From political priority to service delivery: Complexities to real-life priority of abortion services in Ethiopia.

Improving access to abortion services has been coined a high priority by the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health. Nevertheless, many women are still struggling to access abortion services. The dedicated commitment to expanding abortion services by central authorities and the difficulties in further improving access to the services make for an interesting case to explore the real-life complexities of health priority setting. This article thus explores what it means to make abortion services a priority by drawing on in-depth interviews with healthcare bureaucrats and key stakeholders working closely with abortion service policy and implementation. Data was collected from February to April 2022. Health bureaucrats from nine of the twelve regional states in Ethiopia and the Federal Ministry of Health were interviewed in addition to key stakeholders from professional organizations and NGOs. The study found that political will and priority to abortion services by central authorities were not necessarily enough to ensure access to the service across the health sector. At the regional and local level, there were considerable challenges with a lack of funding, equipment, and human resources for implementing and expanding access to abortion services. The inadequacy of indicators and reporting systems hindered accountability and made it difficult to give priority to abortion services among the series of health programs and priorities that local health authorities had to implement. The situation was further challenged by the contested nature of the abortion issue itself, both in the general population, but also amongst health bureaucrats and hospital leaders. This study casts a light on the complex and entangled processes of turning national-level priorities into on-the-ground practice and highlights the real-life challenges of setting and implementing health priorities.

Moral distress among physicians in Norway: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and compare physicians' reported moral distress in 2004 and 2021 and identify factors that could be related to these responses. DESIGN: Longitudinal survey. SETTING: Data were gathered from the Norwegian Physician Panel Study, a representative sample of Norwegian physicians, conducted in 2004 and 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 1499 physicians in 2004 and 2316 physicians in 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The same survey instrument was used to measure change in moral distress from 2004 to 2021. Logistic regression analyses examined the role of gender, age and place of work. RESULTS: Response rates were 67% (1004/1499) in 2004 and 71% (1639/2316) in 2021. That patient care is deprived due to time constraints is the most severe dimension of moral distress among physicians, and it has increased as 68.3% reported this 'somewhat' or 'very morally distressing' in 2004 compared with 75.1% in 2021. Moral distress also increased concerning that patients who 'cry the loudest' get better and faster treatment than others. Moral distress was reduced on statements about long waiting times, treatment not provided due to economic limitations, deprioritisation of older patients and acting against one's conscience. Women reported higher moral distress than men at both time points, and there were significant gender differences for six statements in 2021 and one in 2004. Age and workplace influenced reported moral distress, though not consistently for all statements. CONCLUSION: In 2004 and 2021 physicians' moral distress related to scarcity of time or unfair distribution of resources was high. Moral distress associated with resource scarcity and acting against one's conscience decreased, which might indicate improvements in the healthcare system. On the other hand, it might suggest that physicians have reduced their ideals or expectations or are morally fatigued.

Stretching oneself too thin and facing ethical challenges: Healthcare professionals' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUNDS: Most countries are facing increased pressure on healthcare resources. A better understanding of how healthcare providers respond to new demands is relevant for future pandemics and other crises. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore what nurses and doctors in Norway reported as their main ethical challenges during two periods of the COVID-19 pandemic: February 2021 and February 2022. RESEARCH DESIGN: A longitudinal repeated cross-sectional study was conducted in the Western health region of Norway. The survey included an open-ended question about ethical challenges among doctors and nurses in hospital departments. Free-text comments were analysed using Systematic Text Condensation and also presented in a frequency table. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval was granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131,421). All participants provided consent when participating in the study. RESULTS: In 2021, 249 and in 2022, 163 healthcare professionals responded to the open-ended question. Nurses and doctors reported three main categories of ethical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) barriers that hindered them in acting as they ethically would have wanted to do; (2) priority-setting dilemmas linked to overtreatment, transfer of resources and ranking patient needs; and (3) workload expansion threatening work-life balance and employees' health. Category one comprised of resource barriers, regulatory barriers, system barriers, and personal barriers. Regulatory barriers, especially visitor restrictions for next-of-kin, were the most frequently reported in 2021. Resource barriers, related to the increased scarcity of qualified staff, were most frequently reported in 2022. Clinicians stretched themselves thin to avoid compromising on care, diagnostics, or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Developing clinicians' ability to handle and cope with limited healthcare resources is necessary. To foster resilience and sustainability, healthcare leaders, in collaboration with their staff, should ensure fair priority-setting and initiate reflections among doctors and nurses on what it implies to provide 'good enough' care.

