The meaning of severity – do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?

Broqvist, Mari; Sandman, Lars; Garpenby, Peter; Krevers, Barbro

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.04.005

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study by Park et al[21] was indeed designed for comparison between health care states affected by visual impairments and health states affected by other causes, but it excludes visual impairments solely due to refractive errors. This may be because it is quite commonly assumed that the correction of refractive error is not a genuine medical intervention 5. This is in keeping with the official position in Sweden.…”

supporting

confidence: 61%

“…Central to the Severity Framework prioritization model is quality of life, 5 covered by the following aspects: impairment of bodily functions (including physical and psychological impairment), activity limitations (practical consequences of ill health), participation restrictions (social consequences), and the occurrence and duration of these problems, plus the risk of future ill health [5]. The various aspects can be graded in a special matrix and given the following grades: very high, high, moderate, low and none.…”

Section: Is the Need For Correction Of A Refractive Error Significant Enough To Attract Public Funds?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allocating on the basis of need is a distinguishing principle in publicly funded health care systems. Resources ought to be directed to patients, or the health program, where the need is considered greatest. In Sweden support of this principle can be found in health care legislation. Today however some domains of what appear to be health care needs are excluded from the responsibilities of the publicly funded health care system. Corrections of eye disorders known as refractive errors is one such domain. In this article the moral legitimacy of this exception is explored. Individuals with refractive errors need spectacles, contact lenses or refractive surgery to do all kinds of thing, including participating in everyday activities, managing certain jobs, and accomplishing various goals in life. The relief of correctable visual impairments fits well into the category of what we typically consider a health care need. The study of refractive errors does belong to the field of medical science, interventions to correct such errors can be performed by medical means, and the skills of registered health care professionals are required when it comes to correcting refractive error. As visual impairments caused by other conditions than refractive errors are treated and funded within the public health care system in Sweden this is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Is the Need For Correction Of A Refractive Error Significant Enough To Attract Public Funds?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is a mere observation that many conditions that lead to an early death are characterised as severe, but it is equally clear that there are non-fatal severe conditions. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence to the effect that the general public evaluates health differently when the prospect of death is salient, which indicates that death and severity are closely related, but not interchangeable [4,5,13,17,43,63,84,101,[106][107][108][109]125].…”

Section: Is Death An Independent Dimension Of Severity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Priority setting in health care is ubiquitous and health authorities are increasingly recognising the need for priority setting guidelines to ensure efficient, fair, and equitable resource allocation. While cost-effectiveness concerns seem to dominate many policies, the tension between utilitarian and deontological concerns is salient to many, and various severity criteria appear to fill this gap. Severity, then, must be subjected to rigorous ethical and philosophical analysis. Here we first give a brief history of the path to today's severity criteria in Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian perspective on severity might be conducive to the international discussion, given its long-standing use as a priority setting criterion, despite having reached rather different conclusions so far. We then argue that severity can be viewed as a multidimensional concept, drawing on accounts of need, urgency, fairness, duty to save lives, and human dignity. Such concerns will often be relative to local mores, and the weighting placed on the various dimensions cannot be expected to be fixed. Thirdly, we present what we think are the most pertinent questions to answer about severity in order to facilitate decision making in the coming years of increased scarcity, and to further the understanding of underlying assumptions and values that go into these decisions. We conclude that severity is poorly understood, and that the topic needs substantial further inquiry; thus we hope this article may set a challenging and important research agenda.

show abstract

“…What constitutes a fair and just decision is disputed (Rawls, 1971), and contextual factors such as being a patient, or a significant other to a patient, have been shown to influence how priorities are evaluated (Álvarez & Rodríguez-Míguez, 2011). Despite the general public's agreement with healthcare providers (Broqvist et al, 2018), it is not realistic to assume that patients in need will agree regarding which cases are most pressing and constitute a priority. It has been proposed that the ability to make medically correct decisions according to established priority rules is a central professional issue that requires training (Hunter, 2007), which is important to consider in all situations where resources are scarce and need to be used wisely.…”

Section: Professionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients’ experiences of malpractice in psychotherapy and psychological treatments: a qualitative study of filed complaints in Swedish healthcare

Lindgren

2021

Ethics & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malpractice issues in psychotherapy and psychological treatments refer to the unethical behavior of a psychologist or psychotherapist toward the patient. The current study reviewed complaints directed at psychologists and psychotherapists in Sweden with regard to possible incidents of malpractice. Eligible cases were retrieved from a database managed by the Health and Social Care Inspectorate [Inspektionen för vård och omsorg (IVO)], an administrative authority responsible for the safety and quality of healthcare and social services delivery. These cases were analyzed using thematic analysis. In total, 33 complaints matched the keywords proposed by IVO, and were scrutinized in detail. The cases primarily involved psychiatric care by a psychologist in outpatient settings, although many cases comprised multiple healthcare providers responsible for the patient's care, or targeted the healthcare unit as a whole. The results demonstrated that different forms of malpractice occur, and can be classified in two general themes, Incorrect administration and implementation and Attitude and behavior, which involve organizational aspects as well as examples of malpractice and unethical behavior. Implications for clinical practice and future research include further training in ethics and malpractice, video recording or auditing sessions, routine outcome monitoring, and providing patients with information on how to file complaints.

show abstract

The meaning of severity – do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?

Cited by 9 publications

References 37 publications

Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis

Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis

Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda

Patients’ experiences of malpractice in psychotherapy and psychological treatments: a qualitative study of filed complaints in Swedish healthcare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About