Cargando…

Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, resources in intensive care units (ICUs) have the potential to be inadequate to treat all those who might benefit. Therefore, it is paramount to identify the views of the community regarding how to allocate such resources. This study aims to qu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Norman, Richard, Robinson, Suzanne, Dickinson, Helen, Williams, Iestyn, Meshcheriakova, Elena, Manipis, Kathleen, Anstey, Matthew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7929628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33660163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00498-z
_version_ 1783659950066630656
author Norman, Richard
Robinson, Suzanne
Dickinson, Helen
Williams, Iestyn
Meshcheriakova, Elena
Manipis, Kathleen
Anstey, Matthew
author_facet Norman, Richard
Robinson, Suzanne
Dickinson, Helen
Williams, Iestyn
Meshcheriakova, Elena
Manipis, Kathleen
Anstey, Matthew
author_sort Norman, Richard
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, resources in intensive care units (ICUs) have the potential to be inadequate to treat all those who might benefit. Therefore, it is paramount to identify the views of the community regarding how to allocate such resources. This study aims to quantify Australian community preferences for ventilation allocation. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was designed and administrated to an adult Australian online panel. Each survey respondent answered 12 choice sets from a total design of 120. Each choice set placed the respondent in the role of hypothetical decision maker, prioritising care between two patients. Conditional logit, mixed logit regression and latent class analysis were used to analyse the data. Additionally, we asked a series of attitudinal questions about different methods of making such decisions in practice, focusing on who should be responsible. RESULTS: A total of 1050 community members completed the survey and responded to each choice. Dimensions considered most important were age, likely effectiveness, smoking status, whether the person has dependents, whether they are a healthcare worker, and whether they have a disability or not. Estimating marginal rates of substitution between patient characteristics and chance of survival if ventilated yielded values of up to 30 percentage points if the patient was 70 years old relative to being 30. However, respondents typically said they would prefer such decisions to be made by medical professionals. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the preferences of the community to allocation of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of such information should be treated with some caution as the underlying reason for such preferences are unclear, and respondents themselves preferred the decision to be made by others. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00498-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7929628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79296282021-03-04 Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment Norman, Richard Robinson, Suzanne Dickinson, Helen Williams, Iestyn Meshcheriakova, Elena Manipis, Kathleen Anstey, Matthew Patient Original Research Article BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, resources in intensive care units (ICUs) have the potential to be inadequate to treat all those who might benefit. Therefore, it is paramount to identify the views of the community regarding how to allocate such resources. This study aims to quantify Australian community preferences for ventilation allocation. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was designed and administrated to an adult Australian online panel. Each survey respondent answered 12 choice sets from a total design of 120. Each choice set placed the respondent in the role of hypothetical decision maker, prioritising care between two patients. Conditional logit, mixed logit regression and latent class analysis were used to analyse the data. Additionally, we asked a series of attitudinal questions about different methods of making such decisions in practice, focusing on who should be responsible. RESULTS: A total of 1050 community members completed the survey and responded to each choice. Dimensions considered most important were age, likely effectiveness, smoking status, whether the person has dependents, whether they are a healthcare worker, and whether they have a disability or not. Estimating marginal rates of substitution between patient characteristics and chance of survival if ventilated yielded values of up to 30 percentage points if the patient was 70 years old relative to being 30. However, respondents typically said they would prefer such decisions to be made by medical professionals. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the preferences of the community to allocation of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of such information should be treated with some caution as the underlying reason for such preferences are unclear, and respondents themselves preferred the decision to be made by others. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00498-z. Springer International Publishing 2021-03-04 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7929628/ /pubmed/33660163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00498-z Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG part of Springer Nature 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Norman, Richard
Robinson, Suzanne
Dickinson, Helen
Williams, Iestyn
Meshcheriakova, Elena
Manipis, Kathleen
Anstey, Matthew
Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment
title Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment
title_full Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment
title_fullStr Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment
title_full_unstemmed Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment
title_short Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment
title_sort public preferences for allocating ventilators in an intensive care unit: a discrete choice experiment
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7929628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33660163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00498-z
work_keys_str_mv AT normanrichard publicpreferencesforallocatingventilatorsinanintensivecareunitadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT robinsonsuzanne publicpreferencesforallocatingventilatorsinanintensivecareunitadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT dickinsonhelen publicpreferencesforallocatingventilatorsinanintensivecareunitadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT williamsiestyn publicpreferencesforallocatingventilatorsinanintensivecareunitadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT meshcheriakovaelena publicpreferencesforallocatingventilatorsinanintensivecareunitadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT manipiskathleen publicpreferencesforallocatingventilatorsinanintensivecareunitadiscretechoiceexperiment
AT ansteymatthew publicpreferencesforallocatingventilatorsinanintensivecareunitadiscretechoiceexperiment