Previous studies of community attitudes to pandemic and/or disaster triage
| Study | Description | Key findings relevant to triage |
| Ritvo et al45 | Canadian telephone survey administered in 2009 to a random sample of 500 Canadians to obtain opinions on key ethical issues in pandemic preparedness planning | Mortality reduction, with priority to children, healthcare workers infected while serving patients, the sickest patients and adults with dependents |
| Vawter et al46 | Minnesota public engagement initiative taking place in 2009 | Keyworkers should not be prioritised. Refrain from rationing ventilators based on differences in socioeconomic status, quality of life, life expectancy or first-come, first-served |
| Li-Vollmer47 | Washington state public engagement meetings conducted from 2008 to 2009 | Prioritisation of medical services should aim to save the greatest number of people, factoring in survivability of those treated, even if standards of care must be lowered. Priority also to first responders and healthcare workers, with children and pregnant women given some priority when all other factors are equal. Overwhelming rejection of ‘first come, first served’ as a basis for determining access to scarce, life-sustaining medical resources |
| Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services48 | Report on the views of citizens from Harris Country Texas on distributing scarce healthcare resources (vaccines, anti-virals and ventilators) during a pandemic | Priority based on likelihood of recovery (occupation and age were given the lowest level of importance) |
| Silva et al49 | Three public town hall meetings across Canada exploring perspectives on priority setting during an influenza pandemic | Life expectancy and socioeconomic status should not be considerations in allocating ventilators during an influenza pandemic |
| Diederich et al35 | Germany-based survey on age as a criterion for setting priorities in healthcare | Found little evidence that age is accepted by the German public as a criterion relevant to prioritising healthcare |
| Daugherty Biddison et al19 | Maryland-based pilot study in 2012 | Those most likely to survive and those who are valuable to others in a pandemic |
| Krütli et al50 | Switzerland-based survey conducted between Dec 2013 and May 2014 using hypothetical situations of scarcity regarding (1) donor organs, (2) hospital beds during an epidemic and (3) joint replacements | ‘Sickest first’ was prioritised. ‘Lottery’, ‘reciprocity’, ‘instrumental value’ and ‘monetary contribution’ were considered very unfair allocation principles |
| Biddison et al20 | Conducted in 2012 and 2014, Maryland residents’ views on allocating scarce ventilators during an influenza pandemic | Priority based on short-term and long-term survival, though not exclusively; concerns raised about withdrawal of a ventilator in order to benefit another patient |
| Schoch-Spana et al33 | Texas-based public engagement initiative | Those most likely to survive the current illness and those who will live longer, with emphasis on parents with dependents, and children |
| Huang et al36 | US-based, conducted in 2020 using veil-of-ignorance reasoning in COVID-19 ventilator dilemmas | Prioritised younger over older patients with COVID-19 |
| Buckwalter and Peterson34 | US-based survey conducted in 2020 investigating public attitudes toward allocating scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic | Priority-based survival chance and on seriousness of condition, but not when these entail reallocation between existing patients, or when they disadvantage at risk groups |