Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic
Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/bjhp.12439
复制
发表时间：
2020-06-20
影响因子：
7.9
通讯作者：
Furnham, Adrian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grover, Simmy;McClelland, Alastair;Furnham, Adrian
这项研究关注的是普通人认为分配稀缺医疗资源的最佳方式是什么。515名个体组成的样本完成了一份简短的调查问卷，要求他们对关于稀缺资源分配的8种不同伦理立场进行排序。他们强烈倾向于“拯救最多生命”和“病情最重者优先”的选项，最不青睐“互惠”和“抽签”。受访者之间有一定程度的一致性，并且与人口统计学等个体差异因素的相关性相对较少。将偏好结果与专家根据当前新冠疫情提出的建议（伊曼纽尔等人，2020年，《新英格兰医学杂志》，382卷，2049页）进行了比较，并强调了差异。讨论了对稀缺医疗资源分配的影响，并承认了研究的局限性。
This study concerns what lay people believe is the best way to allocate scarce medical resources. A sample of 515 individuals completed a short questionnaire asking them to rank-order eight different ethical positions with respect to the allocation of scarce resources. They showed a strong preference for the 'saves most lives' and 'sickest first' options, with 'reciprocity' and a 'lottery' being least favoured. There was a reasonable degree of unanimity amongst respondents and comparatively few correlations with individual difference factors such as demography. The preference results are compared to expert recommendations (Emanuelet al., 2020,N. Engl. J. Med.,382, 2049) made in light of the current coronavirus pandemic, and differences are highlighted. Implications for scare medical resource allocations are discussed, and limitations of the study acknowledged.