ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Health care rationing: the public's debate.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.
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
48 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polarity in healthcare priority setting: a comparative analysis of attitudes among Finnish physicians, dentists, MPs, and citizens.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Unmet Needs and Their Impact on Quality of Life and Symptoms in Myelodysplastic Neoplasm Patients and Caregivers.Cancers · 2025Article
- Evaluating Service Satisfaction and Sustainability of the Afya Insurance Scheme in Kuwait: An Exploratory Analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Participation preferences of health service users in health care decision-making regarding rehabilitative care in Germany-A cross-sectional study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Comparing Public and Provider Preferences for Setting Healthcare Priorities: Evidence from Kuwait.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Hidden bedside rationing in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey among physicians in internal medicine.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Age in the Time of COVID-19: An Ethical Analysis.Aging and disease · 2021Article
- Measuring Public Preferences for Changes in the Health Insurance Benefit Package Policies in Iran: A Survey Approach.Iranian journal of public health · 2020Article
- Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.Human reproduction open · 2018Article
- What's Involved with Wanting to Be Involved? Comparing Expectations for Public Engagement in Health Policy across Research and Care Contexts.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2017Article
- Initial disease severity and quality of care of emergency department sepsis patients who are older or younger than 70 years of age.PloS one · 2017Observational
- Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2017Article
- Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.PloS one · 2016Article
- The public's priorities in health services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- The right perspective on responsibility for ill health.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2013Article
- The relevance of personal characteristics in allocating health care resources-controversial preferences of laypersons with different educational backgrounds.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2012Article
- Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view.PloS one · 2011Article
- Who should be involved in health care decision making? A qualitative study.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2008Article
- Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo elicit the views of a large nationally representative sample of adults on priorities for health services.
designAn interview survey based on a random sample of people aged 16 and over in Great Britain taken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. SUBJECTS: The response rate to the survey was 75%, and the total number of adults interviewed was 2005.
main outcome measuresA priority ranking exercise of health services supplemented with attitude questions about priorities, who should set priorities, and budget allocation.
resultsThe results of the main priority ranking exercise of 12 health services showed that the highest priority (rank 1) was accorded to "treatments for children with life threatening illness," the next highest priority (rank 2) was accorded to "special care and pain relief for people who are dying." The lowest priorities (11 and 12) were given to "treatment for infertility" and "treatment for people aged 75 and over with life threatening illness." Most respondents thought that surveys like this one should be used in the planning of health services.
conclusionsThe public prioritise treatments specifically for younger rather than older people. There is some public support for people with self inflicted conditions (for example, through tobacco smoking) receiving lower priority for care, which raises ethical issues.
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.