Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Older people’s views of prioritization in health care

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare older people’s views of prioritization in health care with specific regard to age, gender and HRQoL. Methods: The sample was collected from a prospective longitudinal cohort study, the GAS project (Good Ageing in Skane) that is in progress in Sweden. For this study, 902 persons, 424 men and 478 women, aged between 60 and 93 years, were invited consecutively over a period of 17 months to participate in an additional structured interview based on an interview manual. Socio-demographic and HRQoL data were collected from the GAS project. For the analysis, the sample was divided into age groups: young-old, old-old, and oldest-old. Results: Older people in general did not want age as a criterion for prioritization in health care. When pain was added as a criterion, age became even less important than when it was the sole criterion. The oldest-old, to a higher degree than the other age groups, prioritized younger patients, as did men, while women, more than men, preferred “old age” as an indicator for prioritization. The respondents’ views on prioritization were also more associated with age and gender than HRQoL. Conclusions: Older people’s views of priorities seem to differ from previous population-based studies, in that age per se as a criterion for selection between patients was not favored; health and wellbeing were more important. Differences were, however, found within the group of older people, as regards both age and gender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. SOU. Priorities in health care. Perspectives for politicians, profession and citizens. Final report by The Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. (Prioriteringar i vården). Stockholm: Socialdepartementet, 2001.

  2. SOU. Priorities in health care. Ethics, economy, implementation. Final report by The Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. (Vårdens svåra val). Stockholm: Socialdepartementet; 1995.

  3. Callahan D. Setting limits. Medical goals in an aging society. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Callahan D. Health care struggle between young and old. Society 1991; 28: 29–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Daniels N. Just Health Care. Am I my parents’ keeper? New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Veatch RM. Justice and the economics of terminal illness. Hastings Cent Rep 1988; 18: 34–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Johannesson M, Johansson PO. The economics of ageing: on the attitude of Swedish people to the distribution of health care resources between the young and the old. Health Policy 1996; 37: 153–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Myllykangas M, Ryynanen OP, Kinnunen J, Takala J. Comparison of doctors’, nurses’, politicians’ and public attitudes to health care priorities. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996; 1: 212–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ryynanen OP, Myllykangas M, Kinnunen J, Takala J. Attitudes to health care prioritization methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 1529–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kinnunen J, Lammintakanen J, Myllykangas M, Ryynanen OP, Takala J. Health care priorities as a problem of local resource allocation. Int J Health Plann Manage 1998; 13: 216–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bowling A. Health care rationing: the public’s debate. BMJ 1996; 312: 670–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosen P, Karlberg I. Opinions of Swedish citizens, health-care politicians, administrators and doctors on rationing and health-care financing. Health Expect 2002; 5: 148–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zweibel NR, Cassel CK, Karrison T. Public attitudes about the use of chronological age as a criterion for allocating health care resources. Gerontologist 1993; 33: 74–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. SCB, editor. Statistical Yearbook of Sweden 2002. Stockholm: Elanders Gotab AB, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Styrborn K. Äldres komplexa vårdbehov — En deskriptiv studie. Stockholm: Stiftelsen Stockholm läns Äldrecentrum; 1997, Report No. 7.

  16. Guralnik JM, Leveille SG, Hirsch R, Ferrucci L, Fried LP. The impact of disability in older women. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1997; 52: 113–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pettit T, Livingston G, Manela M, Kitchen G, Katona C, Bowling A. Validation and normative data of health status measures in older people: the Islington study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 16: 1061–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bell NK. What setting limits may mean: a feminist critique of Daniel Callahan’s Setting Limits. Hypatia 1989; 4: 169–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Werntoft E, Edberg A-K, Rooke L, Hermerén G, Elmståhl S, Hallberg IR. Older people’s views of prioritization in health care. The applicability of an interview study. J Clin Nurs 2005; 14(Suppl 2): 64–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lagergren M, Fratiglioni L, Hallberg I, et al. A longitudinal study with integrated population and care service data — The Swedish National Study on Ageing and Care (SNAC). Aging Clin Exp Res 2004; 16: 158–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nord E, Street A, Richardson J, Kuhse H, Singer P. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal 1996; 4: 103–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mossialos E, King D. Citizens and rationing: analysis of a European survey. Health Policy 1999; 49: 75–135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ryynanen OP, Myllykangas M, Kinnunen J, Halonen P, Takala J. Prioritization attitudes among doctors and nurses examined by a scenario method. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 92–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Myllykangas M, Ryynanen OP, Kinnunen J, Takala J. Attitudes to cuts in expenditure and increased fees in health care. Public Health 1997; 111: 71–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ware J, Kosinski M, Kelle SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996; 34: 220–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Taft C. SF-12 Hälsoenkät. Svensk manual (Swedish manual). Göteborg: Sektionen för vårdforskning, Sahlgrenska Sjukhuset, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Field D, Gueldner SH. The oldest-old: how do they differ from the old-old? J Gerontol Nurs 2001; 27: 20–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed. New York, Chichester: Wiley, 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Lees A, Scott N, Campbell C, et al. Deciding how NHS money is spent: a survey of general public and medical views. Health Expect 2002; 5: 47–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ryynanen OP, Myllykangas M, Vaskilampi T, Takala J. Random paired scenarios — a method for investigating attitudes to prioritization in medicine. J Med Ethics 1996; 22: 238–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cropper M, Aydede S, Portney P. Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age. J Risk Uncertain 1994; 8: 243–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tornstam L. Aldrandets socialpsykologi. 6th rev ed. Stockholm: Rabén Prisma, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hallberg IR. Death and dying from old people’s point of view. A literature review. Aging Clin Exp Res 2004; 16: 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Laditka JN, Laditka SB. The morbidity compression debate: risks, opportunities, and policy options for women. J Women Aging 2000; 12: 23–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Johansson L, Sundström G, Hassing L. State provision down, offspring’s up: the reverse substitution of old-age care in Sweden. Ageing Soc 2003; 23: 269–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Singleton J. Women caring for elderly family members: shaping non-traditional work and family initiatives. J Comp Family Studies 2000; 31: 367–75.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, P.O. Box 157, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden

    Elisabet Werntoft RNT, Ingalill Rahm Hallberg, Solve Elmståhl & Anna-Karin Edberg

  2. The Vardal Institute, Lund, Sweden

    Ingalill Rahm Hallberg

Authors
  1. Elisabet Werntoft RNT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ingalill Rahm Hallberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Solve Elmståhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna-Karin Edberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabet Werntoft RNT.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Werntoft, E., Hallberg, I.R., Elmståhl, S. et al. Older people’s views of prioritization in health care. Aging Clin Exp Res 17, 402–411 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324630

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324630

Keywords

Search

Navigation