Myllykangas Markku, Ryynänen Olli-Pekka, Lammintakanen Johanna, Isomäki Veli-Pekka, Kinnunen Juha, Halonen Pirjo
University of Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland.
J Health Organ Manag. 2003;17(5):338-48. doi: 10.1108/14777260310505110.
The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability of 14 prioritization criteria from nurses', doctors', local politicians' and the general public's perspective. Respondents (nurses, n = 682, doctors, n = 837 politicians, n = 1,133 and the general public, n = 1,178) received a questionnaire with 16 imaginary patient cases, each containing 2-3 different prioritization criteria. The subjects were asked to indicate how important it was for them that the treatments in the presented patient cases be subsidized by the community. All respondents preferred treatments for poor people and children. With the exception of the doctors, the three other study groups also prioritized elderly patients. Treatment for institutionalised patients, those with self-induced disease, diseases with both poor and good prognosis, and mild disease were given low priorities. Priority setting in health care should be regarded as a continuous process because of changes in attitudes. However, the best method for surveying opinions and ethical principles concerning prioritization has not yet been discovered.
本研究的目的是从护士、医生、当地政治家和公众的角度调查14项优先排序标准的可接受性。受访者（护士，n = 682；医生，n = 837；政治家，n = 1133；公众，n = 1178）收到一份包含16个虚拟患者病例的问卷，每个病例包含2 - 3个不同的优先排序标准。受试者被要求指出所呈现患者病例中的治疗由社区补贴对他们来说有多重要。所有受访者都倾向于为贫困人口和儿童提供治疗。除医生外，其他三个研究组也将老年患者列为优先对象。为机构化患者、患有自身所致疾病的患者、预后有好有坏的疾病患者以及轻症患者提供的治疗被列为低优先级。由于态度的变化，医疗保健中的优先排序应被视为一个持续的过程。然而，尚未发现用于调查有关优先排序的意见和伦理原则的最佳方法。
