Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 May;90(2-3):113-24.
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.013. Epub 2008 Dec 13.

Are physicians willing to ration health care? Conflicting findings in a systematic review of survey research

Daniel Strech  1 , Govind Persad, Georg Marckmann, Marion Danis
Affiliations

Are physicians willing to ration health care? Conflicting findings in a systematic review of survey research

Daniel Strech et al. Health Policy. 2009 May.

Abstract

Background: Several quantitative surveys have been conducted internationally to gather empirical information about physicians' general attitudes towards health care rationing. Are physicians ready to accept and implement rationing, or are they rather reluctant? Do they prefer implicit bedside rationing that allows the physician-patient relationship broad leeway in individual decisions? Or do physicians prefer strategies that apply explicit criteria and rules?

Objectives: To analyse the range of survey findings on rationing. To discuss differences in response patterns. To provide recommendations for the enhancement of transparency and systematic conduct in reviewing survey literature.

Methods: A systematic search was performed for all English and non-English language references using CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Three blinded experts independently evaluated title and abstract of each reference. Survey items were extracted that match with: (i) willingness to ration health care or (ii) preferences for different rationing strategies.

Results: 16 studies were eventually included in the systematic review. Percentages of respondents willing to accept rationing ranged from 94% to 9%.

Conclusions: The conflicting findings among studies illustrate important ambivalence in physicians that has several implications for health policy. Moreover, this review highlights the importance to interpret survey findings in context of the results of all previous relevant studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Emanuel EJ. Justice and managed care. Four principles for the just allocation of health care resources. The Hastings Centre Report. 2000;30:8–16. - PubMed
    1. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.
    1. Hurst SA, Danis M. A framework for rationing by clinical judgment. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2007;17:247–266. - PubMed
    1. Eccles M, Mason J. How to develop cost-conscious guidelines. Health Technology Assessment. 2001;5:1–69. - PubMed
    1. McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA. Constructing a systematic review for argument-based clinical ethics literature: the example of concealed medications. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2007;32:65–76. - PubMed

Publication types