ArticleBMC health services research2024
Personal responsibility for health in Bulgarian public health law and social legislation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last decades all health systems have experienced a lack of resources. Against this background, the idea of applying personal responsibility of the patient as a criterion for allocation of resources (PRCAR) is gaining increasing attention. Bulgarian healthcare reform has been marked by the implementation of many new strategies, that grounded our scientific interest towards investigating PRCAR in Bulgarian public health law and social legislation.
methodsThrough a search of national legal databases 7 documents were selected and subjected to content analysis.
resultsProspective responsibility was found in two and retrospective responsibility - in three documents, two of which imposed explicit penalties on the patient. Two documents did not distinguish between the types of patient responsibility. PRCAR was found to be controversial through the prism of the social justice principle. The discussion was conducted through the perspectives of evidence translation of research to law, particularities of social cohesion in Bulgaria, and the interpretation of principles of public health ethics.
conclusionAlthough PRCAR was traceable in Bulgarian legislation, no supporting arguments for its introduction were deduced. The applicability of PRCAR should be further studied and wider public debate should be initiated.
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.