Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35382816›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Attitudes towards priority setting in the norwegian health care system: a general population survey.

Carl Tollef Solberg, Eirik Joakim Tranvåg, Morten Magelssen

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Carl Tollef SolbergCentre for Medical Ethics (CME), Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Postbox 1130, Blindern 0318, Oslo, Norway. c.t.solberg@medisin.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3321-3793
Eirik Joakim TranvågBergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting (BCEPS), Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7196-7858
Morten MagelssenCentre for Medical Ethics (CME), Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Postbox 1130, Blindern 0318, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5994-8029

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelHumansNorwaySurveys and QuestionnairesAttitude surveyEmpirical ethicsGeneral populationLegitimacyNorwayPriority setting

Identifiers

PMID35382816
PMCPMC8980508

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.