ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2020
Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in British journal of health psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promotion of Knowledge and Trust Surrounding Scarce Resource Allocation Policies: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA health forum · 2024Trial
- Allocating a scarce medical resource: liver transplant and lay individuals' patient prioritisation.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Using a lottery to resolve indeterminacy when allocating resources for drugs for rare diseases.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Lottery or Triage? Controlled Experimental Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Preferences for Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Justification of principles for healthcare priority setting: the relevance and roles of empirical studies exploring public values.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Establishment of a value assessment framework for orphan drugs in China: an application of the discrete choice experiment in multicriteria decision analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Article
- Where should "Humans" be in "One Health"? Lessons from COVID-19 for One Health.Globalization and health · 2024Article
- Health Professional vs Layperson Values and Preferences on Scarce Resource Allocation.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Article
- Just world beliefs, personal success and beliefs in conspiracy theories.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Prioritization of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A qualitative exploration of patients' perspectives.PloS one · 2023Article
- Race and resource allocation: an online survey of US and UK adults' attitudes toward COVID-19 ventilator and vaccine distribution.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Geographical Pattern Evolution of Health Resources in China: Spatio-Temporal Dynamics and Spatial Mismatch.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Neighborhood, built environment and resilience in transportation during the COVID-19 pandemic.Transportation research. Part D, Transport and environment · 2022Article
- Emergency medical resource allocation among hospitals with non-regressive production technology: A DEA-based approach.Computers & industrial engineering · 2022Article
- Community preferences for the allocation of scarce healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review of the literature.Public health · 2022Review
- Addressing Futility: A Practical Approach.Critical care explorations · 2022Review
- Exploring the roles of trust and social group preference on the legitimacy of algorithmic decision-making vs. human decision-making for allocating COVID-19 vaccinations.AI & society · 2022Article
- Providing laypeople with results from dynamic infectious disease modelling studies affects their allocation preference for scarce medical resources-a factorial experiment.BMC public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study concerns what lay people believe is the best way to allocate scarce medical resources. A sample of 515 individuals completed a short questionnaire asking them to rank-order eight different ethical positions with respect to the allocation of scarce resources. They showed a strong preference for the 'saves most lives' and 'sickest first' options, with 'reciprocity' and a 'lottery' being least favoured. There was a reasonable degree of unanimity amongst respondents and comparatively few correlations with individual difference factors such as demography. The preference results are compared to expert recommendations (Emanuel et al., 2020, N. Engl. J. Med., 382, 2049) made in light of the current coronavirus pandemic, and differences are highlighted. Implications for scare medical resource allocations are discussed, and limitations of the study acknowledged.
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.