Cargando…

Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals

OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of physicians and trainees in regard to the roles of both cost-effectiveness and equity in clinical decision making. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, electronic surveys containing a hypothetical decision-making scenario were sent to medical professionals t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, David G, Wong, Gordon X, Martin, David T, Tybor, David J, Kim, Jennifer, Lasker, Jeffrey, Mitty, Roger, Salem, Deeb
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5642791/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28765138
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017251
_version_ 1783271429645533184
author Li, David G
Wong, Gordon X
Martin, David T
Tybor, David J
Kim, Jennifer
Lasker, Jeffrey
Mitty, Roger
Salem, Deeb
author_facet Li, David G
Wong, Gordon X
Martin, David T
Tybor, David J
Kim, Jennifer
Lasker, Jeffrey
Mitty, Roger
Salem, Deeb
author_sort Li, David G
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of physicians and trainees in regard to the roles of both cost-effectiveness and equity in clinical decision making. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, electronic surveys containing a hypothetical decision-making scenario were sent to medical professionals to select between two colon cancer screening tests for a population. SETTING: Three Greater Boston academic medical institutions: Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Medical Centre and Lahey Hospital and Medical Centre. PARTICIPANTS: 819 medical students, 497 residents-in-training and 671 practising physicians were contacted electronically using institutional and organisational directories. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Stratified opinions of medical providers and trainee subgroups regarding cost-effectiveness and equity. RESULTS: A total of 881 respondents comprising 512 medical students, 133 medical residents-in-training and 236 practising physicians completed the survey (total response rate 44.3%). Thirty-six per cent of medical students, 44% of residents-in-training and 53% of practising physicians favoured the less effective and more equitable screening test. Residents-in-training (OR 1.49, CI 1.01 to 2.21; p=0.044) and practising physicians (OR 2.12, CI 1.54 to 2.92; p<0.001) were more likely to favour the equitable option compared with medical students. Moreover, female responders across all three cohorts favoured the more equitable screening test to a greater degree than did male responders (OR 1.70, CI 1.29 to 2.24; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis does not accurately reflect the importance that medical professionals place on equity. Among medical professionals, practising physicians appear to be more egalitarian than residents-in-training, while medical students appear to be most utilitarian and cost-effective. Meanwhile, female respondents in all three cohorts favoured the more equitable option to a greater degree than their male counterparts. Healthcare policies that trade off equity in favour of cost-effectiveness may be unacceptable to many medical professionals, especially practising physicians and women.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5642791
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56427912017-10-25 Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals Li, David G Wong, Gordon X Martin, David T Tybor, David J Kim, Jennifer Lasker, Jeffrey Mitty, Roger Salem, Deeb BMJ Open Ethics OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of physicians and trainees in regard to the roles of both cost-effectiveness and equity in clinical decision making. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, electronic surveys containing a hypothetical decision-making scenario were sent to medical professionals to select between two colon cancer screening tests for a population. SETTING: Three Greater Boston academic medical institutions: Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts Medical Centre and Lahey Hospital and Medical Centre. PARTICIPANTS: 819 medical students, 497 residents-in-training and 671 practising physicians were contacted electronically using institutional and organisational directories. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Stratified opinions of medical providers and trainee subgroups regarding cost-effectiveness and equity. RESULTS: A total of 881 respondents comprising 512 medical students, 133 medical residents-in-training and 236 practising physicians completed the survey (total response rate 44.3%). Thirty-six per cent of medical students, 44% of residents-in-training and 53% of practising physicians favoured the less effective and more equitable screening test. Residents-in-training (OR 1.49, CI 1.01 to 2.21; p=0.044) and practising physicians (OR 2.12, CI 1.54 to 2.92; p<0.001) were more likely to favour the equitable option compared with medical students. Moreover, female responders across all three cohorts favoured the more equitable screening test to a greater degree than did male responders (OR 1.70, CI 1.29 to 2.24; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis does not accurately reflect the importance that medical professionals place on equity. Among medical professionals, practising physicians appear to be more egalitarian than residents-in-training, while medical students appear to be most utilitarian and cost-effective. Meanwhile, female respondents in all three cohorts favoured the more equitable option to a greater degree than their male counterparts. Healthcare policies that trade off equity in favour of cost-effectiveness may be unacceptable to many medical professionals, especially practising physicians and women. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5642791/ /pubmed/28765138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017251 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Ethics
Li, David G
Wong, Gordon X
Martin, David T
Tybor, David J
Kim, Jennifer
Lasker, Jeffrey
Mitty, Roger
Salem, Deeb
Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals
title Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals
title_full Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals
title_fullStr Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals
title_full_unstemmed Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals
title_short Attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals
title_sort attitudes on cost-effectiveness and equity: a cross-sectional study examining the viewpoints of medical professionals
topic Ethics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5642791/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28765138
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017251
work_keys_str_mv AT lidavidg attitudesoncosteffectivenessandequityacrosssectionalstudyexaminingtheviewpointsofmedicalprofessionals
AT wonggordonx attitudesoncosteffectivenessandequityacrosssectionalstudyexaminingtheviewpointsofmedicalprofessionals
AT martindavidt attitudesoncosteffectivenessandequityacrosssectionalstudyexaminingtheviewpointsofmedicalprofessionals
AT tybordavidj attitudesoncosteffectivenessandequityacrosssectionalstudyexaminingtheviewpointsofmedicalprofessionals
AT kimjennifer attitudesoncosteffectivenessandequityacrosssectionalstudyexaminingtheviewpointsofmedicalprofessionals
AT laskerjeffrey attitudesoncosteffectivenessandequityacrosssectionalstudyexaminingtheviewpointsofmedicalprofessionals
AT mittyroger attitudesoncosteffectivenessandequityacrosssectionalstudyexaminingtheviewpointsofmedicalprofessionals
AT salemdeeb attitudesoncosteffectivenessandequityacrosssectionalstudyexaminingtheviewpointsofmedicalprofessionals