Author
Listed:
- Micaela Pinho
- Ana Pinto Borges
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to explore and compare citizens’ attitudes in Portugal, Bulgaria and Croatia towards rationing criteria that should support an explicit priority setting process at the micro level. Design/methodology/approach - Preferences were collected through an online questionnaire containing 14 statements concerning lottery, economic and person-based priority criteria. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with each criterion. Non-parametric tests were applied to compare the levels of agreement among 355, 298 and 243 Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents, respectively. Findings - The three groups of respondents appear to be concerned with both a fair and efficient allocation of resources. The severity of health conditions and patient’s age were the criteria most accepted by the respondents. This study suggests that Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents have similar social values concerning patient prioritization, although the Portuguese adhere slightly more to efficiency criteria and less to person-based and lottery criteria than Bulgarian and Croatian respondents. Practical implications - A majority of respondents across the three countries report having opinion about the bedside rationing criteria. Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents accept a combination of personal and economic criteria in patient’s prioritization. Originality/value - This study represents the first attempt to compare citizen’s opinions of three member states of the European Union. Paper type - Research paper
Suggested Citation
Micaela Pinho & Ana Pinto Borges, 2018.
"A three-country survey of public attitudes towards the use of rationing criteria to set healthcare priorities between patients,"
International Journal of Ethics and Systems, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 34(4), pages 472-492, October.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:ijoesp:ijoes-06-2018-0092
DOI: 10.1108/IJOES-06-2018-0092
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ijoesp:ijoes-06-2018-0092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.