Evidence, Emotion and Eminence: A Qualitative and Evaluative Analysis of Doctors' Skills in Macroallocation.

Siun Gallagher, Miles Little, Claire Hooker

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Siun GallagherSydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia. siun.gallagher@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8877-7265

Miles LittleSydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Claire HookerMedical Humanities, Sydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this analysis of the ethical dimensions of doctors' participation in macroallocation we set out to understand the skills they use, how they are acquired, and how they influence performance of the role. Using the principles of grounded moral analysis, we conducted a semi-structured interview study with Australian doctors engaged in macroallocation. We found that they performed expertise as argument, bringing together phronetic and rhetorical skills founded on communication, strategic thinking, finance, and health data. They had made significant, purposeful efforts to gain skills for the role. Our findings challenge common assumptions about doctors' preferences in argumentation, and reveal an unexpected commitment to practical reason. Using the ethics of Paul Ricoeur in our analysis enabled us to identify the moral meaning of doctors' skills and learning. We concluded that Ricoeur's ethics offers an empirically grounded matrix for ethical analysis of the doctor's role in macroallocation that may help to establish norms for procedure.

Indexed as

CommunicationEmotionsAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFemaleHealth PrioritiesHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPhysician's RoleQualitative ResearchResource AllocationEthicsGrounded moral analysisMacroallocationPaul RicoeurPhysiciansPriority settingSkills

Identifiers

PMID29574503

DOI10.1007/s10728-018-0356-z

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.