Priority Setting of Ventilators in the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Public's Perspective.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2021-07-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-21 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2021.1907474
Fariba Asghari, Alireza Parsapour, Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki
{"title":"Priority Setting of Ventilators in the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Public's Perspective.","authors":"Fariba Asghari,&nbsp;Alireza Parsapour,&nbsp;Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2021.1907474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Ventilator allocation plan for a public health crisis should be developed through recognizing the values of society and engaging the general public. This study was conducted to assess the Iranian citizens' attitude about some principles and criteria for allocation of ventilators in the current COVID-19 epidemic.<b>Materials and Methods:</b> An electronic self-administered questionnaire was publicly distributed through social networks of Telegram and WhatsApp to perform this cross-sectional study. The questionnaire consisted of 11 statements about the selection and prioritization of patients for the use of a ventilator.<b>Results:</b> 1262 persons, including 767 citizens and 495 health care providers participated in this study. More than 95% of participants agreed upon the necessity to avoid discrimination and avoid prioritization according to patients' gender, economic and political status. While 40.9% of citizens and 49.6% of healthcare workers believed that a ventilator can be disconnected from a patient with a poor prognosis to help another patient who has a better prognosis (P-value = 0.13), 34.3% of people and 29.6% of healthcare workers believed that the earlier admitted patients have the right to receive the device even if the likeliness of his/her survival is less than the next patient (P-value = 0.009).<b>Conclusions:</b> Maximizing health benefits as a measure of ventilator allocation in the pandemic of COVID-19 is an accepted criterion. Meanwhile, periodic evaluation of patients and disconnecting the device from a patient that no longer benefits from ICU services requires its scientific and ethical basis to be brought in public discourse.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"155-163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23294515.2021.1907474","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1907474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ventilator allocation plan for a public health crisis should be developed through recognizing the values of society and engaging the general public. This study was conducted to assess the Iranian citizens' attitude about some principles and criteria for allocation of ventilators in the current COVID-19 epidemic.Materials and Methods: An electronic self-administered questionnaire was publicly distributed through social networks of Telegram and WhatsApp to perform this cross-sectional study. The questionnaire consisted of 11 statements about the selection and prioritization of patients for the use of a ventilator.Results: 1262 persons, including 767 citizens and 495 health care providers participated in this study. More than 95% of participants agreed upon the necessity to avoid discrimination and avoid prioritization according to patients' gender, economic and political status. While 40.9% of citizens and 49.6% of healthcare workers believed that a ventilator can be disconnected from a patient with a poor prognosis to help another patient who has a better prognosis (P-value = 0.13), 34.3% of people and 29.6% of healthcare workers believed that the earlier admitted patients have the right to receive the device even if the likeliness of his/her survival is less than the next patient (P-value = 0.009).Conclusions: Maximizing health benefits as a measure of ventilator allocation in the pandemic of COVID-19 is an accepted criterion. Meanwhile, periodic evaluation of patients and disconnecting the device from a patient that no longer benefits from ICU services requires its scientific and ethical basis to be brought in public discourse.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从公众角度看COVID-19大流行中呼吸机的优先设置。
背景:应对公共卫生危机的呼吸机分配计划应通过认识社会价值和公众参与来制定。本研究旨在评估伊朗公民对当前COVID-19疫情中一些呼吸机分配原则和标准的态度。材料和方法:通过Telegram和WhatsApp社交网络公开分发电子自我管理问卷,进行横断面研究。问卷包括11项关于选择和优先使用呼吸机的患者的陈述。结果:1262人,包括767名公民和495名卫生保健提供者参与了本研究。95%以上的与会者同意有必要避免歧视,避免根据患者的性别、经济和政治地位进行优先排序。40.9%的市民和49.6%的医护人员认为可以将呼吸机与预后较差的患者断开连接,以帮助另一位预后较好的患者(p值= 0.13),34.3%的市民和29.6%的医护人员认为即使其生存可能性小于下一位患者,也有权接受呼吸机(p值= 0.009)。结论:将健康效益最大化作为COVID-19大流行期间呼吸机分配的衡量标准是公认的标准。与此同时,对患者进行定期评估,并将设备与不再受益于ICU服务的患者断开连接,需要将其科学和伦理基础引入公共话语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1