ArticleBMJ open2017
Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. 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.
- Evaluation of the awareness of novel advanced therapies among family medicine residents in Spain.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Mapping the costs and socioeconomic characteristics involved in traumatic brain injuries: a scoping review.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Opinions of professors, dental students, and patients for publishing the patient images in the articles.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Navigating Ethical Practices in the Era of High Cost Hematology.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2020Review
- What Patients, Students and Doctors Think About Permission to Publish Patient Photographs in Academic Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Croatia.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the attitudes of physicians and trainees in regard to the roles of both cost-effectiveness and equity in clinical decision making.
designIn this cross-sectional study, electronic surveys containing a hypothetical decision-making scenario were sent to medical professionals to select between two colon cancer screening tests for a population.
settingThree Greater Boston academic medical institutions: Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Medical Centre and Lahey Hospital and Medical Centre.
participants819 medical students, 497 residents-in-training and 671 practising physicians were contacted electronically using institutional and organisational directories. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Stratified opinions of medical providers and trainee subgroups regarding cost-effectiveness and equity.
resultsA total of 881 respondents comprising 512 medical students, 133 medical residents-in-training and 236 practising physicians completed the survey (total response rate 44.3%). Thirty-six per cent of medical students, 44% of residents-in-training and 53% of practising physicians favoured the less effective and more equitable screening test. Residents-in-training (OR 1.49, CI 1.01 to 2.21; p=0.044) and practising physicians (OR 2.12, CI 1.54 to 2.92; p<0.001) were more likely to favour the equitable option compared with medical students. Moreover, female responders across all three cohorts favoured the more equitable screening test to a greater degree than did male responders (OR 1.70, CI 1.29 to 2.24; p<0.001).
conclusionsCost-effectiveness analysis does not accurately reflect the importance that medical professionals place on equity. Among medical professionals, practising physicians appear to be more egalitarian than residents-in-training, while medical students appear to be most utilitarian and cost-effective. Meanwhile, female respondents in all three cohorts favoured the more equitable option to a greater degree than their male counterparts. Healthcare policies that trade off equity in favour of cost-effectiveness may be unacceptable to many medical professionals, especially practising physicians and women.
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.