Search

ObjectivesHorizon scanning methodologies are employed in healthcare to identify and prioritise innovations at the early stages of development processes. To date, horizon scanning has been predominantly applied to early awareness systems of health technologies to facilitate healthcare planning. Still, horizon scanning methodologies may also be relevant for identifying novel healthcare delivery models and interventions. This study aimed to examine perceptions of determinants for adopting horizon scanning in the context of the development of integrated care models.MethodsQualitative semistructured interviews were conducted between March and May 2021. The interviewees (n=10) were participants in innovation projects in the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. Data were analysed thematically with the aid of a predefined framework adapted from behavioural change theory.ResultsDeterminants of adopting horizon scanning were reported at the individual, organisational and wider institutional levels. Seven domains were perceived to enable or hinder stakeholders’ potential use of horizon scanning: knowledge of structured reviews, skills to perform horizon scanning, beliefs about consequences (validity and reliability of information, outcomes of filtering and priority setting, stakeholder involvement), beliefs about capabilities (technical skills, knowledge of roles and professional identities, organisational regulations), emotions (positivity, engagement, change fatigue), organisational resources (professional library, time, management support), context (complexity of ‘integrated care’, professional hierarchies, legal and political regulations).ConclusionsThis study provides novel insights into potential determinants for adopting horizon scanning to identify, assess and prioritise innovative integrated care models. The findings may assist organisations considering using horizon scanning and inform strategies to mitigate barriers and promote facilitators.

BackgroundPatients not attending their appointments without giving notice burden healthcare services. To reduce non-attendance rates, patient non-attendance fees have been introduced in various settings. Although some argue in narrow economic terms that behavioural change as a result of financial incentives is a voluntary transaction, charging patients for non-attendance remains controversial. This paper aims to investigate the controversies of implementing patient non-attendance fees.ObjectiveThe aim was to map out the arguments in the Norwegian public debate concerning the introduction and use of patient non-attendance fees at public outpatient clinics.MethodsPublic consultation documents (2009–2021) were thematically analysed (n=84). We used a preconceived conceptual framework based on the works of Grant to guide the analysis.ResultsA broad range of arguments for and against patient non-attendance fees were identified, here referring to the acceptability of the fees’ purpose, the voluntariness of the responses, the effects on the individual character and institutional norms and the perceived fairness and comparative effectiveness of patient non-attendance fees. Whereas the aim of motivating patients to keep their appointments to avoid poor utilisation of resources and increased waiting times was widely supported, principled and practical arguments against patient non-attendance fees were raised.ConclusionA narrow economic understanding of incentives cannot capture the breadth of arguments for and against patient non-attendance fees. Policy makers may draw on this insight when implementing similar incentive schemes. The study may also contribute to the general debate on ethics and incentives.

Childhood obesity is an increasing health problem. Prior empirical research suggests that, although discussing lifestyle behaviours with parents could help prevent childhood obesity and its health-related consequences, physicians are reluctant to address parental responsibility in the clinical setting. Therefore, this paper questions whether parents might be (or might be held) responsible for their children’s obesity, and if so, whether parental responsibility ought to be addressed in the physician–patient/parent encounter. We illustrate how different ideal-typical models of the physician–patient/parent interaction emphasise different understandings of patient autonomy and parental responsibility and argue that these models advocate different responses to an appeal for discussing parents’ role in childhood obesity. We suggest that responsibility should be attributed to parents because of their parental roles in providing for their children’s welfare. We also argue that whether, and how, this responsibility gives rise to a requirement to act depends on the parents’ capacities. A deliberative-oriented physician–patient/parent interaction best captures the current ideals of antipaternalism, patient autonomy, and shared and evidence-informed decision-making, and might facilitate parental role development. We conclude that, while not discussing parental responsibility for childhood obesity in the clinical setting can be warranted in particular cases, this cannot be justified as a general rule.

Objective Written action plans for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aim at early recognition of exacerbations and self-initiation of interventions. Previous research suggest underuse of COPD action plans. We wanted to 1) examine which factors clinicians in specialist healthcare perceived as influencing clinicians’ use of written action plans in COPD-self management support and 2) propose a framework for understanding the factors affecting clinicians’ use of action plans in routine practice. Methods We performed a theory-driven retrospective qualitative study. Documentary data were collected to describe the COPD action plan in context. In-depth interviews with clinicians (n = 8) were carried out. Interview data were thematically analyzed, using a predetermined model for understanding behavior. Results Our study revealed that a number of factors influenced clinicians’ use of action plans, including their capabilities (knowledge and skills to identify “the right patient” and to individualize the plan template) and motivations (beliefs, reinforcements, and emotions s.a. frustration, fear, and distrust), together with organizational and social opportunities (resources, patient, and GP preferences). Conclusion A multilevel understanding of factors that affect clinicians’ use of action plans in self-management support is needed. Practice implication The proposed framework can be used to guide future initiatives to promote targeted self-management support.

Aims: To identify factors perceived by local government employees to affect the implementation of a municipal public health plan. Methods: Qualitative individual interviews ( n=13) were carried out. Participants were sampled from three districts in Oslo municipality, Norway, and asked about their experiences with an ongoing implementation of the Oslo Public Health Plan (2017–2020). The conceptual framework of public sector projectification – a growing reliance on project organisation of policies – informed the study. The consolidated framework for implementation research was used to aid data coding and subsequent thematic analysis. Results: Implementation facilitators included factors perceived to support flexibility, including plan adaptability to the local setting, and factors perceived to enable structure and control during the implementation process, such as the articulation of specific goals and a shared understanding of public health work. Barriers were mainly related to complex aspects of the plan, such as the need to involve multiple stakeholders and levels of governance, and to tensions between the time-limited implementation process and the permanent organisational structures. Conclusions: This study has demonstrated how research-based methods can be used for the evaluation of a local community implementation process. It has identified implementation determinants using a predetermined taxonomy of operationally defined factors that are likely to influence implementation. However, while implementing a time-limited public health plan can be seen as ‘taking action’ in relation to multidimensional and complex problems, further research is needed to investigate whether plan implementation has a long-term impact on the surrounding organisation and, eventually, on public health outcomes.

BackgroundThe idea that individuals are responsible for their health has been the focus of debate in the theoretical literature and in its concrete application to healthcare policy in many countries. Controversies persist regarding the form, substance and fairness of allocating health responsibility to the individual, particularly in universal, need-based healthcare systems.ObjectiveTo examine how personal health responsibility has been framed and rationalised in Norwegian key policy documents on priority setting.MethodsDocuments issued or published by the Ministry of Health and Care Services between 1987 and 2018 were thematically analysed (n=14). We developed a predefined conceptual framework that guided the analysis. The framework included: (1) the subject and object of responsibility, (2) the level of conceptual abstraction, (3) temporality, (4) normative justificatory arguments and (5) objections to the application of personal health responsibility.ResultsAs an additional criterion, personal health responsibility has been interpreted as relevant if: (A) the patient’s harmful behaviour is repeated after receiving treatment (retrospectively), and if (B) the success of the treatment is conditional on the patient’s behavioural change (prospectively). When discussed as a retrospective criterion, considerations of reciprocal fairness have been dominant. When discussed as a prospective criterion, the expected benefit of treatment justified its relevance.ConclusionPersonal health responsibility appears to challenge core values of equality, inclusion and solidarity in the Norwegian context and has been repeatedly rejected as a necessary criterion for priority setting. However, the responsibility criterion seems to have some relevance in particular priority setting decisions.

