ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2009
Primary care patients' attitudes to priority setting in Sweden.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Policies Based on Patient Satisfaction: A Bibliometric Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Based Real Time Remote Health Monitoring Systems: A Review on Patients Prioritization and Related "Big Data" Using Body Sensors information and Communication Technology.Journal of medical systems · 2017Article
- Setting priorities in primary health care--on whose conditions? A questionnaire study.BMC family practice · 2012Article
- Thorny questions on the way to disclosing rationing.Critical care medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse attitudes to priority setting among patients in Swedish primary healthcare.
designA questionnaire was given to patients comprising statements on attitudes towards prioritizing, on the role of politicians and healthcare staff in prioritizing, and on patient satisfaction with the outcome of their contact with primary healthcare (PHC). SETTINGS: Four healthcare centres in Sweden, chosen through purposive sampling.
participantsAll the patients in contact with the health centres during a two-week period in 2004 (2517 questionnaires, 72% returned). MAIN OUTCOMES: Patient attitudes to priority setting and satisfaction with the outcome of their contact.
resultsMore than 75% of the patients agreed with statements like "Public health services should always provide the best possible care, irrespective of cost". Almost three-quarters of the patients wanted healthcare staff rather than politicians to make decisions on priority setting. Younger patients and males were more positive towards priority setting and they also had a more positive view of the role of politicians. Less than 10% of the patients experienced some kind of economic rationing but the majority of these patients were satisfied with their contact with primary care.
conclusionsPrimary care patient opinions concerning priority setting are a challenge for both politicians and GPs. The fact that males and younger patients are less negative to prioritizing may pave the way for a future dialogue between politicians and the general public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.