ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Disability Bias in Patient Prioritization: How Patients' Mobility Impairments Influences Prioritization to Mechanical Ventilation.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritization guidelines raised concerns that disabled patients would be de-prioritized for life-saving procedures, but empirical evidence is lacking.
objectivesTo examine how physicians prioritize hypothetical patients with mobility impairments and to test the association between their attitudes toward disabled people and their prioritization preferences.
methodsPhysicians and medical students completed a questionnaire comprising a vignette asking them to prioritize eight hypothetical patients needing mechanical ventilation. Each patient was described by a combination of paralysis from the waist down (yes/no), parenthood (yes/no), and employment (yes/no), reflective questions on the prioritization process, and attitudes towards people with disabilities and demographics. De-prioritization was defined as prioritizing a disabled patient lower than a similar patient without a disability. We tested the associations between attitudes towards people with disabilities, considerations taken during the prioritization process, and de-prioritization.
resultsA total of 61.6% (77/125) of participants made de-prioritization decisions, with 38.4% de-prioritizing all hypothetical patients with disabilities. Negative attitudes toward patients with disabilities predicted de-prioritization (b = 0.75, SEb = 0.37, OR = 2.12, p = 0.041). Mediation analyses revealed an association between negative attitudes and considering patients' presumed social and familial roles in the prioritization process, which was associated with de-prioritization of disabled patients (b = 0.26, SE = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.03,0.65, p < 0.001).
conclusionThis study indicates that during shortage in medical resources physicians may de-prioritize patients with lower limb paralysis without sound clinical justification. It suggests that negative attitudes towards people with disabilities predict employing non-medical considerations during prioritization, which are associated with discrimination against such patients in need of emergency interventions. We recommend enhancing physicians' education about potential biases towards people with disabilities and implementing ethical guidelines to ensure fair prioritization of medical resources and equitable healthcare for these patients.
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.