ABSTRACT
Background The recent COVID-19 pandemic made us aware that medical resources are limited. When demand for essential resources surpasses availability, difficult triaging decisions are necessary. While algorithms exist, almost nothing is known on societal attitudes regarding triage criteria.
Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted via social media channels to query a broad sample of society. Participants were asked to make triage decisions in case-based vignettes, exploring a variety of factors. They also were asked to assess how sure they were about their decisions, and how such decisions should be reached.
Results The survey was completed in full by 1626 participants in April 2020. Median age was 39 years (range 12-80 years), 984 (61%) were female. Patient prognosis, responsibility towards others, the absence of behavior-induced co-morbidities, and younger age were rated the most important triage criteria, while participants found that insurance status, social status, and nationality should not play a substantial role. Ethics-committees and point systems were regarded potentially helpful for triage decision-making, while decisions based on order of presentation (first-come first-serve) or on a legal basis were viewed critically. Participants were least sure about their decision when dealing with age or behavior-induced co-morbidities. Overall, women were surer about their decisions than men, participants of Christian faith were also more secure about their decision than atheists-agnostics.
Conclusions This study uses social media to generate insight into public opinion and attitudes regarding triage criteria and modalities. These findings may be helpful for the development of future medical triage algorithms.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The work of NWP regarding concepts of rationing was partly funded through the DFG-grant Graduiertenkolleg 2015/2, Research Training Group Life Sciences - Life Writing. Other work is based on intramural funding.
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:
This study is exempt from IRB approval by local laws, as determined by the ethics board of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate.
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
All data relevant to the study is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
