Patients' perspectives on ethical principles to fairly allocate scarce surgical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a Q-methodology study.

Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals were faced with prioritisation dilemmas due to limited surgical capacity. While the views of healthcare professionals on fair allocation have been given considerable attention, the views of patients have been overlooked. To address this imbalance, our study aimed to identify which ethical principles are most supported by patients regarding the fair allocation of surgical resources.
Design: A Q-methodology study was conducted. Participants ranked ordered 20 statements covering different viewpoints on fair allocation according to their point of view, followed by an interview. Principal component analysis followed by varimax rotation was used to identify subgroups who broadly agreed in terms of their rankings.
Setting: The setting of this study was in the Netherlands.
Participants: 16 patient representatives were purposively sampled.
Results: Two perspectives were identified, both of which supported utilitarianism. In perspective 1, labelled as 'clinical needs and outcomes', resource allocation should aim to maximise the health gains based on individual patient characteristics. In perspective 2, labelled as 'population outcomes and contribution to society', allocation should maximise health gains as with perspective 1, but this should also consider societal gains.
Conclusions: There was a broad agreement among patient representatives that utilitarianism should be the guiding ethical principle for fair allocation of scarce surgical resources. The insights gained from this study should be integrated into policymaking and prioritisation strategies in future healthcare crises.
Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.
(© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)