Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11328/1904
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPinho, Micaela-
dc.contributor.authorBorges, Ana Pinto-
dc.contributor.authorZahariev, Boyan-
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-27T16:23:05Z-
dc.date.available2017-07-27T16:23:05Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationPinho, M., Borges, A.P. & Zahariev, B. (2017). Bedsides healthcare rationing dilemmas: A survey from Bulgaria and comparison with Portugal. Soc Theory Health, (online 06 March 2017). doi:10.1057/s41285-017-0029-2pt_PT
dc.identifier.issn1477-822X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11328/1904-
dc.description.abstractWe investigate the views of Bulgarian citizens on the principles that should guide microallocation healthcare resources and compare them directly with those of Portuguese citizens. A self-administered online questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 298 Bulgarian citizens, using methods from a matching previous study in Portugal. Respondents faced a hypothetical rationing exercise where they had to choose and order four patients (differentiated by personal and health characteristics) and a set of statements that embodied: (i) distributive criteria for prioritizing patients, (ii) who should prioritize patients, and (iii) the likelihood of these prioritization decisions being real. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and non-parametric test were used. Findings suggest that Bulgarian respondents: (i) support a plurality of distributive principles to underpin healthcare priority setting with an incident on the severity of health conditions, on utilitarianism and on reducing health inequalities; (ii) trust in the health professional to make prioritization decisions and (iii) do not seem to believe that patients' prioritization will ever become real. While Bulgarian and Portuguese respondents support a number of shared ethical principles they place a different level of importance to each. Bulgarians value mainly the age criterion in prioritizing patients, whereas Portuguese revealed a greater concern about efficiency.pt_PT
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.publisherSpringerpt_PT
dc.relationrestrictedAccesspt_PT
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/pt_PT
dc.subjectHealthcare rationingpt_PT
dc.subjectPatient selectionpt_PT
dc.subjectEthical valuespt_PT
dc.subjectBulgariapt_PT
dc.subjectPortugalpt_PT
dc.titleBedsides healthcare rationing dilemmas: A survey from Bulgaria and comparison with Portugalpt_PT
dc.typearticlept_PT
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41285-017-0029-2pt_PT
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
degois.publication.firstPage1pt_PT
degois.publication.lastPage17pt_PT
degois.publication.titleSocial Theory & Healthpt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.1057/s41285-017-0029-2pt_PT
dc.date.embargo2018-04-
Appears in Collections:REMIT – Artigos em Revistas Internacionais / Papers in International Journals

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Artigo Bulgária - eproofing.pdf327.56 kBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.