ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2014
[Avoidance of overuse as an integral part of medical professionalism. Conceptual analysis and new perspective].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sharing Frailty-related information in perioperative care: an analysis from a temporal perspective.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- [Choosing wisely--against overuse in healthcare systems--activities in Germany and Austria in geriatric medicine].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2016Article
- [Cost-conscious medical decisions. Normative guidance within the conflicting demands of ethics and economics].Der Unfallchirurg · 2014Article
- [Rationalization and rationing at the bedside. A normative and empirical status quo analysis].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe topics of rationing and priority setting have been increasingly discussed over the past 5 years in Germany by physicians together with other health care stakeholders. The topic of overuse, however, has not been discussed with similar intensity and publicity.
objectivesThis analysis paper outlines the relationships and differences between efficiency, priority setting, and rationing. Furthermore, it argues why and how German physicians should address the topic of overuse with more transparency and intensity. DISCUSSION: Efforts of physicians to rationalize health care mainly comprise efforts to decrease overuse. The identification of important areas of overuse includes the prioritization of indications and medical interventions. Rationing health care can be unavoidable, for example, because other strategies such as rationalization, price regulation or disinvestments are not sufficient to avoid scarcity of financial resources. In such a case, rationing health care is unavoidable and, therefore, cannot be unethical per se. However, the debate on rationing becomes more legitimate if physicians demonstrate sufficient efforts to reduce overuse sufficiently. The Choosing Wisely initiative in the USA is outlined as one interesting option of how physicians could demonstrate and prove such efforts. Additional and more effective strategies to decrease overuse might be possible.
conclusionGerman physicians demand a more explicit communication within their communities and together with other stakeholders on the appropriateness of existing and potential future activities to decrease overuse. Such initiatives to avoid and decrease overuse should primarily be motivated through the ethical principle of beneficence, while the effect of cost containment should be considered as a welcomed side effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24389719What 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.