Lifestyle-induced diseases are becoming a burden on healthcare, actualizing the discussion on health responsibilities. Using data from the National Association for Heart and Lung Diseases (LHL)’s 2015 Health Survey (N = 2689), this study examined the public’s attitudes towards personal and social health responsibility in a Norwegian population. The questionnaires covered self-reported health and lifestyle, attitudes towards personal responsibility and the authorities’ responsibility for promoting health, resource-prioritisation and socio-demographic characteristics. Block-wise multiple linear regression assessed the association between attitudes towards health responsibilities and individual lifestyle, political orientation and health condition. We found a moderate support for social responsibility across political views. Respondents reporting unhealthier eating habits, smokers and physically inactive were less supportive of health promotion policies (including information, health incentives, prevention and regulations). The idea that individuals are responsible for taking care of their health was widely accepted as an abstract ideal. Yet, only a third of the respondents agreed with introducing higher co-payments for treatment of ‘self-inflicted’ conditions and levels of support were patterned by health-related behaviour and left-right political orientation. Our study suggests that a significant support for social responsibility does not exclude a strong support for personal health responsibility. However, conditional access to healthcare based on personal lifestyle is still controversial. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.

While a number of jurisdictions internationally prohibit insuring companies to be able to use genetic information in their risk classification, a voluntary code of practice permits insurers the limited use of predictive genetic test results in the UK. Jonathan Pugh1 offers a pluralist justice-based argument in support of the UK practice. Pugh’s position is developed to avoid what he sees as flaws with the current debate on insurers’ access to genetic information, including (1) an alleged reliance on idealised assumptions about the predictive power of genetic test results, (2) revisionary implications for the provision of insurance suggested in the debate and (3) failings of commentators to engage adequately with a conception of justice that undergirds the status quo approach in the UK. Pugh suggests that a quasi-libertarian approach to justice is implicit within the terms of the present Code and should be phrased as a principle of equity . Further, he argues that basic egalitarian and non-comparative concerns should be captured in broad principles: equal access and need . This leaves him with three principles that should be balanced in order to guide protection insurance policy. When the argument is applied to review …

Background Concerns have been raised regarding the reasonableness of using personal health responsibility as a principle or criterion for setting priorities in healthcare. While this debate continues, little is known about clinicians’ views on the role of patient responsibility in clinical contexts. This paper contributes to the knowledge on the empirical relevance of personal responsibility for priority setting at the clinical level. Methods A qualitative study of Norwegian clinicians (n = 15) was designed, using semi-structured interviews with vignettes to elicit beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation. Sampling was undertaken purposefully. The interviews were conducted in three hospital trusts in South-Eastern Norway between May 2018 and February 2019 and were analysed with conceptually driven thematic analysis. Results The findings suggest that clinicians endorsed a general principle of personal health responsibility but were reluctant to introduce personal health responsibility as a formal priority setting criterion. Five main objections were cited, relating to avoidability, causality, harshness, intrusiveness, and inequity. Still, both retrospective and prospective attributions of personal responsibility were perceived as relevant in specific clinical settings. The most prominent argument in favour of personal health responsibility was grounded in the idea that holding patients responsible for their conduct would contribute to the efficient use of healthcare resources. Other arguments included fairness to others, desert and autonomy, but such standpoints were controversial and held only marginal relevance. Conclusions Our study provides important novel insights into the clinicians’ beliefs about personal health responsibility improving the empirical knowledge concerning its fairness and potential applications to healthcare prioritisation. These findings suggest that although personal health responsibility would be difficult to implement as a steering criterion within the main priority setting framework, there might be clinical contexts where it could figure in prioritisation practices. Additional research on personal health responsibility would benefit from considering the multiple clinical encounters that shape doctor-patient relationships and that create the information basis for eligibility and prioritisation for treatment.

Background As effective antibiotics are becoming a scarce resource, governmental regulation is needed to promote responsible use. Implementation of antibiotic stewardship and practice guidelines in health care facilities seems to be crucial to this effort. Empirical studies suggest, however, that guidelines have limited influence on health professionals’ behavior and practice. Barriers and facilitators to guideline implementability are much studied, but little attention has been given to health professionals’ perceptions of normative acceptability of guidelines as a condition for compliance. The aim of the present study was first, to examine if and how aspects potentially promoting acceptability and compliance among clinical target users were addressed during development of Norwegian national guidelines for antibiotic use in hospitals and second, to identify procedural characteristics of the development process that were perceived by target users to yield legitimate guidelines. Methods Qualitative deductive thematic analysis was used. A theoretical framework inspired by the AGREE II Instrument and the Accountability for reasonableness framework assisted data gathering and interpretation. Archival data was collected and used to detail the guideline development process. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with eight clinicians with extensive knowledge of the guidelines were carried out. Results Guideline development was characterized by i) broad agreement about scope and purpose, ii) broad involvement of stakeholders in the development process, iii) use of systematic methods to search for and apply evidence, iv) easily identifiable and specific recommendations, v) provision of tools on how to put recommendations into practice, and vi) editorial independence. Several procedural characteristics were perceived by the interviewees as promoting guideline legitimacy; i) diverse perspectives systematically involved in the process, ii) accessibility and transparency of the rationales for decision making, iii) opportunities for appeals and reconsiderations, and iv) regulative authority. Conclusions This study provides insights as to how guidelines that are intended to promote responsible use of antibiotics in hospitals can be carefully developed to facilitate perceptions of relevance, transparency, and authority by health professionals.

Unhealthy lifestyle contributes significantly to the burden of disease. Scarce medical resources that could alternatively be spent on interventions to prevent or cure sufferings for which no one is to blame, are spent on prevention or treatment of (the risk of) disease that could be avoided through individual lifestyle changes. This may encourage policy makers and health care professionals to opt for a criterion of individual responsibility for medical suffering when setting priorities. The following article asks whether responsibility-based reasoning should be accepted as relevant for fair and legitimate healthcare rationing. The luck-egalitarian argument that inequalities in health expectancies that derive from unchosen features of people’s circumstances are unjust and should be compensated, while inequalities that reflect personal choices of lifestyle may not, is discussed. It seems that while a backward-looking interpretation of individual responsibility cannot be relevant as a criterion of priority setting, a forward-looking conception of responsibility may be approved. Within all modern societies healthcare authorities are facing difficult priority setting problems. Various criteria for rationing medical intervention have been proposed due to scarcity of resources. Until now, individual responsibility for medical suffering has been given little attention in the public or in academic debate. This is about to change. As Alexander Cappelen and Ole Norheim have pointed out in a recent article in this journal, unhealthy lifestyle contributes increasingly to the burden of disease. A better understanding of the responsibility argument is important for the assessment of policies aimed at meeting this challenge.1 In this article the following question is addressed: should responsibility-based arguments be accepted as relevant to meeting healthcare rationing fairly and legitimately? I will argue that while a backward-looking conception of individual responsibility should not be endorsed, a forward-looking notion of responsibility may be approved. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons for …

Background: Empirical evidence is growing for the fact that societal conditions are major causes of differences in health across individuals and societies. A positive correlation between socioeconomic status and health outcomes is documented in countries with various welfare arrangements, level of social trust, and health policies. We investigated how the health gradient was affected by healthcare intervention. Methods: Self-reported data on health status after exposure to healthcare intervention was collected by means of a postal survey (2009) to all members of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Association. Response rate was 62 percent. 1666 women aged 40-69 was included in the analysis. In order to create a counterfactual framework, we used propensity score analysis to match each observation in the treatment sample with an observation in a non-treatment sample. The observations were classified into high and low socioeconomic status groups based on information on education and labor market affiliation. Results and conclusion: A social gradient in self-rated health was found. Experience of breast cancer and treatment was shown to have a moderating effect on the gradient. While high-status women on average reported a 0.63 points reduction in health after breast cancer treatment, the corresponding reduction for low status women was 0.32 points. These results lend some support to the hypothesis that individuals from lower status groups may benefit from healthcare more than others due to effects of information and support.

The debate on responsibility for health takes place within political philosophy and in policy setting. It is increasingly relevant in the context of rationing scarce resources as a substantial, and growing, proportion of diseases in high-income countries is attributable to lifestyle. Until now, empirical studies of medical professionals’ attitudes towards personal responsibility for health as a component of prioritisation have been lacking. This paper explores to what extent Norwegian physicians find personal responsibility for health relevant in prioritisation and what type of risk behaviour they consider relevant in such decisions. The proportion who agree that it should count varies from 17.1% (‘Healthcare priority should depend on the patient’s responsibility for the disease’) to 26.9% (‘Access to scarce organ transplants should depend on the patient’s responsibility for the disease’). Higher age and being male is positively correlated with acceptance. The doctors are more willing to consider substance use in priority setting decisions than choices on food and exercise. The findings reveal that a sizeable proportion have beliefs that conflict with the norms stated in the Norwegian Patient Act. It may be possible that the implementation of legal regulations can be hindered by the opposing attitudes among doctors. A further debate on the role personal responsibility should play in priority setting seems warranted. However, given the deep controversies about the concept of health responsibility and its application, it would be wise to proceed with caution. Design Nationally representative cross-sectional study. Setting Panel-data. Participants 1072 respondents, response rate 65%.

Many countries have imposed strict regulations on the genetic information to which insurers have access. Commentators have warned against the emerging body of legislation for different reasons. This paper demonstrates that, when confronted with the argument that genetic information should be available to insurers for health insurance underwriting purposes, one should avoid appeals to rights of genetic privacy and genetic ignorance. The principle of equality of opportunity may nevertheless warrant restrictions. A choice-based account of this principle implies that it is unfair to hold people responsible for the consequences of the genetic lottery, since we have no choice in selecting our genotype or the expression of it. However appealing, this view does not take us all the way to an adequate justification of inaccessibility of genetic information. A contractarian account, suggesting that health is a condition of opportunity and that healthcare is an essential good, seems more promising. I conclude that if or when predictive medical tests (such as genetic tests) are developed with significant actuarial value, individuals have less reason to accept as fair institutions that limit access to healthcare on the grounds of risk status. Given the assumption that a division of risk pools in accordance with a rough estimate of people's level of (genetic) risk will occur, fairness and justice favour universal health insurance based on solidarity.

Background The use of involuntary admission in psychiatry may be necessary to enable treatment and prevent harm, yet remains controversial. Mental health laws in high-income countries typically permit coercive treatment of persons with mental disorders to restore health or prevent future harm. Criteria intended to regulate practice leave scope for discretion. The values and beliefs of staff may become a determinating factor for decisions. Previous research has only to a limited degree addressed how legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric admission are interpreted by clinical decision-makers. We examined clinicians’ interpretations of criteria for involuntary admission under the Norwegian Mental Health Care Act. This act applies a status approach, whereby involuntary admission can be used at the presence of mental disorder and need for treatment or perceived risk to the patient or others. Further, best interest assessments carry a large justificatory burden and open for a range of extra-legislative factors to be considered. Methods Deductive thematic analysis was used. Three ideal types of attitudes-to-coercion were developed, denoted paternalistic, deliberative and interpretive. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 10 Norwegian clinicians with experience from admissions to psychiatric care were carried out. Data was fit into the preconceived analytical frame. We hypothesised that the data would mirror the recent shift from paternalism towards a more human rights focused approach in modern mental health care. Results The paternalistic perspective was, however, clearly expressed in the data. Involuntary admission was considered to be in the patient’s best interest, and patients suffering from serious mental disorder were assumed to lack decision-making capacity. In addition to assessment of need, outcome effectiveness and risk of harm, extra-legislative factors such as patients’ functioning, experience, resistance, networks, and follow-up options were told to influence decisions. Variation in how these multiple factors were taken into consideration was found. Some of the participants’ statements could be attributed to the deliberative perspective, most of which concerned participants’ beliefs about an ideal decision-making situation. Conclusions Our data suggest how a deliberative-oriented ideal of reasoning about legal criteria for involuntary admission lapses into paternalism in clinical decision-making. Supplementary professional guidelines should be developed.