Doctoral Dissertation Research in DRMS: How Do People Value Life in Health Care Allocation? Inconsistencies and Mechanisms.

DRMS 博士论文研究：人们如何在医疗保健分配中珍视生命？

• 批准号: 1061726
• 负责人: Gretchen Chapman
• 金额: $ 1.43万
• 依托单位: Rutgers University New Brunswick
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2011
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2011-02-15 至 2013-01-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1061726&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; DRMS; How

This dissertation research examines the decision processes underlying how people value lives saved in situations of resource scarcity. Three policies a person could use are examined: (1) treating all lives are equal, (2) prioritizing people who will gain the most benefit (e.g. additional life years) from an intervention, and (3) prioritize young people regardless of the number of years they have left to live. These metrics imply different strategies for health resource allocation, especially when such resources are scarce. Vaccination scenarios are used to probe which metrics lay people use in different situations and how the type of question influences the metric used. In direct questions, people are asked about their abstract principles (e.g., all lives are equal, prioritize the young, etc.). In indirect questions, people are given an allocation problem (e.g., there are 1000 people at risk but only 500 vaccines; who should get the vaccines?). The co-PI will test different psychological accounts for why people might express different metrics in these two types of questions.The broader impacts of this research derive from the fact that the public's support for health policies may be malleable: While the pro-young tendencies may drive support for specific policies for how to prioritize scarce health resources (i.e. the 2009 H1N1 vaccine was prioritized for people under age 25), they depart from the oft-cited moral standard that "all lives are equal". Such tendencies may be concealed in more direct measures, such as in questions directly asking whether lives of young people are more valuable than those of older people, because answering yes in this case is a more apparent contradiction to the deep-rooted "all lives equal" moral standard. Studying these inconsistencies provides important information on how to design public health policies and how to present them to the public.

这项论文研究研究了人们如何价值生命的基础的决策过程，以节省资源稀缺。一个人可以使用的三项政策将进行检查：（1）对待所有生命是相同的，（2）优先考虑将从干预中获得最大利益（例如额外的终身年份）的人，以及（3）优先级，无论他们剩下的年数如何。 这些指标暗示了对健康资源分配的不同策略，尤其是当这种资源稀缺时。 疫苗接种方案用于探测指标在不同情况下使用的指标以及问题类型如何影响所使用的指标。 在直接的问题中，询问人们的抽象原则（例如，所有生命都是平等的，优先考虑年轻人等）。 在间接问题中，给人们分配问题（例如，有1000人处于危险之中，但只有500个疫苗；谁应该接种疫苗？）。 Co-Pi将测试不同的心理叙述，以说明人们为什么在这两种类型的问题中表达不同的指标。这项研究的更广泛的影响来自公众对健康政策的支持可能是可延展的事实：虽然亲国外的倾向可能会促进对稀缺率的优先级别，即在2009年versive faccine prociate faccine practive face face face after practial prosive face face face afty practial的趋势可能会促进2009年h1n1的优先级别（即，他们都在较早的情况下均置于较高的范围（即，均为较高的国家），这是他们的优先级别。 “所有生命都是平等的”。这种趋势可能会被隐藏在更直接的措施中，例如直接询问年轻人的生活是否比老年人更有价值的问题，因为在这种情况下回答“是”与深度根深蒂固的“所有生活平等”道德标准更为矛盾。研究这些矛盾性提供了有关如何设计公共卫生政策以及如何向公众展示它们的重要信息。