Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability of 14 prioritisation criteria from nurses’, doctors’, local politicians’ and the general public's perspective. Respondents (nurses, n =682, doctors, n =837 politicians, n =1,133 and the general public, n =1,178) received a questionnaire with 16 imaginary patient cases, each containing 2‐3 different prioritisation criteria. The subjects were asked to indicate how important it was for them that the treatments in the presented patient cases be subsidised by the community. All respondents preferred treatments for poor people and children. With the exception of the doctors, the three other study groups also prioritised elderly patients. Treatment for institutionalised patients, those with self‐induced disease, diseases with both poor and good prognosis, and mild disease were given low priorities. Priority setting in health care should be regarded as a continuous process because of changes in attitudes. However, the best method for surveying opinions and ethical principles concerning prioritisation has not yet been discovered.
Journal of Health Organisation and Management – Emerald Publishing
Published: Oct 1, 2003
Keywords: Health services sector; Queuing time; Performance criteria
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.