Lottery or Triage? Controlled Experimental Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Preferences for Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rhys Llewellyn Thomas, Laurence Sj Roope, Raymond Duch, Thomas Robinson, Alexei Zakharov, Philip Clarke
{"title":"Lottery or Triage? Controlled Experimental Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Preferences for Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources.","authors":"Rhys Llewellyn Thomas, Laurence Sj Roope, Raymond Duch, Thomas Robinson, Alexei Zakharov, Philip Clarke","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251367777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundBioethicists have advocated lotteries to distribute scarce health care resources, highlighting the benefits that make them attractive amid growing health care challenges. During the COVID-19 pandemic, lotteries were used to distribute vaccines within priority groups in some settings, notably in the United States. Nonetheless, limited evidence exists on public attitudes toward lotteries.MethodsTo assess public support for vaccine allocation by lottery versus expert committee, we conducted a survey-based experiment during the pandemic. Between November 2020 and May 2021, data were collected from 15,380 respondents across 14 diverse countries. Respondents were randomly allocated (1:1) to 1 of 2 hypothetical scenarios involving COVID-19 vaccine allocation among nurses: 1) by lottery and 2) prioritization by a committee of expert physicians. The outcome was agreement on the appropriateness of the allocation mechanism on a scale ranging from 0 (<i>strongly disagree</i>) to 100 (<i>strongly agree</i>), with differences stratified by a range of covariates. Two-sided <i>t</i> tests were used to test for overall differences in mean agreement between lottery and expert committee.FindingsMean agreement with lottery allocation was 37.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] 34.86-39.65), ranging from 21.1 (95% CI 15.07-27.13) in Chile to 62.33 (95% CI 54.45-70.21) in India. In every country, expert committee allocation received higher support, with mean agreement of 61.19 (95% CI: 60.04-62.35), varying from 51.25 in Chile to 69.77 in India. Greater agreement with lotteries was observed among males, higher-income individuals, those with lower education, and those identifying as politically right leaning.ConclusionsDespite arguments for lottery-based allocation of medical resources, we found low overall public support, albeit with substantial variation across countries. Successful implementation of lottery allocation will require targeted public engagement and clear communication of potential benefits.HighlightsThis study surveyed 15,380 respondents from 14 diverse countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, analyzing international agreement with the appropriateness of using lottery allocation for scarce health care resources.There was universal preference for allocating vaccines by expert committee rather than by lotteries, but there was significant variation in agreement between countries, indicating the need for region-specific policy approaches.Successful implementation of lottery allocation requires targeted public engagement and communication of their benefits, especially with groups less supportive of lotteries.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X251367777"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251367777","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundBioethicists have advocated lotteries to distribute scarce health care resources, highlighting the benefits that make them attractive amid growing health care challenges. During the COVID-19 pandemic, lotteries were used to distribute vaccines within priority groups in some settings, notably in the United States. Nonetheless, limited evidence exists on public attitudes toward lotteries.MethodsTo assess public support for vaccine allocation by lottery versus expert committee, we conducted a survey-based experiment during the pandemic. Between November 2020 and May 2021, data were collected from 15,380 respondents across 14 diverse countries. Respondents were randomly allocated (1:1) to 1 of 2 hypothetical scenarios involving COVID-19 vaccine allocation among nurses: 1) by lottery and 2) prioritization by a committee of expert physicians. The outcome was agreement on the appropriateness of the allocation mechanism on a scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 100 (strongly agree), with differences stratified by a range of covariates. Two-sided t tests were used to test for overall differences in mean agreement between lottery and expert committee.FindingsMean agreement with lottery allocation was 37.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] 34.86-39.65), ranging from 21.1 (95% CI 15.07-27.13) in Chile to 62.33 (95% CI 54.45-70.21) in India. In every country, expert committee allocation received higher support, with mean agreement of 61.19 (95% CI: 60.04-62.35), varying from 51.25 in Chile to 69.77 in India. Greater agreement with lotteries was observed among males, higher-income individuals, those with lower education, and those identifying as politically right leaning.ConclusionsDespite arguments for lottery-based allocation of medical resources, we found low overall public support, albeit with substantial variation across countries. Successful implementation of lottery allocation will require targeted public engagement and clear communication of potential benefits.HighlightsThis study surveyed 15,380 respondents from 14 diverse countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, analyzing international agreement with the appropriateness of using lottery allocation for scarce health care resources.There was universal preference for allocating vaccines by expert committee rather than by lotteries, but there was significant variation in agreement between countries, indicating the need for region-specific policy approaches.Successful implementation of lottery allocation requires targeted public engagement and communication of their benefits, especially with groups less supportive of lotteries.

抽奖还是分诊?COVID-19大流行对稀缺医疗资源配置偏好的对照实验证据
生物伦理学家提倡用彩票来分配稀缺的卫生保健资源,强调了在日益增长的卫生保健挑战中使彩票具有吸引力的好处。在COVID-19大流行期间,在某些情况下,特别是在美国,彩票用于在优先群体中分发疫苗。然而,关于公众对彩票态度的证据有限。方法为了评估公众对摇号和专家委员会分配疫苗的支持,我们在大流行期间进行了一项基于调查的实验。在2020年11月至2021年5月期间,从14个不同国家的15380名受访者中收集了数据。受访者被随机(1:1)分配到涉及护士COVID-19疫苗分配的两种假设情景中的一种:1)抽签,2)由专家医生委员会优先排序。结果是对分配机制的适当性在范围从0(强烈不同意)到100(强烈同意)的范围内达成一致,差异通过一系列协变量分层。双侧t检验用于检验彩票和专家委员会之间的平均一致性的总体差异。与彩票分配的平均一致性为37.25(95%可信区间[CI] 34.86-39.65),范围从智利的21.1 (95% CI 15.07-27.13)到印度的62.33 (95% CI 54.45-70.21)。在每个国家,专家委员会的分配得到了更高的支持,平均一致性为61.19 (95% CI: 60.04-62.35),从智利的51.25到印度的69.77不等。在男性、高收入人群、受教育程度较低人群以及政治上倾向于右翼的人群中,人们对彩票的认同程度更高。结论:尽管有基于彩票的医疗资源分配的争论,但我们发现,尽管各国之间存在很大差异,但总体上公众的支持度较低。成功实施彩票分配将需要有针对性的公众参与和对潜在利益的明确沟通。本研究在COVID-19大流行期间对来自14个不同国家的15380名受访者进行了调查,分析了国际上对使用彩票分配稀缺医疗资源的适当性的共识。人们普遍倾向于由专家委员会而不是抽签分配疫苗,但各国之间的共识存在很大差异,这表明需要采取针对特定区域的政策办法。彩票分配的成功实施需要有针对性的公众参与和宣传其好处,特别是不太支持彩票的群体。
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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信