Article Text

Download PDFPDF

78:oral The fair allocation of scarce medical resources: a comparative study from Jordan
  1. Muhannad Yousef1,
  2. Yazan AlHalaseh2,
  3. Razan Mansour3,
  4. Hala Sultan1,
  5. Naseem Al-Nadi1,
  6. Ahmad Maswadeh1,
  7. Yasmeen Shebli1,
  8. Raghda Sinokrot1,
  9. Khawlah Ammar3,
  10. Asem Mansour4,5,
  11. Maysa Al-Hussaini5,6
  1. 1University of Jordan, School of Medicine, Amman, Jordan
  2. 2Department of Internal Medicine, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan
  3. 3Research Assistant, Office of Scientific Affairs and Research, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan
  4. 4Director General. King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan
  5. 5Human Research Protection Program, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan
  6. 6Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan


Objective Several studies have analyzed allocation strategies among different society groups based on 9 allocation principles; sickest-first, waiting list, prognosis, youngest-first, instrumental values, lottery, monetary contribution, reciprocity and individual behavior. Sometimes combinations, youngest-first and prognosis for example, can be considered. Our aim was to study the most important prioritization principles groups in Jordan.

Methods An online survey handling 3 situations of medical scarcity; (1) organ donation, (2) limited hospital beds during influenza epidemic, and (3) allocation of novel therapeutics for lung cancer, and a free comment option constituted the survey.

Results Seven hundreds and fifty-four responses were analyzed from five groups including religion scholars, physicians, medical students, health allied practitioners and lay people. The most important priority principle was ‘Sickest-First’ for the three scenarios among the surveyed groups, except for physicians in the first scenario where ‘Sickest-First’ and ‘Combination-criteria’ were of equal importance. In general, there were no differences between the examined groups compared to lay people in the preference of options for all scenarios, however physicians were more likely to choose the ‘Combination-criteria’ in both the second and third scenarios (OR 3.70, 95% CI = 1.62-8.44, and 2.62, 95% CI = 1.48-4.59; p-value = 0.00, 0.00 respectively), and were less likely to choose the ‘sickest-first’ as the single most important priority principle (OR 0.57, CI = 0.37-0.88, and 0.57; 95% CI=0.36-0.88; p-value = 0.01, 0.01 respectively). Out of 100 free-comments, 27 (27.0%) thought the ‘social-value’ of the patients should be considered, adding the 10th potential allocation principle.

Conclusion Our findings are concordant with literature in terms of allocating scarce medical resources. However, ‘social-value’ should be addressed when prioritizing scarce medical resources in Jordan, and probably other LMICs.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: .

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.