Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38710464›Full record

ArticleChest2024

Behind the Scenes: Facilitators and Barriers to Developing State Scarce Resource Allocation Plans for the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Kirsten A Riggan, Nicholas V Nguyen, Jackson S Ennis, Debra A DeBruin, Richard R Sharp, Jon C Tilburt, Susan M Wolf, Erin S DeMartino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kirsten A RigganBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Nicholas V NguyenBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Jackson S EnnisBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Debra A DeBruinCenter for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Richard R SharpBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Jon C TilburtBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ.
Susan M WolfUniversity of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN; University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN; University of Minnesota Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment, and the Life Sciences, Minneapolis, MN.
Erin S DeMartinoDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: DeMartino.Erin@mayo.edu.

Funding

Heterogeneity in US pandemic allocation policies: state-to-state variation, stakeholder insights and implications for older AmericansR03AG073987 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI DEMARTINO, ERIN S · 2021 to 2022
$318k
NIA NIH HHS R03 AG073987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to COVID-19, many states revised, developed, or attempted to develop plans to allocate scarce critical care resources in the event that crisis standards of care were triggered. To our knowledge, no prior analysis has assessed this plan development process, including whether plans were successfully adopted. RESEARCH QUESTION: How did states develop or revise scarce resource allocation plans during the COVID-19 pandemic, and what were the barriers and facilitators to their development and adoption at the state level? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsPlan authors and state leaders completed a semistructured interview February to September 2022. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for themes related to plan development and adoption according to the principles of grounded theory.

resultsThirty-six participants from 34 states completed an interview, from states distributed across all US regions. Among participants' states with plans that existed prior to 2020 (n = 24), 17 were revised and adopted in response to COVID-19. Six states wrote a plan de novo, with the remaining states failing to develop or adopt a plan. Thirteen states continued to revise their plans in response to disability or aging bias complaints or to respond to evolving needs. Many participants expressed that urgency in the early days of the pandemic prevented an ideal development process. Facilitators of successful plan development and adoption include: coordination or support from the state department of health and existing relationships with key community partners, including aging and disability rights groups and minoritized communities. Barriers include: lack of perceived political will to adopt a plan and development during a public health emergency.

interpretationTo avoid repeating mistakes from the early days of the COVID-19 response, states should develop or revise plans with community engagement and consider maintaining a standing committee with diverse membership and content expertise to periodically review plans and advise state officials on pandemic preparedness.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health Care RationingHumansPandemicsResource AllocationSARS-CoV-2United StatesCOVID-19crisis standards of careethicspandemic preparednesstriage

Identifiers

PMID38710464
PMCPMC11443246

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.