Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33660163›Full record

ArticleThe patient2021

Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Richard Norman, Suzanne Robinson, Helen Dickinson, Iestyn Williams, Elena Meshcheriakova, Kathleen Manipis, Matthew Anstey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Richard NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, WA, 6102, Australia. richard.norman@curtin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3112-3893
Suzanne RobinsonSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, WA, 6102, Australia.
Helen DickinsonSchool of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Iestyn WilliamsSchool of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Elena MeshcheriakovaCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kathleen ManipisCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Matthew AnsteySchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, WA, 6102, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, resources in intensive care units (ICUs) have the potential to be inadequate to treat all those who might benefit. Therefore, it is paramount to identify the views of the community regarding how to allocate such resources. This study aims to quantify Australian community preferences for ventilation allocation.

methodsA discrete choice experiment was designed and administrated to an adult Australian online panel. Each survey respondent answered 12 choice sets from a total design of 120. Each choice set placed the respondent in the role of hypothetical decision maker, prioritising care between two patients. Conditional logit, mixed logit regression and latent class analysis were used to analyse the data. Additionally, we asked a series of attitudinal questions about different methods of making such decisions in practice, focusing on who should be responsible.

resultsA total of 1050 community members completed the survey and responded to each choice. Dimensions considered most important were age, likely effectiveness, smoking status, whether the person has dependents, whether they are a healthcare worker, and whether they have a disability or not. Estimating marginal rates of substitution between patient characteristics and chance of survival if ventilated yielded values of up to 30 percentage points if the patient was 70 years old relative to being 30. However, respondents typically said they would prefer such decisions to be made by medical professionals.

conclusionThis study demonstrated the preferences of the community to allocation of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of such information should be treated with some caution as the underlying reason for such preferences are unclear, and respondents themselves preferred the decision to be made by others.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorVentilators, MechanicalAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsAustraliaCOVID-19FemaleHealth Care RationingHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID33660163
PMCPMC7929628

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.