Dataset Information

Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment?

Design

Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels.

Results

In line with our first hypothesis, participants were more supportive of rationing decisions presented as withholding treatments compared with withdrawing treatments. Contrary to our second prestated hypothesis, participants were more supportive of decisions to withdraw treatment made at the bedside level compared with similar decisions made at the policy level.

Implications

Our findings provide behavioral insights that help explain the common use of policies affecting only future patients in medical reimbursement decisions, despite normative concerns of such policies. In addition, our results may have implications for communication strategies when making decisions regarding treatment reimbursement.

Highlights

We explore public' attitudes toward withdrawing and withholding treatments and how the decision level (bedside or policy level) matters.People were more supportive of withholding medical treatment than of withdrawing equivalent treatment.People were more supportive of treatment withdrawal made at the bedside than at the policy level.Our findings help clarify why common-use policies, which impact only future patients in medical reimbursement decision, are implemented despite the normative concerns associted with thesepolicies.

SUBMITTER: Strand L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11346081 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes.

Strand Liam L Sandman Lars L Persson Emil E Andersson David D Nedlund Ann-Charlotte AC Tinghög Gustav G

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20240624 6

<h4>Background</h4>The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment?<h4>Design</h4>Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels.<h4>Results</h4>In line with our first hypothesis ...[more]

PMID: 38912645

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne of the most important and ethically challenging decisions made for children with life-limiting conditions is withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (LST). As important (co-)decision-makers in this process, physicians are expected to have deeply and broadly developed views. However, their attitudes and experiences in this area remain difficult to understand because of the diversity of the studies. Hence, the aim of this paper is to describe physicians' attitudes and experiences about withholding/withdrawing LST in pediatrics and to identify the influencing factors.MethodsWe systematically searched Pubmed, Cinahl®, Embase®, Scopus®, and Web of Science™ in early 2021 and updated the search results in late 2021. Eligible articles were published in English, reported on investigations of physicians' attitudes and experiences about withholding/withdrawing LST for children, and were quantitative.ResultsIn 23 included articles, overall, physicians stated that withholding/withdrawing LST can be ethically legitimate for children with life-limiting conditions. Physicians tended to follow parents' and parents-patient's wishes about withholding/withdrawing or continuing LST when they specified treatment preferences. Although most physicians agreed to share decision-making with parents and/or children, they nonetheless reported experiencing both negative and positive feelings during the decision-making process. Moderating factors were identified, including barriers to and facilitators of withholding/withdrawing LST. In general, there was only a limited number of quantitative studies to support the hypothesis that some factors can influence physicians' attitudes and experiences toward LST.ConclusionOverall, physicians agreed to withhold/withdraw LST in dying patients, followed parent-patients' wishes, and involved them in decision-making. Barriers and facilitators relevant to the decision-making regarding withholding/withdrawing LST were identified. Future studies should explore children's involvement in decision-making and consider barriers that hinder implementation of decisions about withholding/withdrawing LST.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Decisions of withholding or withdrawing life sustaining-treatments in emergency department are part of current practice but the decision-making process remains poorly described in the literature. STUDY OBJECTIVE:We conducted a study in two phases, the first comprising a retrospective chart review study of patients dying in the ED and the second comprising survey study of health care workers at 10 urban emergency departments in France. METHOD:In a first step, we analyzed medical records based on fifteen criteria of the decision-making process grouped into four categories: the collegiality, the traceability, the management and the communication as recommended by the international guidelines. In a second step, we conducted an auto-administrated survey to assess how the staff members (medical, paramedical) feel with the decision-making process. RESULTS:There were 273 deaths which occurred in the ED over the study period and we included 145 (53.1%) patients. The first-step analysis revealed that the traceability of the decision and the information given to patient or the relatives were the most reported points according to the recommendations. Three of the ten emergency departments had developed a written procedure. The collegial discussion and the traceability of the prognosis assessment were significantly increased in emergency department with a written procedure as well as management of pain, comfort care, and the communication with the patient or the relatives. In the second-step analysis, among the 735 staff members asked to take part in the survey, 287 (39.0%) answered. The medical and paramedical staff expressed difficult experience regarding the announcement and the communication with the patient and the relatives. CONCLUSION:The management of the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments must be improved in emergency departments according to the guidelines. A standard written procedure could be useful in clinical practice despite the lack of experienced difference between centers with and without procedures.

Project description:BackgroundWith paediatric patients, deciding whether to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments (LST) at the end of life is difficult and ethically sensitive. Little is understood about how and why physicians decide on withholding/withdrawing LST at the end of life in paediatric patients. In this study, we aimed to synthesise results from the literature on physicians' perceptions about decision-making when dealing with withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in paediatric patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of empirical qualitative studies. Five electronic databases (Pubmed, Cinahl®, Embase®, Scopus®, Web of Science™) were exhaustively searched in order to identify articles published in English from inception through March 17, 2021. Analysis and synthesis were guided by the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.ResultsThirty publications met our criteria and were included for analysis. Overall, we found that physicians agreed to involve parents, and to a lesser extent, children in the decision-making process about withholding/withdrawing LST. Our analysis to identify conceptual schemes revealed that physicians divided their decision-making into three stages: (1) early preparation via advance care planning, (2) information giving and receiving, and (3) arriving at the final decision. Physicians considered advocating for the best interests of the child and of the parents as their major focus. We also identified moderating factors of decision-making, such as facilitators and barriers, specifically those related to physicians and parents that influenced physicians' decision-making.ConclusionsBy focusing on stakeholders, structure of the decision-making process, ethical values, and influencing factors, our analysis showed that physicians generally agreed to share the decision-making with parents and the child, especially for adolescents. Further research is required to better understand how to minimise the negative impact of barriers on the decision-making process (e.g., difficult involvement of children, lack of paediatric palliative care expertise, conflict with parents).

Project description:BackgroundPublic health care payer organizations face increasing pressures to make transparent and sustainable coverage decisions about ever more expensive prescription drugs, suggesting a need for public engagement in coverage decisions. However, little is known about countries' approaches to integrating public preferences in existing funding decisions. The aim of this study was to describe how Belgium and New Zealand used deliberative processes to engage the public and to identify lessons learned from these countries' approaches.MethodsTo describe two countries' deliberative processes, we first reviewed key country policy documents and then conducted semi-structured interviews with five leaders of the processes from Belgium and New Zealand. We assessed each country's rationales for and approaches to engaging the public in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and identified lessons learned. We used qualitative content analysis of the interviews to describe key themes and subthemes.ResultsIn both countries, the national public payer organization initiated and led the process of integrating public preferences into national coverage decision making. Reimbursement criteria considered outdated and changing societal expectations prompted the change. Both countries chose a deliberative process of public engagement with a multi-year commitment of many stakeholders to develop new reimbursement processes. Both countries' new reimbursement processes put a stronger emphasis on quality of life, the separation of individual versus societal perspectives, and the importance of final reimbursement decisions being taken in context rather than based largely on cost-effectiveness thresholds.ConclusionsTo face the growing financial pressure of sustainable funding of medicines, Belgium's and New Zealand's public payers have developed processes to engage the public in defining the reimbursement system's priorities. Although these countries differ in context and geographic location, they came up with overlapping lessons learnt which include the need for 1) political commitment to initiate change, 2) broad involvement of all stakeholders, and 3) commitment of all to engage in a long-term process. To evaluate these changes, further research is required to understand how coverage decisions in systems with and without public engagement differ.

Dataset Information

Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes.

Background

Design

Results

Implications

Highlights

Publications

Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets