Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Priority Setting of Ventilators in the COVID-19 Pandemic from the public’s perspective

View ORCID ProfileFariba Asghari, View ORCID ProfileAlireza Parsapour, View ORCID ProfileEhsan Shamsi Gooshki
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.10.20127290
Fariba Asghari
1Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Roles: Associate professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Fariba Asghari
  • For correspondence: fasghari@tums.ac.ir
Alireza Parsapour
2Faculty of Medicine, Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Roles: Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alireza Parsapour
Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki
2Faculty of Medicine, Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Roles: Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Ventilator allocation plan for public health crisis should be developed through recognizing the values of society and engaging the general public. This study was conducted to assess the Iranian citizens’ attitude about a number of principles and criteria for allocation of ventilators in current COVID-19 epidemic.

Materials and Methods An electronic self-administered questionnaire was publicly distributed through social networks of Telegram and WhatsApp to perform this cross-sectional study. The questionnaire consisted of 11 statements about the selection and prioritization of patients for the use of a ventilator.

Results 1262 persons, including 767 citizens and 495 health care providers participated in this study. More than 95% of participants agreed upon the necessity to avoid discrimination and avoid prioritization according to patients’ gender, economic and political status. While 40.9% of citizens and 49.6% of healthcare workers believed that a ventilator can be disconnected from a patient with a poor prognosis to help a patient who has a better prognosis (P-value=0.13), 34.3% of people and 29.6% of healthcare workers believed that the earlier admitted patients have the right to receive the device even if the likeliness of his/her survival is less than the next patient (P-value=0.009).

Conclusions This study showed that people accept maximizing health benefits as a measure of ventilator allocation in the pandemic of COVID-19. At the same time, periodic evaluation of patients and disconnecting the device from a patient that no longer benefits from ICU services requires its scientific and ethical basis to be brought in public discourse.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This paper is based on a self-funded study.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study protocol was approved by the research ethics committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences under license ID IR.TUMS.VCR.REC.1399.085.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Anonymous data of this study is available upon request.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 12, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Priority Setting of Ventilators in the COVID-19 Pandemic from the public’s perspective
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Priority Setting of Ventilators in the COVID-19 Pandemic from the public’s perspective
Fariba Asghari, Alireza Parsapour, Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki
medRxiv 2020.06.10.20127290; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.10.20127290
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Priority Setting of Ventilators in the COVID-19 Pandemic from the public’s perspective
Fariba Asghari, Alireza Parsapour, Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki
medRxiv 2020.06.10.20127290; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.10.20127290

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Medical Ethics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (62)
  • Allergy and Immunology (142)
  • Anesthesia (46)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (412)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (69)
  • Dermatology (47)
  • Emergency Medicine (142)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (171)
  • Epidemiology (4843)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (183)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (674)
  • Geriatric Medicine (70)
  • Health Economics (192)
  • Health Informatics (626)
  • Health Policy (318)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (203)
  • Hematology (85)
  • HIV/AIDS (156)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5326)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (328)
  • Medical Education (93)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (75)
  • Neurology (685)
  • Nursing (42)
  • Nutrition (114)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (126)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (205)
  • Oncology (439)
  • Ophthalmology (140)
  • Orthopedics (36)
  • Otolaryngology (89)
  • Pain Medicine (35)
  • Palliative Medicine (16)
  • Pathology (129)
  • Pediatrics (194)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (131)
  • Primary Care Research (84)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (778)
  • Public and Global Health (1810)
  • Radiology and Imaging (323)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (138)
  • Respiratory Medicine (255)
  • Rheumatology (86)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (69)
  • Sports Medicine (62)
  • Surgery (100)
  • Toxicology (23)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (37)