Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1111/bjhp.12439 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1111/bjhp.12439 32562512!7323072!32562512     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=32562512&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Br+J+Health+Psychol 2020 ; 25 (4): 889-901 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32562512|t=2020. Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic |pdf=|usr=}}{{32562512}} gab.com Text Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic JO: Br J Health Psychol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32562512 #FOAvip This study concerns what lay people believe is the best way to allocate scarce medical resources. A sample of 515 individuals completed a short questionnaire asking them to rank-order eight different ethical positions with respect to the allocation of scarce resources. They showed a strong preference for the 'saves most lives' and 'sickest first' options, with 'reciprocity' and a 'lottery' being least favoured. There was a reasonable degree of unanimity amongst respondents and comparatively few correlations with individual difference factors such as demography. The preference results are compared to expert recommendations (Emanuel et al., 2020, N. Engl. J. Med., 382, 2049) made in light of the current coronavirus pandemic, and differences are highlighted. Implications for scare medical resource allocations are discussed, and limitations of the study acknowledged. Twit Text FOAVip Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic ????Br J Health Psychol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32562512 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32562512 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32562512}}</ref> Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic #MMPMID32562512 Grover S; McClelland A; Furnham A Br J Health Psychol 2020[Nov]; 25 (4): 889-901 PMID32562512show ga This study concerns what lay people believe is the best way to allocate scarce medical resources. A sample of 515 individuals completed a short questionnaire asking them to rank-order eight different ethical positions with respect to the allocation of scarce resources. They showed a strong preference for the 'saves most lives' and 'sickest first' options, with 'reciprocity' and a 'lottery' being least favoured. There was a reasonable degree of unanimity amongst respondents and comparatively few correlations with individual difference factors such as demography. The preference results are compared to expert recommendations (Emanuel et al., 2020, N. Engl. J. Med., 382, 2049) made in light of the current coronavirus pandemic, and differences are highlighted. Implications for scare medical resource allocations are discussed, and limitations of the study acknowledged. |*Betacoronavirus[MESH] |*Coronavirus Infections[MESH] |*Pandemics[MESH] |*Pneumonia, Viral[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |Health Care Rationing[MESH] |Humans[MESH]Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences betwee(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing