Project description:The allocation strategies during challenging situations among the different social groups is based on 9 principles which can be considered either individually: sickest first, waiting list, prognosis, youngest first, instrumental values, lottery, monetary contribution, reciprocity, and individual behavior, or in combination; youngest first and prognosis, for example. In this study, we aim to look into the most important prioritization principles amongst different groups in the Jordanian population, in order to facilitate the decision-making process for any potential medical crisis. We conducted an online survey that tackled how individuals would deal with three different scenarios of medical scarcity: (1) organ donation, (2) limited hospital beds during an influenza epidemic, and (3) allocation of novel therapeutics for lung cancer. In addition, a free-comment option was included at the end of the survey if respondents wished to contribute further. Seven hundred and fifty-four survey responses were gathered, including 372 males (49.3%), and 382 females (50.7%). Five groups of individuals were represented including religion scholars, physicians, medical students, allied health practitioners, and lay people. Of the five surveyed groups, four found "sickest-first" to be the most important prioritization principle in all three scenarios, and only the physicians group documented a disagreement. In the first scenario, physicians regarded "sickest-first" and "combined-criteria" to be of equal importance. In general, no differences were documented between the examined groups in comparison with lay people in the preference of options in all three scenarios; however, physicians were more likely to choose "combination" in both the second and third scenarios (OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.62-8.44, and 2.62, 95% CI 1.48-4.59; p < 0.01), and were less likely to choose "sickest-first" as the single most important prioritization principle (OR 0.57, CI 0.37-0.88, and 0.57; 95% CI 0.36-0.88; p < 0.01). Out of 100 free comments, 27 (27.0%) thought that the "social-value" of patients should also be considered, adding the 10th potential allocation principle. Our findings are concordant with literature in terms of allocating scarce medical resources. However, "social-value" appeared as an important principle that should be addressed when prioritizing scarce medical resources in Jordan.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus 2019 pandemic placed unprecedented pressures on healthcare services and magnified ethical dilemmas related to how resources should be allocated. These resources include, among others, personal protective equipment, personnel, life-saving equipment, and vaccines. Decision-makers have therefore sought ethical decision-making tools so that resources are distributed both swiftly and equitably. To support the development of such a decision-making tool, a systematic review of the literature on relevant ethical values and principles was undertaken. The aim of this review was to identify ethical values and principles in the literature which relate to the equitable allocation of resources in response to an acute public health threat, such as a pandemic.MethodsA rapid systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LitCOVID and relevant reference lists. The time period of the search was January 2000 to 6th April 2020, and the search was restricted to human studies. January 2000 was selected as a start date as the aim was to capture ethical values and principles within acute public health threat situations. No restrictions were made with regard to language. Ethical values and principles were extracted and examined thematically.ResultsA total of 1,618 articles were identified. After screening and application of eligibility criteria, 169 papers were included in the thematic synthesis. The most commonly mentioned ethical values and principles were: Equity, reciprocity, transparency, justice, duty to care, liberty, utility, stewardship, trust and proportionality. In some cases, ethical principles were conflicting, for example, Protection of the Public from Harm and Liberty.ConclusionsAllocation of resources in response to acute public health threats is challenging and must be simultaneously guided by many ethical principles and values. Ethical decision-making strategies and the prioritisation of different principles and values needs to be discussed with the public in order to prepare for future public health threats. An evidence-based tool to guide decision-makers in making difficult decisions is required. The equitable allocation of resources in response to an acute public health threat is challenging, and many ethical principles may be applied simultaneously. An evidence-based tool to support difficult decisions would be helpful to guide decision-makers.

Project description:Solid organ transplants (SOTs) are life-saving interventions, recently challenged by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SOTs require a multistep process, which can be affected by COVID-19 at several phases.MethodsSOT-specialists, COVID-19-specialists, and medical ethicists designed an international survey according to CHERRIES guidelines. Personal opinions about continuing SOTs, safe managing of donors and recipients, as well as equity of resources' allocation were investigated. The survey was sent by e-mail. Multiple approaches were used (corresponding authors from Scopus, websites of scientific societies, COVID-19 webinars). After the descriptive analysis, univariate and multivariate ordinal regression analysis was performed.ResultsThere were 1819 complete answers from 71 countries. The response rate was 49%. Data were stratified according to region, macrospecialty, and organ of interest. Answers were analyzed using univariate-multivariate ordinal regression analysis and thematic analysis. Overall, 20% of the responders thought SOTs should not stop (continue transplant without restriction); over 70% suggested SOTs should selectively stop, and almost 10% indicated they should completely stop. Furthermore, 82% agreed to shift resources from transplant to COVID-19 temporarily. Briefly, main reason for not stopping was that if the transplant will not proceed, the organ will be wasted. Focusing on SOT from living donors, 61% stated that activity should be restricted only to "urgent" cases. At the multivariate analysis, factors identified in favor of continuing transplant were Italy, ethicist, partially disagreeing on the equity question, a high number of COVID-19-related deaths on the day of the answer, a high IHDI country. Factors predicting to stop SOTs were Europe except-Italy, public university hospital, and strongly agreeing on the equity question.ConclusionsIn conclusion, the majority of responders suggested that transplant activity should be continued through the implementation of isolation measures and the adoption of the COVID-19-free pathways. Differences between professional categories are less strong than supposed.

