Yousef Muhannad H, Alhalaseh Yazan N, Mansour Razan, Sultan Hala, Alnadi Naseem, Maswadeh Ahmad, Al-Sheble Yasmeen M, Sinokrot Raghda, Ammar Khawlah, Mansour Asem, Al-Hussaini Maysa
School of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Department of Internal Medicine, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Jan 12;7:603406. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.603406. eCollection 2020.
The allocation strategies during challenging situations among the different social groups is based on 9 principles which can be considered either individually: sickest first, waiting list, prognosis, youngest first, instrumental values, lottery, monetary contribution, reciprocity, and individual behavior, or in combination; youngest first and prognosis, for example. In this study, we aim to look into the most important prioritization principles amongst different groups in the Jordanian population, in order to facilitate the decision-making process for any potential medical crisis. We conducted an online survey that tackled how individuals would deal with three different scenarios of medical scarcity: (1) organ donation, (2) limited hospital beds during an influenza epidemic, and (3) allocation of novel therapeutics for lung cancer. In addition, a free-comment option was included at the end of the survey if respondents wished to contribute further. Seven hundred and fifty-four survey responses were gathered, including 372 males (49.3%), and 382 females (50.7%). Five groups of individuals were represented including religion scholars, physicians, medical students, allied health practitioners, and lay people. Of the five surveyed groups, four found "sickest-first" to be the most important prioritization principle in all three scenarios, and only the physicians group documented a disagreement. In the first scenario, physicians regarded "sickest-first" and "combined-criteria" to be of equal importance. In general, no differences were documented between the examined groups in comparison with lay people in the preference of options in all three scenarios; however, physicians were more likely to choose "combination" in both the second and third scenarios (OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.62-8.44, and 2.62, 95% CI 1.48-4.59; < 0.01), and were less likely to choose "sickest-first" as the single most important prioritization principle (OR 0.57, CI 0.37-0.88, and 0.57; 95% CI 0.36-0.88; < 0.01). Out of 100 free comments, 27 (27.0%) thought that the "social-value" of patients should also be considered, adding the 10th potential allocation principle. Our findings are concordant with literature in terms of allocating scarce medical resources. However, "social-value" appeared as an important principle that should be addressed when prioritizing scarce medical resources in Jordan.
不同社会群体在面临挑战时的分配策略基于9项原则,这些原则可以单独考虑:病情最重者优先、等候名单、预后、年龄最小者优先、工具性价值、抽签、金钱贡献、互惠以及个人行为,也可以组合考虑;例如年龄最小者优先和预后。在本研究中,我们旨在探究约旦人群中不同群体最重要的优先排序原则,以便为应对任何潜在医疗危机的决策过程提供便利。我们开展了一项在线调查,探讨个人在三种不同医疗资源稀缺情况下的应对方式:(1)器官捐赠,(2)流感疫情期间医院床位有限,(3)肺癌新型疗法的分配。此外,如果受访者希望进一步发表意见,调查末尾设有自由评论选项。共收集到754份调查回复,其中男性372人(49.3%),女性382人(50.7%)。受访者包括五组人群:宗教学者、医生、医学生、专职医疗人员和普通民众。在接受调查的五组人群中,四组认为“病情最重者优先”是所有三种情况下最重要的优先排序原则,只有医生组表示不同意。在第一种情况下,医生认为“病情最重者优先”和“综合标准”同等重要。总体而言,在所有三种情况下,与普通民众相比,各受调查群体在选项偏好上没有差异;然而,在第二种和第三种情况下,医生更倾向于选择“综合”(比值比3.70,95%置信区间1.62 - 8.44,以及2.62,95%置信区间1.48 - 4.59;P < 0.01),而选择“病情最重者优先”作为唯一最重要优先排序原则的可能性较小(比值比0.57,置信区间0.37 - 0.88,以及0.57;95%置信区间0.36 - 0.88;P < 0.01)。在100条自由评论中,27条(27.0%)认为还应考虑患者的“社会价值”,从而增加了第10条潜在分配原则。我们的研究结果在稀缺医疗资源分配方面与文献一致。然而,“社会价值”似乎是约旦在优先分配稀缺医疗资源时应考虑的一项重要原则。