Author:
Stenmarck Mille Sofie,Whitehurst David GT,Lurås Hilde,Rugkåsa Jorun
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Demand for healthcare outweighs available resources, making priority setting a critical issue. ‘Severity’ is a priority-setting criterion in many healthcare systems, including in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. However, there is a lack of consensus on what severity means in a healthcare context, both in the academic literature and in policy. Further, while public preference elicitation studies demonstrate support for severity as a relevant concern in priority setting, there is a paucity of research on what severity is taken to mean for the public. The purpose of this study is to explore how severity is conceptualised by members of the general public.
Methods
Semi-structured group interviews were conducted from February to July 2021 with members of the Norwegian adult public (n = 59). These were transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis, incorporating inductive and deductive elements.
Results
Through the analysis we arrived at three interrelated main themes. Severity as subjective experience included perceptions of severity as inherently subjective and personal. Emphasis was on the individual’s unique insight into their illness, and there was a concern that the assessment of severity should be fair for the individual. The second theme, Severity as objective fact, included perceptions of severity as something determined by objective criteria, so that a severe condition is equally severe for any person. Here, there was a concern for determining severity fairly within and across patient groups. The third theme, Severity as situation dependent, included perceptions of severity centered on second-order effects of illness. These included effects on the individual, such as their ability to work and enjoy their hobbies, effects on those surrounding the patient, such as next of kin, and effects at a societal level, such as production loss. We also identified a concern for determining severity fairly at a societal level.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that severity is a polyvalent notion with different meanings attached to it. There seems to be a dissonance between lay conceptualisations of severity and policy operationalisations of the term, which may lead to miscommunications between members of the public and policymakers.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference62 articles.
1. Hirose I, Bognar G. The ethics of health care rationing: an introduction. Routledge; 2014.
2. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges. Cost Eff Resour Alloc CE. 2004;2:3.
3. Ahumada-Canale A, Jeet V, Bilgrami A, Seil E, Gu Y, Cutler H. Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2023;322:115790.
4. Magnussen J, Aaserud M, Granaas T, Magelssen M, Syse A, Celius EG, et al. På ramme alvor - alvorlighet og prioritering. Department of Health; 2015 Oct. p. 71.
5. Riksdagsförvaltningen. Prioriteringar inom hälso- och sjukvården Socialutskottets Betänkande 1996/97:SoU14 - Riksdagen [Internet]. 1997 [cited 2022 Nov 29]. Available from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/arende/betankande/prioriteringar-inom-halso--och-sjukvarden_GK01SoU14.