首页> 外文期刊>Health policy >The meaning of severity - do citizensi views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?
【24h】

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

机译:严重性的含义 - 是否基于优先级设置的道德原则对应于严重性框架?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The importance for governments of establishing ethical principles and criteria for priority setting in line with social values, has been emphasised. The risk of such criteria not being operationalised and instead replaced by de-contextualised priority-setting tools, has been noted. The aim of this article was to compare whether citizensi views are in line with how a criterion derived from parliamentary-decided ethical principles have been interpreted into a framework for evaluating severity levels, in resource allocation situations in Sweden. Interviews were conducted with 15 citizens and analysed by directed content analysis. The results showed that the multi-factorial aspects that participants considered as relevant for evaluating severity, were similar to those used by professionals in the Severity Framework, but added some refinements on what to consider when taking these aspects into account. Findings of similarities, such as in our study, could have the potential to strengthen the internal legitimacy among professionals, to use such a priority-setting tool, and enable politicians to communicate the justifiability of how severity is decided. The study also disclosed new aspects regarding severity, of which some are ethically disputed, implying that our results also reveal the need for ongoing ethical discussions in publicly-funded healthcare systems. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:强调了建立道德原则的重要性,并符合社会价值的优先设法的伦理原则和标准。已经注意到未运行此类标准并替换为De-Contextualised优先级设置工具的风险。本文的目的是比较公民意见符合议会决定的道德原则的标准,以如何解释为评估瑞典资源分配情况的严重性水平的框架。访谈是用15名公民进行的,并通过定向内容分析进行分析。结果表明,参与者认为与评估严重程度相关的多因素方面与专业人士在严重框架中使用的方面相似,但在考虑到这些方面时,还会在考虑什么时添加一些细化。如在我们的研究中,在我们的研究中的结果可能有可能加强专业人员之间的内部合法性,以使用这种优先设定工具,并使政治家能够传达定制严重程度的合理性。该研究还披露了关于严重程度的新方面,其中一些方面有些是道德争议,这意味着我们的结果还揭示了在公开资助的医疗保健系统中持续善意讨论的必要性。 (c)2018 Elsevier B.v.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号