Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42766153›Full record

ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026

[Patient management and patient autonomy: An ethical tension?]

Aline Weis, Andreas Bruns, Julia Sanchez, Eva C Winkler

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aline WeisInstitut für Medizin- und Datenethik, Universität Heidelberg, Medizinische Fakultät, Tiergartenstraße 15, 69121, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Andreas BrunsNuffield Council on Bioethics, London, Großbritannien.
Julia SanchezInstitut für Medizin- und Datenethik, Universität Heidelberg, Medizinische Fakultät, Tiergartenstraße 15, 69121, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Eva C WinklerInstitut für Medizin- und Datenethik, Universität Heidelberg, Medizinische Fakultät, Tiergartenstraße 15, 69121, Heidelberg, Deutschland. eva.winkler@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the context of current debates in health policy, patient management is increasingly being discussed in the German healthcare system. These measures aim to coordinate access to care, reduce both inappropriate and over-provision of care, and guide patients through a complex healthcare system according to their needs. Critics, however, see this as a violation of patient autonomy and free choice.This article examines whether, and if so, to what extent, there is a conflict between patient management and autonomy. The starting point is an analysis of whether and to what extent patient management conflicts with the principle of autonomy. This analysis is based on an understanding of autonomy that encompasses not only the absence of coercion or restrictions on freedom of choice, but also the ability to make well-considered decisions through appropriate information and support.The article demonstrates that management mechanisms are not necessarily at odds with autonomy. Rather, they can structure decision-making spaces, improve orientation, and thus support autonomous decision-making. This is supported by empirical findings that show that formal freedom of choice alone does not guarantee that patients access care in an informed and self-determined way. Instead, structuring instruments are frequently perceived as helpful support.The article then formulates three key criteria for the ethical evaluation of patient management. First, it must be examined whether management mechanisms enable or effectively prevent patients from making preference- and value-based decisions. Second, their contribution to the quality of care is crucial: control is ethically justifiable if it promotes evidence-based and coordinated care without worsening patient outcomes. Third, its significance for justice and fair resource allocation must be considered. In a solidarity-based healthcare system, patient management can be legitimate if it serves to allocate limited resources in a transparent, needs-based, and accountable manner. If these criteria are met, patient management does not conflict with the principle of respect for patient autonomy; rather, in the best-case scenario, it promotes it.

Indexed as

National Health ProgramsPatient Care ManagementPatient ParticipationPatient RightsPersonal AutonomyEthical DilemmasGermanyHumansFree choiceMedical ethicsPatient autonomyPatient steeringPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID42766153
PMCPMC13624046

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.