How stable are moral judgements? A longitudinal study of context dependency in attitudes towards patient responsibility.

BACKGROUND: Whether patients' life-style should involve lower priority for treatment is a controversial question in bioethics. Less is known about clinicians' views. AIM: To study how clinical doctors' attitudes to questions of patient responsibility and priority vary over time. METHOD: Surveys of doctors in Norway in 2008, 2014, 2021. Questionnaires included statements about patients' lifestyle's significance for priority to care, and vignettes of priority cases (only in 2014). RESULTS: Attitudes were fairly stable between 2008 and 2021. 17%/14% agreed that patients' lifestyle should count, while 19%/22% agreed that it should involve lower priority to scarce organs. 42/44% agreed that smokers should have lower priority. Substantially more agreed in 2014. Regression analyses showed that being male, working in hospital, and younger age increased the likelihood of agreeing. CONCLUSION: A substantial minority of doctors agreed that lifestyle should be a priority criterion, possibly contrary to Norwegian legislation and professional ethics. The finding might be explained by the unspecified meaning of priority, increased scarcity-awareness, or socio-cultural trends towards individualism. The 2014 results indicate a framing effect; the vignettes may have primed the respondents towards accepting lifestyle as a criterion. We conclude that attitudes to normative questions are unstable and depend on context. A substantial minority of doctors seems to be positive to deprioritizing patients allegedly responsible for their illness. However, what deprioritization implies in practice is not clear.

Should a patient's socioeconomic status count in decisions about treatment in medical care? A longitudinal study of Norwegian doctors.

AIMS: The major causes of social inequalities in health are found outside of healthcare. However, healthcare can also play a role in maintaining, reducing, or reinforcing inequality. We present and discuss results from a panel study of doctors' views on whether and how socioeconomic factors should play a role in clinical decision making. METHODS: The panel comprised a representative sample of Norwegian doctors, established in 1994. For the current study, the doctors received postal questionnaires in 2008, 2012 and 2016. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, factor analysis and mixed models for repeated measurements. RESULTS: The sample sizes were 1072 (65%), 1279 (71%) and 1605 (73%), respectively. The doctors were increasingly positive towards considering socioeconomic factors, and reported giving more time and advice and asking for less pay to compensate for unfavorable socioeconomic factors. General practitioners were more likely to consider socioeconomic factors and changed their practice accordingly compared to other clinicians. The percentage of doctors who agreed that different amounts of resources should be used to obtain similar health effects was high and increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Increasingly more doctors are willing to consider patients' socioeconomic factors in clinical care. This could be contrary to professional ethics, in which only medical need should count. However, it depends on how 'need' is interpreted. As treatment outcomes partly depend on non-medical factors, socioeconomic factors should be considered because they influence patients' ability to benefit from medical care. Equality requires mitigating factors with negative impacts on health outcomes.

Duty to treat and perceived risk of contagion during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian physicians' perspectives and experiences-a questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic actualised the dilemma of how to balance physicians´ obligation to treat patients and their own perceived risk of being infected. To discuss this in a constructive way we need empirical studies of physicians´ views of this obligation. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to a representative sample of Norwegian physicians in December 2020. We measured their perceived obligation to expose themselves to infection, when necessary, in order to provide care, concerns about being infected themselves, for spreading the virus to patients or to their families. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The response rate was 1639/2316 (70.9%), 54% women. Of doctors < 70, 60,2% (95% CI 57.7-62.7) acknowledged to some or a large degree an obligation to expose themselves to risk of infection, and 42.0% (39.5-44.5) held this view despite a scarcity of personal protective equipment (PPE). Concern about being infected oneself to some or to a large extent was reported by 42.8% (40.3-45.3), 47.8% (45.3-50.3) reported concern about spreading the virus to patients, and 63.9% (61.5-66.3) indicated worry about spreading it to their families. Being older increased the odds of feeling obligated (ExpB = 1.02 p < 0.001), while experiencing scarcity of PPE decreased the odds (ExpB = 0.74, p = 0.01). The odds of concern about spreading virus to one´s family decreased with higher age (Exp B = 0.97, p < 0.001), increased with being female (Exp B = 1.44, p = 0.004), and perceived lack of PPE (Exp B = 2.25, p < 0.001). Although more physicians working in COVID-exposed specialties experienced scarcity of PPE and reported perceived increased risks for health personnel, the odds of concern about being infected themselves or spreading the virus to their families were not higher than for other doctors. CONCLUSION: These empirical findings lead to the question if fewer physicians in the future will consider the duty to treat their top priority. This underscores the need to revisit and revitalise existing ethical codes to handle the dilemma between physicians´ duty to treat versus the duty to protect physicians and their families. This is important for the ability to provide good care for the patient and the provider in a future pandemic situation.

Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences.

BACKGROUND: In the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable. METHODS: In December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors' familiarity with them must improve.

An empirical bioethical examination of Norwegian and British doctors' views of responsibility and (de)prioritization in healthcare.

In a world with limited resources, allocation of resources to certain individuals and conditions inevitably means fewer resources allocated to other individuals and conditions. Should a patient's personal responsibility be relevant to decisions regarding allocation? In this project we combine the normative and the descriptive, conducting an empirical bioethical examination of how both Norwegian and British doctors think about principles of responsibility in allocating scarce healthcare resources. A large proportion of doctors in both countries supported including responsibility for illness in prioritization decisions. This finding was more prominent in zero-sum scenarios where allocation to one patient means that another patient is denied treatment. There was most support for incorporating prospective responsibility (through patient contracts), and low support for integrating responsibility into co-payments (i.e. through requiring responsible patients to pay part of the costs of treatment). Finally, some behaviours were considered more appropriate grounds for deprioritization (smoking, alcohol, drug use)-potentially because of the certainty of impact and direct link to ill health. In zero-sum situations, prognosis also influenced prioritization (but did not outweigh responsibility). Ethical implications are discussed. We argue that the role that responsibility constructs appear to play in doctors' decisions indicates a needs for more nuanced-and clear-policy. Such policy should account for the distinctions we draw between responsibility-sensitive and prognostic justifications for deprioritization.

Do you recommend cancer screening to your patients? A cross-sectional study of Norwegian doctors.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for cancer screening have been debated and are followed to varying degrees. We wanted to study whether and why doctors recommend disease-specific cancer screening to their patients. DESIGN: Our cross-sectional survey used a postal questionnaire. The data were examined with descriptive methods and binary logistic regression. SETTING: We surveyed doctors working in all health services. PARTICIPANTS: Our participants comprised a representative sample of Norwegian doctors in 2014/2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is whether doctors reported recommending their patients get screening for cancers of the breast, colorectum, lung, prostate, cervix and ovaries. We examined doctors' characteristics predicting adherence to the guidelines, including gender, age, and work in specialist or general practice. The secondary outcomes are reasons given for recommending or not recommending screening for breast and prostate cancer. RESULTS: Our response rate was 75% (1158 of 1545). 94% recommended screening for cervical cancer, 89% for breast cancer (both established as national programmes), 42% for colorectal cancer (upcoming national programme), 41% for prostate cancer, 21% for ovarian cancer and 17% for lung cancer (not recommended by health authorities). General practitioners (GPs) adhered to guidelines more than other doctors. Early detection was the most frequent reason for recommending screening; false positives and needless intervention were the most frequent reasons for not recommending it. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of doctors claimed that they recommended cancer screening in accordance with national guidelines. Among doctors recommending screening contrary to the guidelines, GPs did so to a lesser degree than other specialties. Different expectations of doctors' roles could be a possible explanation for the variations in practice and justifications. The effectiveness of governing instruments, such as guidelines, incentives or reporting measures, can depend on which professional role(s) a doctor is loyal to, and policymakers should be aware of these different roles in clinical governance.

How do doctors experience the interactions among professional fulfilment, organisational factors and quality of patient care? A qualitative study in a Norwegian hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Doctors increasingly experience high levels of burnout and loss of engagement. To address this, there is a need to better understand doctors' work situation. This study explores how doctors experience the interactions among professional fulfilment, organisational factors and quality of patient care. DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative study design with semistructured individual interviews was chosen. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by a transdisciplinary research group. SETTING: The study focused on a surgical department of a mid-sized hospital in Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Seven doctors were interviewed. A purposeful sampling was used with gender and seniority as selection criteria. Three senior doctors (two female, one male) and four in training (three male, one female) were interviewed. RESULTS: We found that in order to provide quality care to the patients, individual doctors described 'stretching themselves', that is, handling the tensions between quantity and quality, to overcome organisational shortcomings. Experiencing a workplace emphasis on production numbers and budget concerns led to feelings of estrangement among the doctors. Participants reported a shift from serving as trustworthy, autonomous professionals to becoming production workers, where professional identity was threatened. They felt less aligned with workplace values, in addition to experiencing limited management recognition for quality of patient care. Management initiatives to include doctors in development of organisational policies, processes and systems were sparse. CONCLUSION: The interviewed doctors described their struggle to balance the inherent tension among professional fulfilment, organisational factors and quality of patient care in their everyday work. They communicated how 'stretching themselves', to overcome organisational shortcomings, is no longer a feasible strategy without compromising both professional fulfilment and quality of patient care. Managers need to ensure that doctors are involved when developing organisational policies, processes and systems. This is likely to be beneficial for both professional fulfilment and quality of patient care.

Doctors' attitudes to assisted dying. / Legers holdninger til aktiv dødshjelp.

BAKGRUNN: Aktiv dødshjelp er ulovlig i Norge, men et flertall av befolkningen støtter legalisering. Legers holdninger til aktiv dødshjelp ble sist undersøkt i 1993. Har legers holdninger endret seg? MATERIALE OG METODE: To spørreundersøkelser sendt til Legeforskningsinstituttets legepanel i henholdsvis 2014 og 2016 inneholdt spørsmål om aktiv dødshjelp. Svarene ble analysert med deskriptiv statistikk og logistisk regresjonsanalyse. RESULTATER: Svarprosenten var henholdsvis 75,0 (2014) og 73,1 (2016). Majoriteten var motstandere av legalisering av aktiv dødshjelp. I 2016-undersøkelsen sa 9,1 % av respondentene seg «svært enig¼ og 21,5 % «litt enig¼ i at legeassistert selvmord bør tillates for personer som har «en dødelig sykdom med kort forventet levetid¼. Yngre og ikke-religiøse var oftere positive til legalisering. I 2014-undersøkelsen svarte 8,6 % at de ville ha vært villige til å utføre legeassistert selvmord hvis dette ble tillatt. FORTOLKNING: Som i 1993 var et flertall av norske leger imot aktiv dødshjelp, men det synes å være flere enn før som støttet legalisering i visse tilfeller. De færreste var selv villige til å utføre aktiv dødshjelp hvis det ble tillatt.

Between professional values, social regulations and patient preferences: medical doctors' perceptions of ethical dilemmas.

BACKGROUND: We present and discuss the results of a Norwegian survey of medical doctors' views on potential ethical dilemmas in professional practice. METHODS: The study was conducted in 2015 as a postal questionnaire to a representative sample of 1612 doctors, among which 1261 responded (78%). We provided a list of 41 potential ethical dilemmas and asked whether each was considered a dilemma, and whether the doctor would perform the task, if in a position to do so. Conceptually, dilemmas arise because of tensions between two or more of four doctor roles: the patient's advocate, a steward of societal interests, a member of a profession and a private individual. RESULTS: 27 of the potential dilemmas were considered dilemmas by at least 50% of the respondents. For more than half of the dilemmas, the anticipated course of action varied substantially within the professional group, with at least 20% choosing a different course than their colleagues, indicating low consensus in the profession. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors experience a large range of ethical dilemmas, of which many have been given little attention by academic medical ethics. The less-discussed dilemmas are characterised by a low degree of consensus in the profession about how to handle them. There is a need for medical ethicists, medical education, postgraduate courses and clinical ethics support to address common dilemmas in clinical practice. Viewing dilemmas as role conflicts can be a fruitful approach to these discussions.

The Norwegian National Council for Priority Setting in Health Care: decisions and justifications.

Different countries have adopted different strategies for tackling the challenge of allocating scarce health care resources fairly. Norway is one of the countries that has pioneered the effort to resolve priority setting by using a core set of priority-setting criteria. While the criteria themselves have been subject to extensive debate and numerous revisions, the question of how the criteria have been applied in practice has received less attention. In this paper, we examine how the criteria feature in the decisions and justifications of the Norwegian National Council for Priority Setting in Health Care, which has played an active role in deliberating about health care provision and coverage in Norway. We conducted a comprehensive document analysis, looking at the Council's decisions about health care allocation as well as the reasons they had provided to justify their decisions. We found that although the Council often made use of the official priority-setting criteria, they did so in an unsystematic and inconsistent manner.