Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether Swedish physicians, contrary to Swedish health care policy, employ considerations of patient responsibility for illness when rationing expensive treatments. METHODS: A random sample of oncologists and pulmonologists made up the main study-group (n = 296). A random...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Björk, Joar, Lynøe, Niels, Juth, Niklas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4425923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25935412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0019-7
_version_ 1782370545569890304
author Björk, Joar
Lynøe, Niels
Juth, Niklas
author_facet Björk, Joar
Lynøe, Niels
Juth, Niklas
author_sort Björk, Joar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To investigate whether Swedish physicians, contrary to Swedish health care policy, employ considerations of patient responsibility for illness when rationing expensive treatments. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Among 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). CONCLUSION: This 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 MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0019-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4425923
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44259232015-05-10 ‘Are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? A randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’ Björk, Joar Lynøe, Niels Juth, Niklas BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: To investigate whether Swedish physicians, contrary to Swedish health care policy, employ considerations of patient responsibility for illness when rationing expensive treatments. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Among 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). CONCLUSION: This 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 MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0019-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4425923/ /pubmed/25935412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0019-7 Text en © Björk et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Björk, Joar
Lynøe, Niels
Juth, Niklas
‘Are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? A randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’
title ‘Are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? A randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’
title_full ‘Are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? A randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’
title_fullStr ‘Are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? A randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’
title_full_unstemmed ‘Are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? A randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’
title_short ‘Are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? A randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’
title_sort ‘are smokers less deserving of expensive treatment? a randomised controlled trial that goes beyond official values’
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4425923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25935412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0019-7
work_keys_str_mv AT bjorkjoar aresmokerslessdeservingofexpensivetreatmentarandomisedcontrolledtrialthatgoesbeyondofficialvalues
AT lynøeniels aresmokerslessdeservingofexpensivetreatmentarandomisedcontrolledtrialthatgoesbeyondofficialvalues
AT juthniklas aresmokerslessdeservingofexpensivetreatmentarandomisedcontrolledtrialthatgoesbeyondofficialvalues