| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Attitudes towards priority-setting and rationing in health care – an exploratory survey of Swedish medical students
Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Background: Healthcare priority-setting is inextricably linked to the challenge of providing publicly funded health care within a limited budget, which may result in difficult and potentially controversial rationing decisions. Despite priority-setting's increasing prominence in policy and academic discussion, it is still unclear what the level of understanding and acceptance of priority-setting is at different levels of health care. Aims: The aim of this study is threefold. First we wish to explore the level of familiarity with different aspects of priority-setting among graduating medical students. Secondly, to gauge their acceptance of both established and proposed Swedish priority-setting principles. Finally to elucidate their attitudes towards healthcare rationing and the role of different actors in decision making, with a particular interest in comparing the attitudes of medical students with data from the literature examining the attitudes among primary care patients in Sweden. Methods: A cross-sectional survey containing 14 multiple choice items about priority-setting in health care was distributed to the graduating medical class at Linköping University. The response rate was 92% (43/47). Results: Less than half of respondents have encountered the notion of open priority-setting, and the majority believed it to be somewhat or very unclear. There is a high degree of awareness and agreement with the established ethical principles for priority-setting in Swedish health care; however respondents are inconsistent in their application of the cost-effectiveness principle. A larger proportion of respondents were more favourable to physicians and other health personnel being responsible for rationing decisions as opposed to politicians. Conclusions: Future discussion about priority-setting in medical education should be contextualized within an explicit and open process. There is a need to adequately clarify the role of the cost-effectiveness principle in priority-setting. Medical students seem to acknowledge the need for rationing in health care to a greater extent when compared with previous results from Swedish primary care patients. Key Words: Ethical principles, health care, medical education, priority-setting, rationing, Sweden
First published on January 13, 2009, doi:10.1177/1403494808100276 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
