Health

Volume 5, Issue 4 (April 2013)

ISSN Print: 1949-4998   ISSN Online: 1949-5005

Google-based Impact Factor: 0.74  Citations  

Priority setting in health care: Attitudes of physicians and patients

HTML  XML Download Download as PDF (Size: 86KB)  PP. 712-719  
DOI: 10.4236/health.2013.54094    4,036 Downloads   6,586 Views  Citations

ABSTRACT

Background: The opinion of physicians clearly counts in prioritizing health care, but there is little information on the rationales underlying treatment decisions and whether these rationales are accepted by patients. Objective: To compare physicians and patients regarding their understanding and use of therapeutic benefit and treatment costs as criteria for prioritizing health care. Methods: Seven physicians and twelve patients were purposefully selected to yield a heterogeneous sample. Participants were interviewed face-to-face, following a semi-structured topic guide comprising three scenarios that focused on interventions with low or unproven therapeutic benefit and high costs, respectively. For data analysis we used qualitative content analysis. Results: We found that patients and physicians differed in their understanding of therapeutic benefit, their expectations of what medicine can do and their use of costs as criteria for prioritizing health care. Physicians were less likely to assess a certain intervention as effec tive, and they less often accepted upper funding limits in health care. Unlike the physicians, patients raised non-medical aspects in decision making such as the patient’s consent and social inequalities. Conclusions: The revealed differences point toward the necessity to strengthen the doctor-patient communication, to improve information for patients about the possibilities and limits of health care and to gain a deeper understanding of their attitudes, wishes and concerns to reach an agreement by physicians and patients on the treatment to be implemented.

Share and Cite:

Winkelhage, J. , Schreier, M. and Diederich, A. (2013) Priority setting in health care: Attitudes of physicians and patients. Health, 5, 712-719. doi: 10.4236/health.2013.54094.

Cited by

[1] Attitudes towards priority setting in the norwegian health care system: a general population survey
BMC health …, 2022
[2] How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources? Controversial preferences of healthcare professionals with different personal characteristics
2021
[3] Attitudes of health professionals concerning bedside rationing criteria: a survey from Portugal
Health Economics, Policy and Law, 2018
[4] An exploratory investigation into integrated reporting competencies
2018
[5] Sampling and generalization
2018
[6] A checklist for managed access programmes for reimbursement co‐designed by Canadian patients and caregivers
Health Expectations, 2018
[7] Que princípios éticos devem definir o estabelecimento de prioridades entre doentes?
2017
[8] Which Ethical Principles Should Define Prioritization of Patients?
2017
[9] Do Healthcare Professionals have Different Views about Healthcare Rationing than College Students? A Mixed Methods Study in Portugal
Public Health Ethics, 2017
[10] Culture Wars: Explaining Congressional Partisanship and Organizational Dysfunction Through Moral Foundation Theory
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2016
[11] Culture Wars: Explaining Congressional Partisanship and Organizational Dysfunction Through Moral Foundations Theory
Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies, 2016
[12] Social and ethical criteria for prioritizing patients: a survey of students and health professionals in Portugal
2016
[13] Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
2016
[14] Critérios sociais e éticos de priorização de pacientes: uma pesquisa a estudantes e profissionais de saúde em Portugal
2016
[15] Social and ethical criteria for prioritizing patients: A survey of students and health professionals in Portugal.
2016
[16] Bedside healthcare rationing dilemmas: a survey from Portugal
International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare, 2015

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.