‘Are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? A randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’

Abstract

BackgroundTo investigate whether Swedish physicians, contrary to Swedish health care policy, employ considerations of patient responsibility for illness when rationing expensive treatments.MethodsA random sample of oncologists and pulmonologists made up the main study-group (n = 296). A random sample of GPs (n = 289) and participants from the general population (n = 513) was used as contrast group. The participants randomly received one version of a questionnaire containing a case description of a terminally ill lung cancer patient. The two versions differed in only one aspect: in one version the patient was a smoker and in the other a non-smoker. The main questions were whether to offer a novel, expensive and marginally life-prolonging treatment and whether the patient could be held responsible for her illness. The quantitative data was analysed using Chi2-tests and comments were analysed using content analysis.ResultsAmong oncologists and pulmonologists, 78% (95% CI: 72-85) would offer the treatment to the non-smoker and 66% (95% CI: 58-74) to the smoker (Chi-2 = 5.4, df = 1, p = 0.019). Among the GPs, 69% (95% CI: 61-76) would treat the non-smoker and 56% (95% CI: 48-64) the smoker (Chi-1 = 4.9, df = 1 and p = 0.026). Among the general population the corresponding proportions were 84% (95% CI: 79-88) and 69% (95% CI: 63-74).ConclusionThis study indicates that applying an experimental design allowed us to go beyond the official norms and to show that, compared to a smoking patient, both the general population and physicians are more inclined to treat a non-smoking patient. This clearly runs counter to the official Swedish health care norms. It also seems to run counter to the fact that among the physicians studied, there was no association between finding the patient responsible for her disease and the inclination to treat her. We think these paradoxical findings merit further studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0019-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Heed or disregard a cancer patient’s critical blogging? An experimental study of two different framing strategies

“…Although the response rate of 52 % was low compared to other questionnaire-based studies distributed among Swedish healthcare personnel, it was at roughly the same level as in another study of similar design [ 28 ]. Moreover, a recent study exploring Swedish oncologists’ psychosocial attitudes, beliefs and perceptions yielded a similar response rate [ 29 ].…”

Empirical and philosophical analysis of physicians’ judgments of medical indications

“…The two versions were identical but for one factor: in one version, the patient was a current smoker with a 40 pack-year smoking history, whereas in the other version, she had never smoked. 15 By using this design, inspired by studies by Joshua Knobe, 16 we aimed at capturing possible differences in response patterns attributable to the patients’ smoking status. In the case description, it was stated that the patient had incurable, disseminated lung cancer, but that a novel treatment could prolong her life approximately 10 weeks.…”

Ethical challenges in conducting clinical research in lung cancer

“…Lung cancer is one of a group of conditions said to carry a stigma related to the idea that sufferers have in general contributed to it (by smoking) (1). This has been said to lie behind its status as under-researched (2).…”