Den gylne regel for prioritering av rusbehandling og psykisk helsevern ­ en kvalitativ studie.

BACKGROUND: For many years there has been broad political agreement on prioritising substance use treatment and mental health care in the specialist health service. Between 2014 and 2021, the 'golden rule' applied, meaning that there should be higher relative growth in mental health care and interdisciplinary specialised substance use treatment compared to somatic healthcare services. This study aimed to investigate the understanding among Norwegian health leaders and bureaucrats of the golden rule's role in the prioritisation of resources to the field of substance use and psychiatry in the specialist health service. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The study is based on a one-year ethnographic study of priority-setting in Norwegian health trusts and bureaucracy. Documents, observations of meetings and twelve qualitative in-depth interviews were analysed using a qualitative discourse method. RESULTS: The golden rule contributed to an increased investment in substance use treatment and mental health care in the health trusts, according to health leaders. However, the golden rule was only one of many competing and at times conflicting guidelines they had to take into account. Many factors impeded higher growth in substance use treatment and mental health care compared to somatic health care. Several participants argued that it was impossible to follow the golden rule. The inability to achieve the goal was explained by demographic trends, funding arrangements and lack of follow-up of the rule. INTERPRETATION: Healthcare priorities are set in institutions that have to consider numerous political interests and social mandates. The study's findings illustrate the complexity of practical implementation of political priorities.

Health workers' experience of providing second-trimester abortion care in Ethiopia: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Second-trimester abortions are less common than abortions in the first trimester, yet they disproportionately account for a higher burden of abortion-related mortality and morbidity worldwide. Health workers play a crucial role in granting or denying access to these services, yet little is known about their experiences. Ethiopia has been successful in reducing mortality due to unsafe abortion over the past decade, but access to second trimester abortion remains a challenge. The aim of this study is to better understand this issue by exploring the experiences of second-trimester abortion providers working in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. METHODS: A qualitative study with 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 health workers directly involved in providing second-trimester abortions, this included obstetrician and gynaecologist specialists and residents, general practitioners, nurses, and midwives. Data was collected at four public hospitals and one non-governmental clinic in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and analysed using Malterud's text-condensation method. RESULTS: The providers recognized the critical need for second-trimester abortion services and were motivated by their empathy towards women who often sought care late due to marginalisation and poverty making it difficult to access abortion before the second trimester. However, service provision was challenging according to the providers, and barriers like lack of access to essential drugs and equipment, few providers willing to conduct abortions late in pregnancy and unclear guidelines were commonly experienced. This led to highly demanding working conditions. The providers experienced ethical dilemmas pertaining to the possible viability of the fetus and women desperately requesting the service after the legal limit. CONCLUSIONS: Second-trimester abortion providers faced severe barriers and ethical dilemmas pushing their moral threshold and medical risk-taking in efforts to deliver second-trimester abortions to vulnerable women in need of the service. Effort is needed to minimize health system barriers and improve guidelines and support for second-trimester abortion providers in order to increase access and quality of second-trimester abortion services in Ethiopia. The barriers forcing women into second trimester abortions also need to be addressed.

Duty to treat and perceived risk of contagion during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian physicians' perspectives and experiences-a questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic actualised the dilemma of how to balance physicians´ obligation to treat patients and their own perceived risk of being infected. To discuss this in a constructive way we need empirical studies of physicians´ views of this obligation. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to a representative sample of Norwegian physicians in December 2020. We measured their perceived obligation to expose themselves to infection, when necessary, in order to provide care, concerns about being infected themselves, for spreading the virus to patients or to their families. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The response rate was 1639/2316 (70.9%), 54% women. Of doctors < 70, 60,2% (95% CI 57.7-62.7) acknowledged to some or a large degree an obligation to expose themselves to risk of infection, and 42.0% (39.5-44.5) held this view despite a scarcity of personal protective equipment (PPE). Concern about being infected oneself to some or to a large extent was reported by 42.8% (40.3-45.3), 47.8% (45.3-50.3) reported concern about spreading the virus to patients, and 63.9% (61.5-66.3) indicated worry about spreading it to their families. Being older increased the odds of feeling obligated (ExpB = 1.02 p < 0.001), while experiencing scarcity of PPE decreased the odds (ExpB = 0.74, p = 0.01). The odds of concern about spreading virus to one´s family decreased with higher age (Exp B = 0.97, p < 0.001), increased with being female (Exp B = 1.44, p = 0.004), and perceived lack of PPE (Exp B = 2.25, p < 0.001). Although more physicians working in COVID-exposed specialties experienced scarcity of PPE and reported perceived increased risks for health personnel, the odds of concern about being infected themselves or spreading the virus to their families were not higher than for other doctors. CONCLUSION: These empirical findings lead to the question if fewer physicians in the future will consider the duty to treat their top priority. This underscores the need to revisit and revitalise existing ethical codes to handle the dilemma between physicians´ duty to treat versus the duty to protect physicians and their families. This is important for the ability to provide good care for the patient and the provider in a future pandemic situation.

"Death audit is a fight" - provider perspectives on the ethics of the Maternal and Perinatal Death Surveillance and Response (MPDSR) system in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Maternal and neonatal health are regarded as important indicators of health in most countries. Death auditing through, for example, the Maternal and Perinatal Death Surveillance and Response (MPDSR) is viewed as key to preventing maternal and newborn mortality. However, little is known about the implications of implementing perinatal auditing for healthcare professionals in low-income contexts. This study aimed to explore the ethical and practical consequences clinicians experience concerning MPDSR reporting practices in Ethiopia.  METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured in-depth individual interviews were conducted with 16 healthcare workers across professions at selected facilities in Ethiopia. The interview questions were related to clinicians' experiences with, and perceptions of, death auditing. Their strategies for coping with newborn losses and the related reporting practices were also explored. The material was analyzed following systematic text condensation, and the NVivo11 software was used for organizing and coding the data material. RESULTS: Participants experienced fear of punishment and blame in relation to the perinatal death auditing process. They found that auditing did not contribute to reducing perinatal deaths and that their motivation to stick to the obligation was negatively affected by this. Performing audits without available resources to provide optimal care or support in the current system was perceived as unfair. Some hid information or misreported information in order to avoid accusations of misconduct when they felt they were not to blame for the baby's death. Coping strategies such as engaging in exceedingly larger work efforts, overtreating patients, or avoiding complicated medical cases were described. CONCLUSIONS: Experiencing perinatal death and death reporting constitutes a double burden for the involved healthcare workers. The preventability of perinatal death is perceived as context-dependent, and both clinicians and the healthcare system would benefit from a safe and blame-free reporting environment. To support these healthcare workers in a challenging clinical reality, guidelines and action plans that are specific to the Ethiopian context are needed.

Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences.

BACKGROUND: In the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable. METHODS: In December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors' familiarity with them must improve.

Ethical dilemmas for nursing home doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic. / Etiske dilemmaer for sykehjemsleger under covid-19-pandemien.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents were particularly vulnerable to a serious clinical course of COVID-19. It was therefore decided early in the pandemic that nursing homes needed to be protected through measures such as testing and isolation regimens and restrictions on visiting. This entailed new procedures and guidelines for nursing home doctors. Norwegian and international studies show that the pandemic presented new ethical dilemmas for healthcare staff. The aim of this study was to provide a better understanding of the ethical issues faced by nursing home doctors during the pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Nine semi-structured in-depth interviews with doctors at five nursing homes in Bergen were analysed using Attride-Stirling's thematic network analysis. RESULTS: The doctors told of challenges related to deciding the level of treatment, setting limits for palliative care, adapting visiting restrictions, and assessing the use of coercion with regard to testing and isolation. This entailed difficult ethical considerations whereby doctors were faced with conflicts of interest and value judgements, central to which was consideration for the individual resident versus society. INTERPRETATION: The nursing home doctors in our study found it difficult to find a balance between protecting the residents' autonomy and preventing the spread of infection.

