 'instrumental value' (e.g., health care workers should be favoured during epidemics), 'combination of criteria' (i.e., a sequence of the 'youngest first', 'prognosis', and 'lottery' principles), 'reciprocity' (i.e., those who provided services to the society in the past should be rewarded), 'youngest first', 'lottery', and 'monetary contribution'.Methods1,267 respondents to an online questionnaire were confronted with hypothetical situations of scarcity regarding (i) donor organs, (ii) hospital beds during an epidemic, and (iii) joint replacements. Nine allocation principles were evaluated in terms of fairness for each type of scarcity along 7-point Likert scales. The relationship between demographic factors (gender, age, religiosity, political orientation, and health status) and fairness evaluations was modelled with logistic regression.ResultsMedical background was a major predictor of fairness evaluations. While general practitioners showed different response patterns for all three allocation situations, the responses by lay people were very similar. Lay people rated 'sickest first' and 'waiting list' on top of all allocation principles-e.g., for donor organs 83.8% (95% CI: [81.2%-86.2%]) rated 'sickest first' as fair ('fair' is represented by scale points 5-7), and 69.5% [66.2%-72.4%] rated 'waiting list' as fair. The corresponding results for general practitioners: 'prognosis' 79.7% [74.2%-84.9%], 'combination of criteria' 72.6% [66.4%-78.5%], and 'sickest first' 74.5% [68.6%-80.1%); these were the highest-rated allocation principles for donor organs allocation. Interestingly, only 44.3% [37.7%-50.9%] of the general practitioners rated 'instrumental value' as fair for the allocation of hospital beds during a flu epidemic. The fairness evaluations by general practitioners obtained for joint replacements: 'sickest first' 84.0% [78.8%-88.6%], 'combination of criteria' 65.6% [59.2%-71.8%], and 'prognosis' 63.7% [57.1%-70.0%]. 'Lottery', 'reciprocity', 'instrumental value', and 'monetary contribution' were considered very unfair allocation principles by both groups. Medical students' ratings were similar to those of general practitioners, and the ratings by other health professionals resembled those of lay people.ConclusionsResults are partly at odds with current conclusions proposed by some ethicists. A number of ethicists reject 'sickest first' and 'waiting list' as morally unjustifiable allocation principles, whereas those allocation principles received the highest fairness endorsements by lay people and to some extent also by health professionals. Decision makers are advised to consider whether or not to give ethicists, health professionals, and the general public an equal voice when attempting to arrive at maximally endorsed allocations of scarce medical resources.

Project description:ImportanceCOVID-19 prompted rapid development of scarce resource allocation (SRA) policies to be implemented if demand eclipsed health systems' ability to provide critical care. While SRA policies follow general ethical frameworks, understanding priorities of those affected by policies and/or tasked with implementing them is critical.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether community members and health care profesionals (HCP) agree with SRA protocols at the University of California (UC).Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used social media and community-partnered engagement to recruit participants to a web-based survey open to all participants aged older than 18 years who wished to enroll. This study was fielded between May and September 2020 and queried participants' values and preferences on draft SRA policy tenets. Participants were also encouraged to forward the survey to their networks for snowball sampling. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to January 2024.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey items assessed values and preferences, graded on Likert scales. Agreement was tabulated as difference in Likert points between expressed opinion and policy tenets. Descriptive statistics were tested for significance by HCP status. Free text responses were analyzed using applied rapid qualitative analysis.ResultsA total of 1545 participants aged older than 18 years (mean [SD] age 49 [16] years; 1149 female participants [74%], 478 health care practitioners [30%]) provided data on SRA values and preferences. Agreement with UC SRA policy as drafted was moderately high among respondents, ranging from 67% to 83% across domains. Higher agreement with the interim policy was observed for laypersons across all domains except health-related factors. HCPs agreed more strongly on average that resources should not be allocated to those less likely to survive (HCP mean, 3.70; 95% CI, 3.16-3.59; vs layperson mean, 3.38; 95% CI, 3.17-3.59; P = .002), and were more in favor of reallocating life support from patients less likely to those more likely to survive (HCP mean, 6.41; 95% CI, 6.15-6.67; vs layperson mean, 5.40; 95% CI, 5.23-5.58; P < .001). Transparency and trust building themes were common in free text responses and highly rated on scaled items.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey of SRA policy values found moderate agreement with fundamental principles of such policies. Engagement with communities affected by SRA policy should continue in iterative refinement in preparation for future crises.

Dataset Information

Polarized Citizen Preferences for the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in 20 Countries.

Highlights

Publications

Polarized Citizen Preferences for the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in 20 Countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets