IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/gbusec/v24y2021i2p128-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Healthcare professionals' attitudes concerning prioritisation decisions: a quali-quantitative analysis in Angola

Author

Listed:
  • Micaela Pinho
  • Ana Pinto Borges

Abstract

Bedside rationing decisions are a necessary evil in the context of resource scarcity. The ethical values inherent in decisions about who to treat make interprofessional collaboration between health professionals essential. We evaluate and compare the attitudes of Angolan physicians and nurses towards patient's prioritisation decisions and the rationing principles supported. Faced with rationing scenarios comprising of four-patient respondents should: 1) select the only patient to treat, explaining their choice; 2) establish a patient care sequential order. Non-parametric tests and multinomial logistic regressions were performed to compare patient's choice between both groups and explore relations between socio-demographic, health and health-related behaviours and patient top priority assigned. Content analysis was used to explore the reasons for patients' selection. Findings suggest that physicians and nurses share similar views, suggesting no tensions regarding patient's prioritisation. Respondents support health maximisation, severity and fair-innings as rationing principles while waiting time and health-related behaviours were undervalued.

Suggested Citation

  • Micaela Pinho & Ana Pinto Borges, 2021. "Healthcare professionals' attitudes concerning prioritisation decisions: a quali-quantitative analysis in Angola," Global Business and Economics Review, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 24(2), pages 128-146.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:gbusec:v:24:y:2021:i:2:p:128-146
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=113120
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:gbusec:v:24:y:2021:i:2:p:128-146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=168 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.