ArticleBMC health services research2022
Attitudes towards priority setting in the norwegian health care system: a general population survey.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polarity in healthcare priority setting: a comparative analysis of attitudes among Finnish physicians, dentists, MPs, and citizens.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Negative experiences with primary care services in Norway expressed in patient and next-of-kin complaints - a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Perceptions of the seriousness of major public health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic in seven middle-income countries.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- Citizen attitudes to non-treatment decision making: a Norwegian survey.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Correction to: Attitudes towards priority setting in the Norwegian health care system: a general population survey.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn an ideal world, everyone would receive medical resources in accordance with their needs. In reality, resources are often scarce and have an alternative use. Thus, we are forced to prioritize. Although Norway is one of the leading countries in normative priority setting work, few descriptive studies have been conducted in the country. To increase legitimacy in priority setting, knowledge about laypeople's attitudes is central. The aim of the study is therefore to assess the general population's attitudes towards a broad spectrum of issues pertinent to priority setting in the Norwegian publicly financed health care system.
methodsWe developed an electronic questionnaire that was distributed to a representative sample of 2 540 Norwegians regarding their attitudes towards priority setting in Norway. A total of 1 035 responded (response rate 40.7%). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.
resultsA majority (73.0%) of respondents preferred increased funding of publicly financed health services at the expense of other sectors in society. Moreover, a larger share of the respondents suggested either increased taxes (37.0%) or drawing from the Government Pension Fund Global (31.0%) as sources of funding. However, the respondents were divided on whether it was acceptable to say "no" to new cancer drugs when the effect is low and the price is high: 38.6% somewhat or fully disagreed that this was acceptable, while 46.5% somewhat or fully agreed. Lastly, 84.0% of the respondents did not find it acceptable that the Norwegian municipalities have different standards for providing care services.
conclusionAlthough the survey suggests support for priority setting among Norwegian laypeople, it has also revealed that a significant minority are reluctant to accept it.
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.