liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Arvidsson, Eva
Publications (10 of 13) Show all publications
Sandman, L., Broqvist, M., Gustavsson, E., Arvidsson, E., Ekerstad, N. & Carlsson, P. (2014). Vård som inte kan anstå: Tolkning i relation till den etiska plattformen och nationella modellen för öppna prioriteringar. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Vård som inte kan anstå: Tolkning i relation till den etiska plattformen och nationella modellen för öppna prioriteringar
Show others...
2014 (Swedish)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [sv]

Metod

Uppdraget från Socialstyrelsen består av tre sammanhängande delar. I den första delen presenteras olika tolkningar av begreppet vård som inte kan anstå utifrån en analys av hur begreppet används i den aktuella propositionen och lagtexten. Dessa tolkningar specificeras i ett antal kriterier. I den andra delen analyseras dessa tolkningar utifrån den etiska plattformen. Den tredje delen syftar till att analysera hur begreppet vård som inte kan anstå förhåller sig till den nationella modellen för öppna prioriteringar inom hälso- och sjukvård och diskutera om denna kan användas för att ge stöd vid prioritering och ransonering. Den teoretiska analysen kompletteras med några exempel på praktiskabeslutssituationer avseende vård av papperslösa hämtade från kliniskt verksamma personer.

Analys

I rapporten har vi formulerat ett antal kriterier som tillämpningen av  begreppet vård som inte kan anstå behöver uppfylla i enlighet med lag 2012/13:407. Dessa kriterier är:

Vårdbehovskriteriet: Personen har ett vårdbehov – d.v.s. det finns en diskrepans mellan önskvärt och aktuellt tillstånd som kan påverkas med en vårdåtgärd.

Begränsningskriteriet: Vårdgivaren får begränsa vården till vård som inte kan anstå för personer som inte är folkbokförda i Sverige och är fyllda 18 år. En sådan begränsning bör baseras på överväganden kring:

  • Svårighetsgraden hos tillståndet (aktuell ohälsa, risk för framtida ohälsa eller särskilda behov utifrån tidigare övergrepp och trauma).
  • Effekten av åtgärden om den ges i nuläget jämfört med om den fördröjs.
  • Kostnadseffektiviteten hos åtgärden om den ges i nuläget jämfört med om den fördröjs.

Begränsade ansvarskriteriet: När begreppet vård som inte kan anstå tillämpas bör vårdgivaren utgå från att personen förväntas vara en begränsad tid i Sverige men behöver inte väga in vad som kommer att hända med personens möjlighet att få vård efter att hen inte längre befinner sig i Sverige.

Alternativt:

Utökade ansvarskriteriet: När begreppet vård som inte kan anstå tillämpas bör vårdgivaren utgå från att personen förväntas vara en begränsad tid i Sverige men bör samtidigt väga in vad som kommer att hända med personens möjlighet att få vård efter att hen inte längre befinner sig i Sverige.

Slutsatser

Utifrån vårdbehovskriteriet drar vi slutsatsen att papperslösa personer som söker vård bör bedömas på ett adekvat sätt vid varje sådant tillfälle för att vårdgivaren ska kunna ta ställning till om det föreligger ett vårdbehov.

Vi drar slutsatsen att begränsningskriteriet strider mot människovärdesprincipen när det gäller begränsning av vård utifrån kronologisk ålder och folkbokföring. Vi drar även slutsatsen att den ransonering av vård som impliceras av begränsningskriteriet inte förefaller baseras på en resursbegränsning, utan på att papperslösa inte har samma rätt till hälso- och sjukvård som den folkbokförda befolkningen.

Vi drar slutsatsen att i valet mellan det begränsade och utökade ansvarskriteriet så är det utökade ansvarskriteriet att föredra. Detta utifrån hänsyn till den etiska plattformen eftersom detta utökade kriterium i större utsträckning tillåter hänsyn till relevanta aspekter som svårighetsgrad, effekt av åtgärd och kostnadseffektivitet på ett sätt som är i linje med hur den folkbokförda befolkningen behandlas. Samtidigt drar vi slutsatsen att ansvarskriteriets tidsbegränsning är svår att förhålla sig till eftersom det i många fall är ytterst osäkert hur länge en person kan befinna sig i Sverige utan nödvändiga tillstånd.

