ArticleBMC public health2025
Polarity in healthcare priority setting: a comparative analysis of attitudes among Finnish physicians, dentists, MPs, and citizens.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur objective is to study the differences and similarities in public healthcare priority setting attitudes among Finnish physicians, dentists, members of the parliament (MPs), and citizens. Additionally, we explore the correlation of socio-demographic factors with attitudes among the citizens. A comprehensive study including the views of all relevant stakeholder groups has been lacking, and the attitudes of dentists and parliamentarians have not been studied previously.
methodsOur study design employs a cross-sectional survey and comparative analysis to examine the attitudes of citizens, physicians, dentists, and MPs. The online attitude surveys were conducted in Finland between January and March 2022. The survey sample consisted of 1,500 physicians (240 answered), 500 dentists (177), 200 MPs (27) and 2,794 citizens (1,001). Using Pandas for cross-tabulation and the Pearson Chi-square test for significance at a 95% confidence level, we compared attitudes across stakeholder groups and demographic variables like age, gender, and income. We measured the strength of relationships using Cramer’s V, considering only effects larger than 0.10 to be meaningful.
resultsWe found significant differences in priority setting attitudes among physicians, dentists, MPs, and citizens. Physicians and dentists were more accepting, while citizens had a more negative attitude. In terms of specific priority setting principles, the most significant differences between stakeholder groups were related to views on individuals’ health behaviour. The study also revealed differences between physicians and dentists. Citizens, especially more vulnerable groups, had a more negative attitude towards priority setting in general compared to specific principles. Age, education, labour market position and income had a weak but significant association with citizens’ attitudes towards priority setting.
conclusionsWe found that citizens’ attitudes towards prioritising and rationing health services differ significantly from those of healthcare professionals and politicians. The results emphasise the complex nature of the priority setting debate and draw attention to how different groups are involved in healthcare decision-making and methods used for their inclusion. The findings encourage facilitating discussions among stakeholders to inform them of the realities and advantages of priority setting, thereby increasing its acceptability and legitimacy.
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.