Factors Affecting Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources Across Life‐Threatening Medical Conditions

Abstract

This study aimed to determine whether participants used different criteria to allocate scarce medical resources depending on the medical condition. Allocations of HIV antiretroviral treatment and heart‐transplant surgery were examined. Participants completed 2 questionnaires requiring them to prioritize 16 hypothetical patients. Demographic data on hypothetical patients varied on 4 dimensions: age, gender, sexual orientation, and promiscuity. There were significant main effects of age, sexual orientation, and promiscuity in both medical conditions. Young people were favored over old, heterosexuals over homosexuals, and monogamous over promiscuous patients. Stronger effects of sexual orientation and promiscuity were found in the HIV treatment condition. Participants used a more utilitarian approach in their allocation decisions and demonstrated prejudice against homosexuals and promiscuous patients.

Prioritizing Patients for Surgery: Factors Affecting Allocation of Medical Resources for Kidney Transplantation, IVF, and Rhinoplasty1

“…Of these variables, patient gender has produced robust results, with females favored over males in every instance. Results for other variables have been found to be dependent on the context of the studies; that is, on the particular medical condition of the hypothetical patients (Furnham, Ariffin, & McClelland, 2008). Various studies have shown evidence of in‐group favoritism, such that laypeople tend to favor people like themselves.…”

Understanding Care Linkage and Engagement Across 15 Adolescent Clinics: Provider Perspectives and Implications for Newly HIV-Infected Youth

“…It emphasizes the work patients must do to achieve the expectations that result from HIV being seen as chronic, namely to remain virally suppressed and healthy. Similar themes have emerged in transplantation studies where patients must demonstrate that they are worthy of receiving an organ for which many people are on a waitlist (Cass et al, 2007; Furnham, Ariffin, & McClelland, 2007). With adolescent patients, it also seems suggestive of “transitional paternalism” as an appropriate stance for adults (in this case, health professionals) and adolescents with social, developmental, and legal boundaries on behavioral autonomy (Manson, 2015).…”

Adolescents' preferences for organ allocation: The role of empathy and altruism in allocation judgments

“…On the contrary, other studies reveal that given only some demographic information about the patients, people are able to make value judgments about the priority in a recipients' list (Furnham, Ariffin, & McClelland, 2007). More specifically, a review of these studies reveal that apart from better prognosis (Browning & Thomas, 2001), other factors that are considered as significant criteria for allocation are recipient's age (Browning & Thomas, 2001;Dolan & Shaw, 2004;Neuberger, Adams, MacMaster, Maidment, & Speed, 1998) and the number of dependants (Browning & Thomas, 2001;Dolan & Shaw, 2004).…”