Bedside rationing and moral distress in nephrologists in sub- Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Kidney diseases constitute an important proportion of the non-communicable disease (NCD) burden in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), though prevention, diagnosis and treatment of kidney diseases are less prioritized in public health budgets than other high-burden NCDs. Dialysis is not considered cost-effective, and for those patients accessing the limited service available, high out-of-pocket expenses are common and few continue care over time. This study assessed challenges faced by nephrologists in SSA who manage patients needing dialysis. The specific focus was to investigate if and how physicians respond to bedside rationing situations. METHODS: A survey was conducted among a randomly selected group of nephrologists from SSA. The questionnaire was based on a previously validated survey instrument. A descriptive and narrative approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Among 40 respondents, the majority saw patients weekly with acute kidney injury (AKI) or end-stage kidney failure (ESKF) in need of dialysis whom they could not dialyze. When dialysis was provided, clinical compromises were common, and 66% of nephrologists reported lack of basic diagnostics and medication and > 80% reported high out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Several patient-, disease- and institutional factors influenced who got access to dialysis. Patients' financial constraints and poor chances of survival limited the likelihood of receiving dialysis (reported by 79 and 78% of nephrologists respectively), while a patient's being the family bread-winner increased the likelihood (reported by 56%). Patient and institutional constraints resulted in most nephrologists (88%) frequently having to make difficult choices, sometimes having to choose between patients. Few reported existence of priority setting guidelines. Most nephrologists (74%) always, often or sometimes felt burdened by ethical dilemmas and worried about patients out of hospital hours. As a consequence, almost 46% of nephrologists reported frequently regretting their choice of profession and 26% had considered leaving the country. CONCLUSION: Nephrologists in SSA face harsh priority setting at the bedside without available guidance. The moral distress is high. While publicly funded dialysis treatment might not be prioritized in essential health care packages on the path to universal health coverage, the suffering of the patients, families and the providers must be acknowledged and addressed to increase fairness in these decisions.

Adopting an ethical approach to migration health policy, practice and research.

Migration health is affected by decision making at levels ranging from global to local, both within and beyond the health sector. These decisions impact seeking, entitlements, service delivery, policy making and knowledge production on migration health. It is key that ethical challenges faced by decision makers are recognised and addressed in research and data, clinical practice and policy making on migration health. An ethical approach can provide methods to identify ethical issues, frameworks for systematising information and suggesting ethically acceptable solutions, and guidance on procedural concerns and legitimate decision making processes. By unpacking dilemmas, conflicts of interests and values at stake, an ethical approach is relevant for all who make decisions about migration health policy and practice. Adopting an ethical approach to migration health benefits governments, organisations, policy makers, health workers, data managers, researchers and migrants themselves. First, it highlights the inherent normative questions and trade-offs at stake in migration health. Second, it assists decision makers in deciding what is the ethically justifiable thing to do through an 'all things considered' approach. Third, ethical frameworks and technical guidance set normative and practical standards for decision makers facing ethical questions - from 'bedside rationing' to collection of big data or in policy making - that can ensure that migrants' interests are considered. Fourth, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in decision making, as well as meaningful participation of migrant groups. An ethical approach connects to public health, economic and human rights arguments and highlights the urgent need to mainstream concerns for migrants in global and national health responses.

Priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.

BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic has imposed challenges on healthcare systems and professionals worldwide and introduced a ´maelstrom´ of ethical dilemmas. How ethically demanding situations are handled affects employees' moral stress and job satisfaction. AIM: Describe priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians across medical specialties in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Norway. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional hospital-based survey was conducted from 23 April to 11 May 2020. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131421). FINDINGS: Among the 1606 respondents, 67% had experienced priority-setting dilemmas the previous two weeks. Healthcare workers who were directly involved in COVID-19 care, were redeployed or worked in psychiatry/addiction medicine experienced it more often. Although 59% of the respondents had seen adverse consequences due to resource scarcity, severe consequences were rare. Moral distress levels were generally low (2.9 on a 0-10 scale), but higher in selected groups (redeployed, managers and working in psychiatry/addiction medicine). Backing from existing collegial and managerial structures and routines, such as discussions with colleagues and receiving updates and information from managers that listened and acted upon feedback, were found more helpful than external support mechanisms. Priority-setting guidelines were also helpful. DISCUSSION: By including all medical specialties, nurses and physicians, and various institutions, the study provides information on how the COVID-19 mitigation also influenced those not directly involved in the COVID-19 treatment of patients. In the next stages of the pandemic response, support for healthcare professionals directly involved in outbreak-affected patients, those redeployed or those most impacted by mitigation strategies must be a priority. CONCLUSION: Empirical research of healthcare workers experiences under a pandemic are important to identify groups at risks and useful support mechanisms.

Protecting essential health services in low-income and middle-income countries and humanitarian settings while responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In health outcomes terms, the poorest countries stand to lose the most from these disruptions. In this paper, we make the case for a rational approach to public sector health spending and decision making during and in the early recovery phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on ethics and equity principles, it is crucial to ensure that patients not infected by COVID-19 continue to get access to healthcare and that the services they need continue to be resourced. We present a list of 120 essential non-COVID-19 health interventions that were adapted from the model health benefit packages developed by the Disease Control Priorities project.

'I wanted to go, but they said wait': Mothers' bargaining power and strategies in care-seeking for ill newborns in Ethiopia.

INTRODUCTION: To prevent the 2.6 million newborn deaths occurring worldwide every year, health system improvements and changes in care-taker behaviour are necessary. Mothers are commonly assumed to be of particular importance in care-seeking for ill babies; however, few studies have investigated their participation in these processes. This study explores mothers' roles in decision making and strategies in care-seeking for newborns falling ill in Ethiopia. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in Butajira, Ethiopia. Data were collected during the autumn of 2015 and comprised 41 interviews and seven focus group discussions. Participants included primary care-takers who had experienced recent newborn illness or death, health care workers and community members. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Choices about whether, where and how to seek care for ill newborns were made through cooperation and negotiation among household members. Mothers were considered the ones that initially identified or recognised illness, but their actual opportunities to seek care were bounded by structural and cultural constraints. Mothers' limited bargaining power, contained by financial resources and gendered decision making, shaped their roles in care-seeking. We identified three strategies mothers took on in decision making for newborn illness: (a) acceptance and adaptation (to the lack of options), (b) negotiation and avoidance of advice from others, and (c) active care-seeking and opposition against the husband's or community's advice. CONCLUSION: While the literature on newborn health and parenting emphasizes the key role of mothers in care-seeking, their actual opportunities to seek care are shaped by factors commonly beyond their control. Efforts to promote care-seeking for ill children should recognise that mothers' capabilities to make decisions are embedded in gendered social processes and financial power structures. Thus, policies should not only target individual mothers, but the wider decision making group, including the head of households and extended family.

Importance of systematic deliberation and stakeholder presence: a national study of clinical ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: Case consultation performed by clinical ethics committees (CECs) is a complex activity which should be evaluated. Several evaluation studies have reported stakeholder satisfaction in single institutions. The present study was conducted nationwide and compares clinicians' evaluations on a range of aspects with the CEC's own evaluation. METHODS: Prospective questionnaire study involving case consultations at 19 Norwegian CECs for 1 year, where consultations were evaluated by CECs and clinicians who had participated. RESULTS: Evaluations of 64 case consultations were received. Cases were complex with multiple ethical problems intertwined. Clinicians rated the average CEC consult highly, being both satisfied with the process and perceiving it to be useful across a number of aspects. CEC evaluations corresponded well with those of clinicians in a large majority of cases. Having next of kin/patients present was experienced as predominantly positive, though practised by only half of the CECs. The educational function of the consult was evaluated more positively when the CEC used a systematic deliberation method. CONCLUSIONS: CEC case consultation was found to be a useful service. The study is also a favourable evaluation of the Norwegian CEC system, implying that it is feasible to implement well-functioning CECs on a large scale. There are good reasons to involve the stakeholders in the consultations as a main rule.

Clinical ethics dilemmas in a low-income setting - a national survey among physicians in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Ethical dilemmas are part of medicine, but the type of challenges, the frequency of their occurrence and the nuances in the difficulties have not been systematically studied in low-income settings. The objective of this paper was to map out the ethical dilemmas from the perspective of Ethiopian physicians working in public hospitals. METHOD: A national survey of physicians from 49 public hospitals using stratified, multi-stage sampling was conducted in six of the 11 regions in Ethiopia. Descriptive statistics were used and the responses to the open-ended question "If you have experienced any ethical dilemma, can you please describe a dilemma you have encountered in your own words?" were analyzed using a template analysis process. RESULTS: A total of 587 physicians responded (response rate 91,7%), and 565 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of 24 specified ethically challenging situations were reported to be experienced often or sometimes by more than 50% of the physicians. The most frequently reported challenge concerned resource distribution: 93% agreed that they often or sometimes had to make difficult choices due to resource limitation, and 83% often or sometimes encountered difficulties because patients were unable to pay for the preferred course of treatment. Other frequently reported difficulties were doubts about doing good or harming the patient, relating to conflicting views, concern for family welfare, disclosure issues and caring for patients not able to consent. Few reported dilemmas related to end-of-life issues. The 200 responses to the open-ended question mirrored the quantitative results. DISCUSSION: Ethiopian physicians report ethical challenges related more to bedside rationing and fairness concerns than futility discussions and conflicts about autonomy as described in studies from high-income countries. In addition to the high report of experienced challenges, gravity of the dilemmas that are present in their narratives are striking. Recognition of the everyday experiences of physicians in low-income settings should prompt the development of ethics teaching and support mechanisms, discussion of ethical guidelines as well as increase our focus on how to improve the grave resource scarcity they describe.

When the law makes doors slightly open: ethical dilemmas among abortion service providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, Ethiopia changed its abortion law to curb its high maternal mortality. This has led to a considerable reduction in deaths from unsafe abortions. Abortion is now legal if the woman's pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, if her health is endangered, if the fetus has a serious deformity, if she suffers from a physical or mental deficiency, or if she is under 18 years of age. The word of the woman, if in compliance with the law, is sufficient to qualify for an abortion. In this context, where the law makes the door slightly open, health workers become important in deciding who gets access to safe services and who doesn't, thus creating considerable ethical dilemmas. METHODS: The objective of this study was to explore abortion service providers' personal experiences and reflections, perceptions of the abortion law, and ethical and dilemmas that arise. Data collection took place from March to May 2016 in Addis Ababa, at different health clinics providing abortion services. Thirty in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 41 abortion service providers at governmental and non-governmental clinics. Content analysis was drawn upon in the interpretation of the findings. RESULTS: When working in a context where the law has slightly opened the door for abortion seeking women, the health workers describe conflicting concerns, burdensome responsibilities, and ambiguity concerning how to interpret and implement the law. They describe efforts to balance their religious faith and values against their professional obligations and concern for women's health and well-being. This negotiation is particularly evident in the care of women who fall outside the law's indications. They usually handle ethical dilemmas and decision-making alone without guidance. Moreover, many health workers face a stigma from fellow colleagues not performing abortions and therefore keep their job a secret from family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Health workers in Ethiopia experience ethical dilemmas trying to maneuver between the abortion law, their personal values, and their genuine concern for the health of women. More research is needed to further explore this.

Bedside Rationing Under Resource Constraints-A National Survey of Ethiopian Physicians' Use of Criteria for Priority Setting.

In low-income settings resource constraints force clinicians to make harsh choices. We examine the criteria Ethiopian physicians use in their bedside rationing decisions through a national survey at 49 public hospitals in Ethiopia. Substantial variation in weight given to different criteria were reported by the 587 participating physicians (response rate 91.7%). Young age, primary prevention, or the patient being the family's economic provider increased likelihood of offering treatment to a patient, while small expected benefit or low chance of success diminished likelihood. More than 50% of responding physicians were indifferent to patient's position in society, unhealthy behavior, and residence, while they varied widely in weight they gave to patient's poverty, ability to work, and old age. While the majority of Ethiopian physicians reported allocation of resources that was compatible with national priorities, more contested criteria were also frequently reported. This might affect distributional justice and equity in health care access.

Financial risk protection at the bedside: How Ethiopian physicians try to minimize out-of-pocket health expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket health expenditures can pose major financial risks, create access-barriers and drive patients and families into poverty. Little is known about physicians' role in financial protection of patients and families at the bedside in low-income settings and how they perceive their roles and duties when treating patients in a health care system requiring high out-of-pocket costs. OBJECTIVE: Assess physicians' concerns regarding financial welfare of patients and their families and analyze physicians' experiences in reducing catastrophic health expenditures for patients in Ethiopia. METHOD: A national survey was conducted among physicians at 49 public hospitals in six regions in Ethiopia. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Totally 587 physicians responded (response rate 91%) and 565 filled the inclusion criteria. Health care costs driving people into financial crisis and poverty were witnessed by 82% of respondants, and 88% reported that costs for the patient are important when deciding to use or not use an intervention. Several strategies to save costs for patients were used: 37-79% of physicians were doing this daily or weekly through limiting prescription of drugs, limiting radiologic studies, ultrasound and lab tests, providing second best treatments, and avoiding admission or initiating early discharge. Overall, 75% of the physicians reported that ongoing and future costs to patients influenced their decisions to a greater extent than concerns for preserving hospital resources. CONCLUSION: In Ethiopia, a low-income country aiming to move towards universal health coverage, physicians view themselves as both stewards of public resources, patient advocates and financial protectors of patients and their families. Their high concern for family welfare should be acknowledged and the economic and ethical implications of this practice must be further explored.

Country contextualisation of cost-effectiveness studies: lessons from Ethiopia.

Emerging demographic, epidemiological and health system changes in low-income countries require revisions of national essential health services packages in accordance with standard healthcare priority setting methods. Policy makers are in need of explicit and user-friendly methods to compare impact of multiple interventions. We provide experiences of country contextualisation of WHO-CHOICE methods and models to a country level. Results from three contextualised cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are presented, and we discuss how this evidence can inform priority setting in Ethiopia. Existing models for a range of interventions in obstetric and neonatal care, psychiatric and neurological treatment and prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases are contextualised to the Ethiopian setting. CEAs are defined as contextualised if they include national analysts and use country-specific input for either costs, epidemiology, demography, baseline coverage or effects. Interventions (n=61) are ranked according to incremental cost-effectiveness rates (ICERs), and expected health outcomes (Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) averted) and budget impacts are presented for each intervention. Dominated interventions (n=30) were excluded. A US$2.8 increase per capita in the annual health budget is needed in Ethiopia (currently at US$28 per capita) for increasing coverage by 20%-75% for all the 22 interventions with positive net health benefits. This investment is expected to give a net benefit at around 0.5 million DALYs averted in return in total, with a willingness to pay threshold at US$2000 per DALY averted. In particular, three interventions, neonatal resuscitation, kangaroo mother care and antibiotics for newborn sepsis, stand out as best buys in an Ethiopian setting. Our method of contextualised CEAs provides important information for policy makers. Rank ordering of interventions by ICERs, together with presentations of expected budget impact and net health benefits, is a clear and policy friendly illustration of possible efficient stepwise pathways towards universal health coverage.