Health Professional vs Layperson Values and Preferences on Scarce Resource Allocation.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Mar 2024
04 Mar 2024
Historique:
medline:
13
3
2024
pubmed:
12
3
2024
entrez:
12
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
COVID-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. To evaluate whether community members and health care profesionals (HCP) agree with SRA protocols at the University of California (UC). This 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. Survey 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. A 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. This 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38470416
pii: 2815944
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.1958
pmc: PMC10933708
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e241958Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : K01 DK116932
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : KL2 TR001882
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : L30 HL134025
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001881
Pays : United States
Références
Chest. 2020 Oct;158(4):1332-1334
pubmed: 32450243
Int J Emerg Med. 2021 Mar 24;14(1):18
pubmed: 33761867
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022 May;19(5):790-798
pubmed: 34784497
Hastings Cent Rep. 2020 May;50(3):35-39
pubmed: 32410225
Trials. 2021 Aug 2;22(1):513
pubmed: 34340693
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jun 1;3(6):e2012606
pubmed: 32558916
Patient. 2021 May;14(3):319-330
pubmed: 33660163
Implement Sci. 2021 Jul 2;16(1):67
pubmed: 34215286
JAMA. 2020 Apr 28;323(16):1545-1546
pubmed: 32167538
J Med Ethics. 2021 Jan 29;:
pubmed: 33514637
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Aug;282:114171
pubmed: 34175572
Crit Care Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):188-201
pubmed: 26509317
Front Public Health. 2021 Dec 14;9:753048
pubmed: 34970524
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Chest. 2020 Dec;158(6):2285-2287
pubmed: 32768457
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 Aug;66(7):859-868
pubmed: 35678326
Public Health. 2022 Aug;209:75-81
pubmed: 35849934
Br J Health Psychol. 2020 Nov;25(4):889-901
pubmed: 32562512
Am J Law Med. 2021 Jul;47(2-3):264-290
pubmed: 34405783
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2022 Feb;16(1):321-327
pubmed: 32907684
Crit Care Med. 2023 Apr 1;51(4):445-459
pubmed: 36790189
Chest. 2021 Mar;159(3):1076-1083
pubmed: 32991873
Bioethics. 2020 Nov;34(9):948-959
pubmed: 32975826
J Prev Med Public Health. 2021 Sep;54(5):360-369
pubmed: 34649398
Cell Rep Med. 2021 Sep 21;2(9):100376
pubmed: 34337554
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023 Aug;20(8):1105-1106
pubmed: 37526481
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2021 Aug;8(4):824-836
pubmed: 32789816
Surg Endosc. 2021 May;35(5):2217-2222
pubmed: 32399942
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2329688
pubmed: 37642967
Front Public Health. 2020 Dec 11;8:587423
pubmed: 33363084
MDM Policy Pract. 2022 Jul 25;7(2):23814683221113573
pubmed: 35911175
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Mar 1;5(3):e221744
pubmed: 35289860
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 May;13(3):445-456
pubmed: 31010315
Chest. 2021 Jun;159(6):2494-2502
pubmed: 33444616
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Dec 10;167(22):2509-15
pubmed: 18071175
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Jul 15;204(2):178-186
pubmed: 33751910
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2021 Apr;30(2):390-402
pubmed: 33764294
Med Care. 2021 Jun 1;59(Suppl 3):S242-S251
pubmed: 33976073