Clinical decision-making process and distributive justice: The mediating role of economic analysis. Empirical evidence from Italy.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Anna Arcari, Mario Picozzi, Anna Pistoni, Davide Battisti, Silvia Ceruti
{"title":"Clinical decision-making process and distributive justice: The mediating role of economic analysis. Empirical evidence from Italy.","authors":"Anna Arcari, Mario Picozzi, Anna Pistoni, Davide Battisti, Silvia Ceruti","doi":"10.1111/jep.14119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has not only tested the resilience of public health systems but also underscored the criticality of allocative choices on health resources. These choices, however, are not confined to health emergencies but are integral to public health decisions, which inherently grapple with limited resources. In this context, physicians play a pivotal role as the architects of clinical actions in various scenarios. Therefore, doctors are called upon to make their decisions by considering not only the criteria of clinical appropriateness but also the ethical aspects linked, in particular, to the principle of justice. Indeed, the assessment of the effectiveness of a treatment for a particular patient must be balanced against criteria of equity and justice for the whole. To be fully applied, the principle of justice presupposes the use of economic evaluation techniques designed to drive the organisation decisions by effectiveness and efficiency.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The present paper aims to empirically analyse whether and to what extent economic evaluation is known and used by doctors in healthcare decision-making and, therefore, what the most widespread approaches are used in such processes. In particular, this paper intends to present the results of an empirical study on a sample of doctors registered with the Order of Physicians in Lombardy (Italy), one of the areas most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The research reveals a particular awareness of the criticality of allocation issues accompanied by a lack of knowledge of the economic evaluation techniques or, more broadly, by an almost total disuse of financial criteria. The main reasons are doctors' need for more knowledge of these tools and insufficient availability of economic information at the country system level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the conclusion, we propose some suggestions to facilitate the transition to more current decision-making models consistent with the characteristics of more advanced national healthcare contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14119","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has not only tested the resilience of public health systems but also underscored the criticality of allocative choices on health resources. These choices, however, are not confined to health emergencies but are integral to public health decisions, which inherently grapple with limited resources. In this context, physicians play a pivotal role as the architects of clinical actions in various scenarios. Therefore, doctors are called upon to make their decisions by considering not only the criteria of clinical appropriateness but also the ethical aspects linked, in particular, to the principle of justice. Indeed, the assessment of the effectiveness of a treatment for a particular patient must be balanced against criteria of equity and justice for the whole. To be fully applied, the principle of justice presupposes the use of economic evaluation techniques designed to drive the organisation decisions by effectiveness and efficiency.

Methods: The present paper aims to empirically analyse whether and to what extent economic evaluation is known and used by doctors in healthcare decision-making and, therefore, what the most widespread approaches are used in such processes. In particular, this paper intends to present the results of an empirical study on a sample of doctors registered with the Order of Physicians in Lombardy (Italy), one of the areas most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results: The research reveals a particular awareness of the criticality of allocation issues accompanied by a lack of knowledge of the economic evaluation techniques or, more broadly, by an almost total disuse of financial criteria. The main reasons are doctors' need for more knowledge of these tools and insufficient availability of economic information at the country system level.

Conclusion: In the conclusion, we propose some suggestions to facilitate the transition to more current decision-making models consistent with the characteristics of more advanced national healthcare contexts.

临床决策过程与分配公正:经济分析的中介作用。来自意大利的经验证据。
背景:COVID-19 大流行不仅考验了公共卫生系统的应变能力,也凸显了卫生资源分配选择的重要性。然而,这些选择并不局限于突发卫生事件,而是公共卫生决策不可或缺的一部分,因为公共卫生决策本身就需要应对有限的资源。在这种情况下,医生作为各种情况下临床行动的设计者,发挥着举足轻重的作用。因此,医生在做出决定时不仅要考虑临床适当性的标准,还要考虑伦理方面的问题,特别是与公正原则相关的问题。事实上,在评估某一治疗方法对某一病人的有效性时,必须兼顾整体的公平和公正标准。要充分贯彻公正原则,就必须使用经济评估技术,通过有效性和效率来推动组织决策:本文旨在实证分析医生在医疗决策过程中是否了解并使用经济评估,以及了解和使用的程度,从而分析在这一过程中使用最广泛的方法是什么。特别是,本文旨在介绍一项实证研究的结果,研究对象是在伦巴第(意大利)医生协会注册的医生样本,伦巴第是受 COVID-19 大流行病影响最严重的地区之一:研究结果表明,医生们特别意识到分配问题的重要性,但却缺乏对经济评估技术的了解,或者更广泛地说,几乎完全不使用财务标准。主要原因是医生需要更多地了解这些工具,以及国家系统层面的经济信息不足:在结论中,我们提出了一些建议,以促进向符合更先进国家医疗环境特点的更先进决策模式过渡。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信