Sökning: onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:liu-181505" >
Clinical Priority S...
Clinical Priority Setting and Decision-Making in Sweden : A Cross-sectional Survey Among Physicians
-
- Drees, Catharina (författare)
- Christian Albrechts Univ Kiel, Germany
-
- Krevers, Barbro (författare)
- Linköpings universitet,Avdelningen för samhälle och hälsa,Medicinska fakulteten
-
- Ekerstad, Niklas (författare)
- Linköpings universitet,Avdelningen för samhälle och hälsa,Medicinska fakulteten,NU Hosp Grp, Sweden
-
visa fler...
-
- Rogge, Annette (författare)
- Christian Albrechts Univ Kiel, Germany
-
- Borzikowsky, Christoph (författare)
- Univ Hosp Schleswig Holstein, Germany
-
- McLennan, Stuart (författare)
- Tech Univ Munich, Germany; Univ Basel, Switzerland
-
- Buyx, Alena M. (författare)
- Tech Univ Munich, Germany
-
visa färre...
-
(creator_code:org_t)
- 2021-03-15
- 2022
- Engelska.
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Health Policy and Management. - : Kerman University of Medical Sciences. - 2322-5939. ; 11:7, s. 1148-1157
- Relaterad länk:
-
https://liu.diva-por... (primary) (Raw object)
-
visa fler...
-
https://www.ijhpm.co...
-
https://urn.kb.se/re...
-
https://doi.org/10.3...
-
visa färre...
Abstract
Ämnesord
Stäng
- Background: Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Results: Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than at least once per month, whilst 60% felt less than well-prepared to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform well and very well and 64% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.
Ämnesord
- MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP -- Hälsovetenskap -- Hälso- och sjukvårdsorganisation, hälsopolitik och hälsoekonomi (hsv//swe)
- MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES -- Health Sciences -- Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy (hsv//eng)
Nyckelord
- Priority Setting; Sweden; National Guidelines; Physician; Fair Allocation; Decision-Making
Publikations- och innehållstyp
- ref (ämneskategori)
- art (ämneskategori)
Hitta via bibliotek
Till lärosätets databas