Vi drar slutsatsen att de faktorer som lyfts fram för att avgöra hur vård som inte kan anstå ska avgränsas är i sak desamma som förekommer i den nationella modellen för öppna prioriteringar – d.v.s. svårighetsgraden hos tillståndet (aktuellt och potentiellt), effekten av åtgärden (och hur den utvecklas över tid) samt kostnadseffektivitet. Samtidigt pekar vi på att det finns ett antal motsägelser i avgränsningen av begreppet och i lagen som helhet som strider mot den etiska plattformen och den nationella modellen. Detta rör även de fall när specifika diagnos- eller åtgärdsområden lyfts fram explicit oberoende av hänvisningar till svårighetsgrad, effekt av åtgärd eller kostnadseffektivitet.

Vi drar slutsatsen att även om det är möjligt att peka på några generella kombinationer av svårighetsgrad, effekt av åtgärd och kostnadseffektivitet som kan avgränsa vård som inte kan anstå – så är dessa kombinationer mycket svåra att tillämpa på individnivå. Detta eftersom det är svårt att göra individuella risk och effektbedömningar. När det gäller den folkbokförda befolkningen så är ett normalt förfarande vid bedömning av risk eller effekt att man antingen sätter in behandling för säkerhets skull, eller avvaktar och då har möjlighet som patient att återkomma om tillståndet förvärras eller kan bli föremål för återbesök på vårdgivaren initiativ. Om vårdgivaren bedömer att vården i det fallet kan anstå så finns alltså oftast möjlighet till ny bedömning på patientens eller vårdgivarens initiativ. Eftersom det i fallet med papperslösa personer är mer osäkert om han eller hon kan återkomma för en ny bedömning så kan det förefalla rimligt att oftare sätta in behandling för säkerhets skull i det fallet. Samtidigt måste detta balanseras mot de risker behandlingen kan vara förknippad med och möjligheten att följa upp dessa risker där personen kommer att befinna sig.

Abstract [en]

Method

The assignment from the National Board of Health and Welfare consists of three related parts. Part one presents different interpretations of the concept “care that cannot be deferred” based on an analysis of how the concept is used in the government bill and the wording of the Act. Several criteria are used to specify these interpretations. Part two analyses the interpretations of the concept “care that cannot be deferred” discussed in part one. The analysis is based on the ethics platform for priority setting. Part three aims to analyse how the concept “care that cannot be deferred” relates to the National Model for Transparent Prioritisation in Swedish Health Care and discuss whether it can be used to support prioritisation and rationing. The theoretical analysis is complemented by several examples of practical decision-making situations, as described by clinicians, that involve the care of non-registered individuals.

Analysis

In this report we have formulated several criteria that the concept “care that cannot be deferred” must fulfil according to the law (2012/13:407).

These criteria address: Care need: The individual has a care need – i.e. a discrepancy exists between the desired and actual condition, which can be influenced by a care intervention.

Limitations: The provider may place limitations on “care that cannot be deferred” delivered to non-registered individuals in Sweden and who are 18 years of age or older. Such limitations should be based on considerations involving:

  • Severity of the condition (current ill health, risk for future ill health, or special needs arising from previous assault and trauma).
  • Effect of the intervention if it is provided now compared to deferred intervention.
  • Cost-effectiveness of the intervention if it is provided now compared to deferred intervention.

Limited responsibility: When applying the concept “care that cannot be deferred” the provider should assume that the individual is expected to be in Sweden for a limited time, but it is not necessary to consider the person’s opportunities to receive care once he/she is no longer in Sweden.

Expanded responsibility: When applying the concept “care that cannot be deferred” the provider should assume that the individual is expected to be in Sweden a limited time, but should also consider the person’s opportunities to receive care once he/she is no longer in Sweden.

