ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Balancing the impact of socio-ethical and economic considerations on clinical-hospital decision-making.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare systems increasingly operate under chronic scarcity, requiring prioritisation decisions beyond formal coverage policies and bedside clinical judgment. While much of the ethical literature on priority setting has focused on macro-level allocation or individual clinician decision-making, comparatively limited attention has been devoted to the meso level, where senior hospital medical managers shape access through implicit operational decisions under sustained constraint.
methodsThis study examines how senior medical managers approach prioritisation when clinical need, prognosis, and expected benefit are held constant. Using structured allocation scenarios that vary only in socio-ethical and economic patient characteristics, we conceptually distinguish between the practical acceptability of non-clinical criteria and their perceived normative legitimacy. Eighty-two senior medical managers participate.
resultsMost respondents appear to reject explicit prioritisation under scarcity, endorsing equal treatment even when resources are insufficient. When prioritisation occurs, younger patients are more frequently favoured, typically on clinical rather than on economic grounds. Economic determinants, including reimbursement status, insurance coverage, and anticipated downstream costs, were rarely endorsed as explicit prioritization criteria despite participants' simultaneous recognition of responsibility for departmental sustainability.
conclusionsThese findings suggest a structured moral tension at the meso level. Economic constraints may be reframed through clinically grounded justifications, potentially obscuring underlying value tradeoffs, while non-prioritisation itself emerges as an ethically meaningful stance with distributive consequences. Using acceptability and legitimacy as a conceptual lens, this study underscores the need for transparent, procedurally robust approaches to hospital-level prioritisation under chronic scarcity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.