ArticleJournal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi2021
Public Preferences for Allocation Principles for Scarce Medical Resources in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: Comparisons With Ethicists' Recommendations.
Article in Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promotion of Knowledge and Trust Surrounding Scarce Resource Allocation Policies: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA health forum · 2024Trial
- 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
- What are the views of Quebec and Ontario citizens on the tiebreaker criteria for prioritizing access to adult critical care in the extreme context of a COVID-19 pandemic?BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Health Professional vs Layperson Values and Preferences on Scarce Resource Allocation.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- [Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination programs in South America].Ethic@ : an international journal for moral philosophy = Revista internacional de filosofia da moral · 2023Article
- Public voices on tie-breaking criteria and underlying values in COVID-19 triage protocols to access critical care: a scoping review.Discover health systems · 2023Article
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
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate public preferences regarding allocation principles for scarce medical resources in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in comparison with the recommendations of ethicists.
methodsAn online survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1509 adults residing in Korea, from November 2 to 5, 2020. The degree of agreement with resource allocation principles in the context of the medical resource constraints precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic was examined. The results were then compared with ethicists' recommendations. We also examined whether the perceived severity of COVID-19 explained differences in individual preferences, and by doing so, whether perceived severity helps explain discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists' recommendations.
resultsOverall, the public of Korea agreed strongly with the principles of "save the most lives," "Koreans first," and "sickest first," but less with "random selection," in contrast to the recommendations of ethicists. "Save the most lives" was given the highest priority by both the public and ethicists. Higher perceived severity of the pandemic was associated with a greater likelihood of agreeing with allocation principles based on utilitarianism, as well as those promoting and rewarding social usefulness, in line with the opinions of expert ethicists.
conclusionsThe general public of Korea preferred rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic predominantly based on utilitarianism, identity and prioritarianism, rather than egalitarianism. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists' recommendations.
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.