"Saying no is no easy matter" a qualitative study of competing concerns in rationing decisions in general practice.

Benedicte Carlsen, Ole Frithjof Norheim
Author Information
  1. Benedicte Carlsen: Health Economics, Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies, The University of Bergen, Nygårdsgaten 5, 5015 Bergen, Norway. benedicte.carlsen@rokkan.uib.no

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The general practitioner in Norway is expected to ensure equity and effectiveness through fair rationing. At the same time, due to recent reforms of the Norwegian health care sector, both the role of economic incentives and patient autonomy have been strengthened. Studies indicate that modern general practitioners, both in Norway and in other countries are uncomfortable with the gatekeeper role, but there is little knowledge about how general practitioners experience rationing in practice.
METHODS: Through focus group interviews with Norwegian general practitioners, we explore physicians' attitudes toward factors of influence on medical decision making and how rationing dilemmas are experienced in everyday practice.
RESULTS: Four major concerns appeared in the group discussions: The obligation to ration health care, professional autonomy, patient autonomy, and competition. A central finding was that the physicians find rationing difficult because saying no in face to face relations often is felt uncomfortable and in conflict with other important objectives for the general practitioner.
CONCLUSION: It is important to understand the association between using economic incentives in the management of health care, increasing patient autonomy, and the willingness among physicians to contribute to efficient, fair and legitimate resource allocation.

References

  1. BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299-302 [PMID: 7633241]
  2. N Engl J Med. 1995 Jul 6;333(1):50-2 [PMID: 7776996]
  3. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1995 Fall;20(3):571-613 [PMID: 8530769]
  4. Soc Sci Med. 1996 Apr;42(7):1021-5 [PMID: 8730907]
  5. BMJ. 1997 Aug 30;315(7107):520-3 [PMID: 9329308]
  6. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Apr;2(2):112-21 [PMID: 10180362]
  7. BMJ. 1998 Oct 17;317(7165):1067-9 [PMID: 9774299]
  8. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2005 Feb 3;125(3):300-3 [PMID: 15702152]
  9. Soc Sci Med. 1998 Nov;47(10):1555-64 [PMID: 9823051]
  10. AMA Arch Intern Med. 1956 May;97(5):585-92 [PMID: 13312700]
  11. BMJ. 2000 Jul 1;321(7252):40-5 [PMID: 10875836]
  12. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000 Aug;54(8):623-30 [PMID: 10890875]
  13. Soc Sci Med. 2000 Oct;51(7):1087-110 [PMID: 11005395]
  14. J Med Ethics. 2001 Feb;27(1):25-9 [PMID: 11233373]
  15. BMJ. 2001 Oct 20;323(7318):908-11 [PMID: 11668137]
  16. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Jan;17(1):75-8 [PMID: 11903778]
  17. Fam Pract. 2002 Apr;19(2):140-5 [PMID: 11906978]
  18. Haemophilia. 2002 May;8(3):441-6 [PMID: 12010448]
  19. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2002 Aug 20;122(19):1874-9 [PMID: 12362710]
  20. BMJ. 2002 Nov 30;325(7375):1278 [PMID: 12458248]
  21. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2002 Jun 30;122(17):1682-5 [PMID: 12555612]
  22. BMJ. 2003 Mar 22;326(7390):631-4 [PMID: 12649238]
  23. BMJ. 2003 Mar 29;326(7391):692-5 [PMID: 12663407]
  24. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2003 Jun 26;123(13-14):1870-3 [PMID: 12830270]
  25. J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Aug;18(8):609-16 [PMID: 12911642]
  26. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Dec;57(11):2243-52 [PMID: 14512253]
  27. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2003 Dec;21(4):209-13 [PMID: 14695070]
  28. BMJ. 2004 Feb 21;328(7437):444 [PMID: 14966079]
  29. BMJ. 2004 Feb 21;328(7437):416-7 [PMID: 14976072]
  30. N Engl J Med. 1986 May 22;314(21):1380-3 [PMID: 3702945]
  31. Health Educ Q. 1987 Winter;14(4):411-48 [PMID: 3319971]
  32. JAMA. 1992 Apr 22-29;267(16):2221-6 [PMID: 1556799]
  33. Lancet. 1995 Apr 1;345(8953):840-2 [PMID: 7898234]
  34. J Med Ethics. 1995 Jun;21(3):158-61 [PMID: 7674280]

MeSH Term

Attitude of Health Personnel
Decision Making
Focus Groups
Health Care Rationing
Humans
Norway
Personal Autonomy
Physician-Patient Relations
Physicians, Family
Professional Autonomy
Qualitative Research
Referral and Consultation
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0generalrationingautonomyhealthcarepatientpractitionerspracticepractitionerNorwayfairNorwegianroleeconomicincentivesuncomfortablegroupconcernsphysiciansfaceimportantBACKGROUND:expectedensureequityeffectivenesstimeduerecentreformssectorstrengthenedStudiesindicatemoderncountriesgatekeeperlittleknowledgeexperienceMETHODS:focusinterviewsexplorephysicians'attitudestowardfactorsinfluencemedicaldecisionmakingdilemmasexperiencedeverydayRESULTS:Fourmajorappeareddiscussions:obligationrationprofessionalcompetitioncentralfindingfinddifficultsayingrelationsoftenfeltconflictobjectivesCONCLUSION:understandassociationusingmanagementincreasingwillingnessamongcontributeefficientlegitimateresourceallocation"Sayingeasymatter"qualitativestudycompetingdecisions

Similar Articles

Cited By