Project description:Objective: In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the associated hospitalization of an overwhelming number of ventilator-dependent patients, medical and/or ethical patient triage paradigms have become essential. While guidelines on the allocation of scarce resources do exist, such work within the subdisciplines of intensive care (e.g., neurocritical care) remains limited. Methods: A 16-item questionnaire was developed that sought to explore/quantify the expert opinions of German neurointensivists with regard to triage decisions. The anonymous survey was conducted via a web-based platform and in total, 96 members of the Initiative of German Neurointensive Trial Engagement (IGNITE)-study group were contacted via e-mail. The IGNITE consortium consists of an interdisciplinary panel of specialists with expertise in neuro-critical care (i.e., anesthetists, neurologists and neurosurgeons). Results: Fifty members of the IGNITE consortium responded to the questionnaire; in total the respondents were in charge of more than 500 Neuro ICU beds throughout Germany. Common determinants reported which affected triage decisions included known patient wishes (98%), the state of health before admission (96%), SOFA-score (85%) and patient age (69%). Interestingly, other principles of allocation, such as a treatment of "youngest first" (61%) and members of the healthcare sector (50%) were also noted. While these were the most accepted parameters affecting the triage of patients, a "first-come, first-served" principle appeared to be more accepted than a lottery for the allocation of ICU beds which contradicts much of what has been reported within the literature. The respondents also felt that at least one neurointensivist should serve on any interdisciplinary triage team. Conclusions: The data gathered in the context of this survey reveal the estimation/perception of triage algorithms among neurointensive care specialists facing COVID-19. Further, it is apparent that German neurointensivists strongly feel that they should be involved in any triage decisions at an institutional level given the unique resources needed to treat patients within the Neuro ICU.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health resources are limited, which means spending should be focused on the people, places and programs that matter most. Choosing the mix of programs to maximize a health outcome is termed allocative efficiency. Here, we extend the methodology of allocative efficiency to answer the question of how resources should be distributed among different geographic regions. METHODS:We describe a novel geographical optimization algorithm, which has been implemented as an extension to the Optima HIV model. This algorithm identifies an optimal funding of services and programs across regions, such as multiple countries or multiple districts within a country. The algorithm consists of three steps: (1) calibrating the model to each region, (2) determining the optimal allocation for each region across a range of different budget levels, and (3) finding the budget level in each region that minimizes the outcome (such as reducing new HIV infections and/or HIV-related deaths), subject to the constraint of fixed total budget across all regions. As a case study, we applied this method to determine an illustrative allocation of HIV program funding across three representative oblasts (regions) in Ukraine (Mykolayiv, Poltava, and Zhytomyr) to minimize the number of new HIV infections. RESULTS:Geographical optimization was found to identify solutions with better outcomes than would be possible by considering region-specific allocations alone. In the case of Ukraine, prior to optimization (i.e. with status quo spending), a total of 244,000 HIV-related disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were estimated to occur from 2016 to 2030 across the three oblasts. With optimization within (but not between) oblasts, this was estimated to be reduced to 181,000. With geographical optimization (i.e., allowing reallocation of funds between oblasts), this was estimated to be further reduced to 173,000. CONCLUSIONS:With the increasing availability of region- and even facility-level data, geographical optimization is likely to play an increasingly important role in health economic decision making. Although the largest gains are typically due to reallocating resources to the most effective interventions, especially treatment, further gains can be achieved by optimally reallocating resources between regions. Finally, the methods described here are not restricted to geographical optimization, and can be applied to other problems where competing resources need to be allocated with constraints, such as between diseases.

Dataset Information

COUNTERPOINT: Is Considering Social Determinants of Health Ethically Permissible for Fair Allocation of Critical Care Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic? No.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets