Queen Mary University of London, Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Newham Centre for Mental Health, London, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2010 Aug;36(8):463-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.035071. Epub 2010 Jun 27.
Offering financial incentives to achieve medication adherence in patients with severe mental illness is controversial.
To explore the views of different stakeholders on the ethical acceptability of the practice.
Focus group study consisting of 25 groups with different stakeholders.
Eleven themes dominated the discussions and fell into four categories: (1) 'wider concerns', including the value of medication, source of funding, how patients would use the money, and a presumed government agenda behind the idea; (2) 'problems requiring clear policies', comprising of practicalities and assurance that incentives are only one part of a tool kit; (3) 'challenges for research and experience', including effectiveness, the possibility of perverse incentives, and impact on the therapeutic relationship; (4) 'inherent dilemmas' around fairness and potential coercion.
The use of financial incentives is likely to raise similar concerns in most stakeholders, only some of which can be addressed by empirical research and clear policies.
为了提高严重精神疾病患者的药物依从性而提供经济激励措施是有争议的。
探讨不同利益相关者对该做法在伦理上可接受性的看法。
由具有不同利益相关者的 25 个小组组成的焦点小组研究。
11 个主题主导了讨论,并分为四个类别:(1)“更广泛的关注”,包括药物的价值、资金来源、患者将如何使用这笔钱,以及人们对该想法背后的政府议程的猜测;(2)“需要明确政策的问题”,包括实际情况和保证激励措施只是一整套工具中的一部分;(3)“研究和经验方面的挑战”,包括有效性、可能出现的不当激励,以及对治疗关系的影响;(4)“固有的困境”,涉及公平性和潜在的强制问题。
经济激励的使用可能会引起大多数利益相关者类似的担忧,而这些担忧中的一些只能通过实证研究和明确的政策来解决。