Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31119609›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2020

Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda.

Mathias Barra, Mari Broqvist, Erik Gustavsson, Martin Henriksson, Niklas Juth, Lars Sandman, Carl Tollef Solberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Supervised Exercise for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis Alongside the PREFERABLE-EFFECT Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Double Threshold Prioritarianism - Some Problems and Solutions.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Severity as a Criterion for Prioritizing Diagnostic Measures.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Severity and death.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Mathias BarraThe Health Services Research Unit - HØKH, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, Postboks 1000, 1473, Lørenskog, Norway. Mathias.barra@ahus.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0022-4042
Mari BroqvistDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, The National Centre for Priorities in Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1664-9846
Erik GustavssonDepartment of Culture and Communication, Centre for Applied Ethics, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5448-9209
Martin HenrikssonDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Center for Medical Technology Assessment, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1699-3185
Niklas JuthStockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics (CHE), LIME, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1339-4956
Lars SandmanDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, The National Centre for Priorities in Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0987-7653
Carl Tollef SolbergThe Health Services Research Unit - HØKH, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, Postboks 1000, 1473, Lørenskog, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3321-3793

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Priority setting in health care is ubiquitous and health authorities are increasingly recognising the need for priority setting guidelines to ensure efficient, fair, and equitable resource allocation. While cost-effectiveness concerns seem to dominate many policies, the tension between utilitarian and deontological concerns is salient to many, and various severity criteria appear to fill this gap. Severity, then, must be subjected to rigorous ethical and philosophical analysis. Here we first give a brief history of the path to today's severity criteria in Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian perspective on severity might be conducive to the international discussion, given its long-standing use as a priority setting criterion, despite having reached rather different conclusions so far. We then argue that severity can be viewed as a multidimensional concept, drawing on accounts of need, urgency, fairness, duty to save lives, and human dignity. Such concerns will often be relative to local mores, and the weighting placed on the various dimensions cannot be expected to be fixed. Thirdly, we present what we think are the most pertinent questions to answer about severity in order to facilitate decision making in the coming years of increased scarcity, and to further the understanding of underlying assumptions and values that go into these decisions. We conclude that severity is poorly understood, and that the topic needs substantial further inquiry; thus we hope this article may set a challenging and important research agenda.

Indexed as

Decision MakingSeverity of Illness IndexDelivery of Health CareHealth PrioritiesHumansMoralsNorwayResource AllocationSwedenEthicsGuidelinesHealth policyPriority settingResearch agendaSeverity

Identifiers

PMID31119609
PMCPMC7045747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.