Conclusions

Based on the care need criterion, we conclude that non-registered individuals who seek care should be adequately evaluated in each case so the provider can determine whether a care need exists.

We conclude that the limited responsibility criterion conflicts with the human dignity principle when it comes to limiting care based on chronological age and national registration. Further we conclude that the rationing of care implied by the limited responsibility criterion does not appear to be based on limited resources, but that the non-registered individual does not have the same right to health services as the nationally registered population does.

We conclude that in choosing between the limited and the expanded responsibility criteria, the latter is preferable in light of the ethical platform since, to a greater extent, the expanded responsibility criterion allows consideration of relevant aspects (e.g. severity level, effect of intervention, and cost effectiveness) similar to the way the registered population is treated. Further, we conclude that the time limitation of the responsibility criteria is difficult to address since in many cases it is highly uncertain how long a person can remain in Sweden without necessary authorisation.

We conclude that the factors presented for determining how to define “care that cannot be deferred” are basically the same as those in the national model for priority setting – i.e. severity of the condition (current and potential), effect of the intervention (and how it changes over time), and cost effectiveness. Concurrently we point to several contradictions in defining the definition, and in the law generally, that conflict with the ethical platform and the national model for priority setting. This includes the cases where specific diagnostic or treatment areas are explicitly noted, regardless of severity level, effect of intervention, or cost effectiveness.

Further, we conclude that it is possible to point to several general combinations of severity level, effect of intervention, and cost effectiveness that can define “care that cannot be deferred” – so these combinations are very difficult to apply at the individual level. The reason is that it is difficult to determine individual risks and effects. As regards the registered population, a normal way to determine risks or effects would be either to provide treatment “for safety’s sake” or to wait, thus providing the opportunity for the patient to return if the  condition deteriorates or for the provider to call the patient for a return visit. If the provider decides that care can be deferred, usually there is an opportunity for a new evaluation at the initiative of the patient or provider. Since it is less certain that patients in the non-registered population can return for a new evaluation, it might seem reasonable to offer treatment more often for safety’s sake. Concurrently, this must be balanced against the risks associated with treatment and the opportunities to follow up on these risks wherever the individual resides.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2014. p. 52
Series
National Center for Priority Setting in Health Care, ISSN 1650-8475 ; 2014:1
Keywords
Prioriteringar inom sjukvården, papperslösa personer, hälso- och sjukvård
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-105393 (URN)
Available from: 2014-03-20 Created: 2014-03-20 Last updated: 2019-06-27Bibliographically approved
Arvidsson, E., André, M., Borgquist, L., Mårtensson, J. & Carlsson, P. (2013). Day-to-day Rationing of Limited Resources in Swedish routine Primary Care: an interview study.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Day-to-day Rationing of Limited Resources in Swedish routine Primary Care: an interview study
Show others...
2013 (English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Background: Rationing is a reality in all health care, but little is known about day-to-day rationing in routine primary health care (PHC). This study aims to explore strategies to handle limited of resources in Swedish routine primary care.

Methods: Data were compiled from 62 interviews with healthcare professionals (general practitioners, nurses, physiotherapists, and managers at primary care centres). A qualitative research method was applied in the analysis.

Results: The interviewed staff described perceptions of a general public with high expectations on PHC in combination with a lack of resources. Strategies to cope with scarce resources were avoiding rationing, ad hoc rationing, or planned rationing. Rationing was largely implicit and not based on ethical principles or other defined criteria. Trying to avoid rationing resulted in unintended rationing. Ad hoc rationing had undesired consequences, e.g. inadequate continuity of care and displacing certain patient groups, especially the chronically ill and the elderly. The staff expressed a need for support and for applicable guidelines, and called for policy statements based on priority decisions to help manage the situation.

Conclusions: The interviews suggested a need to improve the transparency of priority setting procedures in PHC, although the nature of the PHC setting presents special challenges. Improving transparency could, in turn, improve equity and the efficient use of resources in PHC.

