ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Healthcare workers' opinions on non-medical criteria for prioritisation of access to care during the pandemic.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic generated overflow of healthcare systems in several countries. As the ethical debates focused on prioritisation for access to care with scarce medical resources, numerous recommendations were created. Late 2021, the emergence of the Omicron variant whose transmissibility was identified but whose vaccine sensitivity was still unknown, reactivated debates. Fears of the need to prioritise patients arose, particularly in France. Especially, a debate began about the role of vaccination status in the prioritisation strategy. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe Ethics Committee (EC) of the University Hospital of Bordeaux (UHB), France, identified prioritisation criteria in the literature (some recommended, such as being a healthcare worker (HCW) or having consented to research, while others were discouraged, such as age with a threshold effect or vaccination status). A survey was sent within the institution in January 2022 to explore frontline physicians' adherence to these prioritisation criteria. The decision making conditions were also surveyed.
resultsIn 15 days, 78/165 (47.3%) frontline physicians responded, and more widely 1286/12946 (9.9%) professionals. A majority of frontline physicians were opposed to prioritising HCWs (54/75, 72%) and even more opposed to participating in research (69/76, 89.6%). Conversely, the results were very balanced for non-recommended criteria (respectively 39/77, 50.7% and 34/69 49.3% in favour for age with a threshold effect and for vaccination status). Decisions were considered to be multi-professional and multi-disciplinary for 65/76, 85.5% and 53/77, 68.8% of frontline physicians. Responders expressed opposition to extending decision-making to representatives of patients, civil society or HCWs not involved in care. DISCUSSION: Prioritisation recommendations in case of scarce medical resources were not necessarily approved by the frontline physicians, or by the other HCWs. This questions the way ethical recommendations should be communicated and discussed at a local scale, but it also questions these recommendations themselves. The article also reports the experience of seeking HCWs opinions on a sensitive ethical debate in a period of crisis.
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.