ReviewPublic health2022
Community preferences for the allocation of scarce healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review of the literature.
Review in Public health, 2022. 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
- Polarity in healthcare priority setting: a comparative analysis of attitudes among Finnish physicians, dentists, MPs, and citizens.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
- Impact of Surge Strain and Pandemic Progression on Prognostication by an Established COVID-19-Specific Severity Score.Critical care explorations · 2023Article
- Patients' rights in physicians' practice during Covid-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in Romania.BMC medical ethics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this thematic review is to examine the literature on the publics' preferences of scarce medical resource allocation during COVID-19. STUDY
designLiterature review.
methodsA review of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus was performed between December 2019 and June 2022 for eligible articles.
resultsFifteen studies using three methodologies and spanning five continents were included. Five key themes were identified: (1) prioritise the youngest; (2) save the most lives; (3) egalitarian allocation approaches; (4) prioritise healthcare workers; and (5) bias against particular groups. The public gave high priority to allocation that saved the most lives, particularly to patients who are younger and healthcare workers. Themes present but not supported as broadly were giving priority to individuals with disabilities, high frailty or those with behaviours that may have contributed to their ill-health (e.g. smokers). Allocation involving egalitarian approaches received the least support among community members.
conclusionThe general public prefer rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic based on saving the most lives and giving priority to the youngest and frontline healthcare workers rather than giving preference to patients with disabilities, frailty or perceived behaviours that may have contributed to their own ill-health. There is also little public support for allocation based on egalitarian strategies.
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.