National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-88085 (URN)
Available from: 2013-01-29 Created: 2013-01-29 Last updated: 2013-01-29Bibliographically approved
Broqvist, M. & Arvidsson, E. (2013). Prioriteringar initierade på verksamhetsnivå (1:1ed.). In: Per Carlsson och Susanne Waldau (Ed.), Att välja rättvist: om prioriteringar i hälso- och sjukvården (pp. 189-206). Lund: Studentlitteratur
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Prioriteringar initierade på verksamhetsnivå
2013 (Swedish)In: Att välja rättvist: om prioriteringar i hälso- och sjukvården / [ed] Per Carlsson och Susanne Waldau, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2013, 1:1, p. 189-206Chapter in book (Other academic)
Abstract [sv]

Den här boken är avsedd som ett stöd för alla som vill ge sig i kast med frågan om prioriteringar i hälso- och sjukvården. Den diskuterar orsakerna till att riksdagsbeslutet om prioriteringar inte genomförts i hälso- och sjukvården, trots att de etiska principer som prioriteringsordningen vilar på är djupt förankrade hos både vårdpersonal och befolkningen i övrigt. Vidare diskuteras grundläggande begrepp i sammanhanget liksom hälso- och sjukvårdens roll i förhållande till ohälsa och sjukdom i befolkningen. I boken betonas vikten av att många erfarenheter och perspektiv möts i dialogen kring prioriteringsfrågorna. En rad olika metoder och erfarenheter som kan underlätta det gemensamma arbetet presenteras också.Boken är avsedd som ett diskussionsunderlag för de som leder eller deltar i prioriteringssammanhang i landstingens och kommunernas hälso- och sjukvård. Den kan också användas i utbildningen av hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2013 Edition: 1:1
Keywords
Health Priorities, Hälso- och sjukvård -- planering -- ekonomiska aspekter, Prioritering inom sjukvården
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-99341 (URN)978-91-44-08393-3 (ISBN)
Available from: 2013-10-15 Created: 2013-10-15 Last updated: 2014-06-05Bibliographically approved
Arvidsson, E. (2013). Priority Setting and Rationing in Primary Health Care. (Doctoral dissertation). Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Priority Setting and Rationing in Primary Health Care
2013 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Background: Studies on priority setting in primary health care are rare. Priority setting and rationing in primary health care is important because outcomes from primary health care have significant implications for health care costs and outcomes in the health system as a whole.

Aims: The general aim of this thesis has been to study and analyse the prerequisites for priority setting in primary health care in Sweden. This was done by exploring strategies to handle scarce resources in Swedish routine primary health care (Paper I); analysing patients’ attitudes towards priority setting and rationing and patients’ satisfaction with the outcome of their contact with primary health care (Paper II); describing and analysing how general practitioners, nurses, and patients prioritised individual patients in routine primary health care, studying the association between three key priority setting criteria (severity of the health condition, patient benefit, and cost-effectiveness of the medical intervention) and the overall priority assigned by the general practitioners and nurses to individual patients (Paper III); and analysing how the staff, in their clinical practise, perceived the application of the three key priority setting criteria (Paper IV).

Methods: Both qualitative (Paper I and IV) and quantitative (Paper II and III) methods were used. Paper I was an interview study with medical staff at 17 primary health care centres. The data for Paper II and Paper III were collected through questionnaires to patients and staff at four purposely selected health care centres during a 2-week period. Paper IV was a focus group study conducted with staff members who practiced priority setting in day-to-day care.

Results: The process of coping with scarce resources was categorised as efforts aimed to avoid rationing, ad hoc rationing, or planned rationing. Patients had little understanding of the need for priority setting. Most of them did not experience any kind of rationing and most of those who did were satisfied with the outcome of their contact with primary health care. Patients, compared to medical staff, gave relatively higher priority to acute/minor conditions than to preventive check-ups for chronic conditions when prioritising individual patients in day-today primary health care. When applying the three priority setting criteria in day-to-day primary health care, the criteria largely influenced the overall prioritisation of each patient. General practitioners were most influenced by the expected cost-effectiveness of the intervention and nurses were most influenced by the severity of the condition. Staff perceived the criteria as relevant, but not sufficient. Three additional aspects to consider in priority setting in primary health care were identified, namely viewpoint (medical or patient’s), timeframe (now or later) and evidence level (group or individual).

Conclusion: There appears to be a need for, and the potential to, introduce more consistent priority setting in primary health care. The characteristics of primary health care, such as the vast array of health problems, the large number of patients with vague symptoms, early stages of diseases, and combinations of diseases, induce both special possibilities and challenges.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2013. p. 118
Series
Linköping University Medical Dissertations, ISSN 0345-0082 ; 1342
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-88086 (URN)978-91-7519-756-2 (ISBN)
Public defence
2013-01-31, Eken, Universitetssjukhuset, Campus US, Linköpings universitet, Linköping, 09:00 (Swedish)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2013-01-29 Created: 2013-01-29 Last updated: 2013-01-29Bibliographically approved
Arvidsson, E., Andre, M., Borgquist, L., Andersson, D. & Carlsson, P. (2012). Setting priorities in primary health care - on whose conditions? A questionnaire study. BMC Family Practice, 13(114)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Setting priorities in primary health care - on whose conditions? A questionnaire study
Show others...
2012 (English)In: BMC Family Practice, ISSN 1471-2296, E-ISSN 1471-2296, Vol. 13, no 114Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: In Sweden three key criteria are used for priority setting: severity of the health condition; patient benefit; and cost-effectiveness. They are derived from the ethical principles established by the Swedish parliament 1997 but have been used only to a limited extent in primary care. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse: 1) GPs, nurses, and patients prioritising in routine primary care 2) The association between the three key priority setting criteria and the overall priority assigned by the GPs and nurses to individual patients. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanMethods: Paired questionnaires were distributed to all patients and the GPs or nurses they had contact with during a 2-week period at four health centres in Sweden. The staff registered the health conditions or health problem, and the planned intervention. Then they estimated the severity of the health condition, the expected patient benefit, and the cost-effectiveness of the planned intervention. Both the staff and the patients reported their overall prioritisation of the patient. In total, 1851 paired questionnaires were collected. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanResults: Compared to the medical staff, the patients assigned relatively higher priority to acute/minor conditions than to preventive check-ups for chronic conditions. Severity of the health condition was the priority setting criterion that had the strongest association with the overall priority for the staff as a whole, but for the GPs it was cost-effectiveness. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanConclusions: The challenge for primary care providers is to balance the patients demands with medical needs and cost-effectiveness. Transparent priority setting in primary care might contribute to a greater consensus between GPs and nurses on how to use the key priority setting criteria.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2012
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-87966 (URN)10.1186/1471-2296-13-114 (DOI)000312733800001 ()
Note

Funding Agencies|FORSS (Council for Research in Southeast Sweden)||county council of Jonkoping||county council of Kalmar||county council of Ostergotland||Faculty of Health Sciences, Linkoping University||

Available from: 2013-01-28 Created: 2013-01-28 Last updated: 2017-12-06
Arvidsson, E. (2010). Hur tänker patienter och personal vid prioriteringar i primärvården? (föredrag). Paper presented at Läkarstämman.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Hur tänker patienter och personal vid prioriteringar i primärvården? (föredrag)
2010 (Swedish)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-64378 (URN)
Conference
Läkarstämman
Available from: 2011-01-20 Created: 2011-01-20 Last updated: 2011-03-18
Arvidsson, E., André, M., Borgquist, L. & Carlsson, P. (2010). Priority setting in primary health care - dilemmas and opportunities: a focus group study. BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, 11(71)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Priority setting in primary health care - dilemmas and opportunities: a focus group study
2010 (English)In: BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, ISSN 1471-2296, Vol. 11, no 71Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Swedish health care authorities use three key criteria to produce national guidelines for local priority setting: severity of the health condition, expected patient benefit, and cost-effectiveness of medical intervention. Priority setting in primary health care (PHC) has significant implications for health costs and outcomes in the health care system. Nevertheless, these guidelines have been implemented to a very limited degree in PHC. The objective of the study was to qualitatively assess how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses perceive the application of the three key priority-setting criteria. Methods: Focus groups were held with GPs and nurses at primary health care centres, where the staff had a short period of experience in using the criteria for prioritising in their daily work. Results: The staff found the three key priority-setting criteria (severity, patient benefit, and cost-effectiveness) to be valuable for priority setting in PHC. However, when the criteria were applied in PHC, three additional dimensions were identified: 1) viewpoint (medical or patients), 2) timeframe (now or later), and 3) evidence level (group or individual). Conclusions: The three key priority-setting criteria were useful. Considering the three additional dimensions might enhance implementation of national guidelines in PHC and is probably a prerequisite for the criteria to be useful in priority setting for individual patients.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2010
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-61207 (URN)10.1186/1471-2296-11-71 (DOI)000283116400001 ()
Note
Original Publication: Eva Arvidsson, Malin André, Lars Borgquist and Per Carlsson, Priority setting in primary health care - dilemmas and opportunities: a focus group study, 2010, BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, (11), 71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-71 Licensee: BioMed Central http://www.biomedcentral.com/ Available from: 2010-11-05 Created: 2010-11-05 Last updated: 2013-01-29
Arvidsson, E., André, M., Borgquist, L., Lindström, K. & Carlsson, P. (2009). Primary care patients' attitudes to priority setting in Sweden.. Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 27(2), 123-8
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Primary care patients' attitudes to priority setting in Sweden.
Show others...
2009 (English)In: Scandinavian journal of primary health care, ISSN 1502-7724, Vol. 27, no 2, p. 123-8Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVE: To analyse attitudes to priority setting among patients in Swedish primary healthcare. DESIGN: A questionnaire was given to patients comprising statements on attitudes towards prioritizing, on the role of politicians and healthcare staff in prioritizing, and on patient satisfaction with the outcome of their contact with primary healthcare (PHC). SETTINGS: Four healthcare centres in Sweden, chosen through purposive sampling. PARTICIPANTS: All the patients in contact with the health centres during a two-week period in 2004 (2517 questionnaires, 72% returned). MAIN OUTCOMES: Patient attitudes to priority setting and satisfaction with the outcome of their contact. RESULTS: More than 75% of the patients agreed with statements like "Public health services should always provide the best possible care, irrespective of cost". Almost three-quarters of the patients wanted healthcare staff rather than politicians to make decisions on priority setting. Younger patients and males were more positive towards priority setting and they also had a more positive view of the role of politicians. Less than 10% of the patients experienced some kind of economic rationing but the majority of these patients were satisfied with their contact with primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care patient opinions concerning priority setting are a challenge for both politicians and GPs. The fact that males and younger patients are less negative to prioritizing may pave the way for a future dialogue between politicians and the general public.

National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-18972 (URN)10.1080/02813430902883901 (DOI)19466679 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2009-06-07 Created: 2009-06-07 Last updated: 2013-01-29
Arvidsson, E. (2008). Ett dilemma vid prioritering i primärvården: Hur ska man prioritera något som inte inträffat?. In: Läkarstämman,2008.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ett dilemma vid prioritering i primärvården: Hur ska man prioritera något som inte inträffat?
2008 (English)In: Läkarstämman,2008, 2008Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-45318 (URN)81291 (Local ID)81291 (Archive number)81291 (OAI)
Available from: 2009-10-10 Created: 2009-10-10
Arvidsson, E. (2008). Three concepts Swedish GPs and district nurses find useful and a good base for prioritising. In: 7th International Conference on Priorities in Health Care,2008.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Three concepts Swedish GPs and district nurses find useful and a good base for prioritising
2008 (English)In: 7th International Conference on Priorities in Health Care,2008, 2008Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-45323 (URN)81313 (Local ID)81313 (Archive number)81313 (OAI)
Available from: 2009-10-10 Created: 2009-10-10
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications