Health inequalities and regional specific scarcity in primary care physicians: Ethical issues and criteria
International Journal of Public Health, ISSN: 1420-911X, Vol: 59, Issue: 3, Page: 449-455
2014
- 8Citations
- 38Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations8
- Citation Indexes7
- CrossRef4
- Policy Citations1
- 1
- Captures38
- Readers38
- 38
Article Description
Objectives: A substantial body of evidence supports the beneficial health impact of an increase in primary care physicians for underserved populations. However, given that in many countries primary care physician shortages persist, what options are available to distribute physicians and how can these be seen from an ethical perspective? Methods: A literature review was performed on the topic of primary care physician distribution. An ethical discussion of conceivable options for decision makers that applied prominent theories of ethics was held. Results: Examples of distributing primary care physicians were categorised into five levels depending upon levels of incentive or coercion. When analysing these options through theories of ethics, contrasting, and even controversial, moral issues were identified. However, the different morally salient criteria identified are of prima facie value for decision makers. Conclusions: The discussion provides clear criteria for decision makers to consider when addressing primary care physician shortages. Yet, decision makers will still need to assess specific situations by these criteria to ensure that any decisions they make are morally justifiable. © 2013 Swiss School of Public Health.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84901365480&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-013-0497-7; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23880912; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00038-013-0497-7; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-013-0497-7; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-013-0497-7
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know