Dataset Information

Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

One of the challenges faced by hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is resource shortages in intensive care units (ICUs). In times of scarcity, patient prioritization based on non-medical considerations might be necessary.

Objective

The aim of this study was to pilot test a survey to elicit public opinions on the relative importance of non-medical considerations in priority setting when admitting patients to the ICU in times of crisis.

Methods

A discrete-choice experiment was used to collect social preferences for priority setting when admitting patients to the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. The six attributes were patient age, profession, guardianship, risk-conscious behavior on a societal level, health-conscious behavior, and expected ICU length of stay. The data were analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit model. Interactions between the age and profession of the respondents and the age and profession of the patient profiles were considered.

Results

The mean (± standard deviation) age of respondents was 35.9 ± 14.5 years. In all, 70% of respondents indicated that medical and/or non-medical considerations should play a role in prioritizing patients for the ICU, whereas 15% agreed with a "first come, first served" strategy and the remaining 15% had no opinion. Respondents deemed risk-conscious behavior on a societal level to be the most important non-medical factor that should be used to prioritize patients in phase three of the framework, garnering an attribute importance (AI) of 31.2%, followed by patient age (AI 16.3%) and health-conscious behavior (AI 16.0%). ICU length of stay had the lowest impact on patient prioritization for ICU admittance (AI 10.9%). Younger and older respondents attached more importance to age than respondents in the middle age group and indicated a stronger preference to prioritize patients in their own age group (p = 0.042).

Conclusion

The results of our study demonstrate the relative importance members of the public attach to responsible societal behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the next phase of the study, we will elicit the perspectives of a representative sample of the Dutch population. Changes to the task design and attribute operationalization could improve the external validity of the study findings, and optimization of the experimental design will improve the internal validity of the study.

SUBMITTER: Gijsbers M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7982314 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study.

Gijsbers Merle M Keizer Iris Elise IE Schouten Stephanie Else SE Trompert Janneke Louise JL Groothuis-Oudshoorn Catharina G M CGM van Til Janine Astrid JA

The patient 20210322 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>One of the challenges faced by hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is resource shortages in intensive care units (ICUs). In times of scarcity, patient prioritization based on non-medical considerations might be necessary.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to pilot test a survey to elicit public opinions on the relative importance of non-medical considerations in priority setting when admitting patients to the ICU in times of crisis.<h4> ...[more]

PMID: 33748930

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used to study preferences and quantify tradeoffs in decision making. It is important to understand how stable their results are.ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent an extreme change in context, the COVID-19 pandemic, affected preferences for vaccine priority setting, as observed in an earlier DCE.MethodsWe replicated a DCE in which participants had to prioritize vaccination programs for public funding. The initial DCE was executed in Flanders (Belgium) right before the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (December 2019, N = 1,636). The replicated DCE was executed 6 months later when the population was in lockdown (April 2020, N = 1,127). A total of 612 respondents participated in both waves of the DCE. We used panel mixed logit models to quantify attribute and level importance and compared utility estimates for consistency.ResultsThe number of vaccine-preventable deaths became less important during the pandemic than before, whereas the influential attributes, the vaccine's contribution to disease eradication and certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important. Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.ConclusionDifferent preferences for vaccine priority setting were observed during the first COVID-19 lockdown as compared with before, although these differences were, given the extreme nature of the changing circumstances, relatively small.HighlightsWe replicated a discrete choice experiment (DCE) about vaccine priority setting during the first COVID-19 lockdown and compared results with those from the original setting.The major attributes, contribution to disease eradication, and scientific certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important than they already were, whereas avoidable mortality became less important.Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.An extreme change in directly related context to the choice assignment led to changes in stated preferences, although these changes were relatively small, given the extreme change in context.Priorities in the second DCE were even less aligned with cost-effectiveness analysis than those observed initially.

Project description:ObjectivesPriority setting in health directly impacts the general public as payers and final consumers, so the public preferences must be considered. The present study aimed to provide public preferences about health intervention allocation criteria for the optimal allocation of public health budget in Iran.MethodsA choice-based survey method was used to assess the general public's preferences regarding 8 critical criteria with a societal aspect. One thousand sixty-four adult citizens of Tehran, Iran, participated in the study. Participants were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget between the two groups with differences in allocation criteria. Public preferences were inferred from absolute majority responses i.e., more than 50% of participants' allocation for a criterion. The Logistic Regression Model was used to investigate the factors affecting the preferences regarding the importance of allocation criteria.ResultsBased on expressed participants' preferences, criteria of disease severity, age, daily care needs, Number of alternative interventions, individual's economic status, and diseases with absence from work were important. Thus, 77, 69, 61, 57, 54, and 51% of participants preferred to allocate the hypothetical budget to the treatment of patients with poor economic status, treatment of patients with diseases leading to absence from work, treating patients with severe diseases, treatment of diseases in need of daily care and treatment of children's diseases, respectively. Findings from the factors affecting participants' preferences regarding allocation criteria also showed that people with different characteristics had different preferences.ConclusionsIranian general public pays special attention to the criteria of equitable allocation, including patients' economic status, criteria with societal aspects such as absenteeism from work and the need for daily care, as well as criteria with medical aspects such as disease severity and access to alternative interventions which may sometimes be less considered in decision making.

Project description:BackgroundIn the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable.MethodsIn December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses.ResultsIn total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines.ConclusionsMost doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors' familiarity with them must improve.

Dataset Information

Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study.

Introduction

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets