Eli Feiring

• Feiring, Eli & Sergeeva, Angelina A. (2026). Perspectives on the use of coercion in highly specialised rehabilitation: a focus group study. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening (Tidsskriftet). ISSN 0029-2001. 146(9). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.25.0228. Full text in Research Archive
• Kellner, Adrian; Feiring, Eli & Hagen, Terje P. (2026). Trust during COVID-19: comparing two high-trust countries with different pandemic strategies. Health Policy and Technology. ISSN 2211-8837. 15(3), p. 101170–101170. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2026.101170. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Objectives: Sweden and Norway, two high-trust countries sharing many cultural similarities, adopted notably different strategies in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. While Sweden relied on a mitigation strategy emphasising individual responsibility, Norway swiftly imposed strict restrictions. This study aimed to examine whether levels of political and social trust differed between the two countries, whether trust changed from before to after the pandemic, and whether any changes differed between the countries in ways consistent with their divergent pandemic strategies. Methods: We analysed data from the repeated cross-sectional European Social Survey (ESS) covering rounds from 2018/19 and 2022/23 to assess levels and changes in political and social trust in Sweden and Norway. In parallel, we used data from the VaxPref survey (2022–2023), a cross-sectional survey, to examine how trust in public health authorities, newspapers, and social media related to COVID-19 infection and individual characteristics. Variation in trust was analysed using ordinary least squares regression models. Results: Political and social trust were high in both countries, though consistently higher in Norway than in Sweden both before and after the pandemic. Trust levels remained stable over time in both countries, with no significant changes between the pre-pandemic and post-pandemic periods. We found no differential trends between Sweden and Norway that could be attributed to their different pandemic strategies. COVID-19 infection was not associated with trust levels in either country. Conclusion: Despite their markedly different pandemic management strategies, both countries exhibited stable levels of political and social trust throughout the period studied. The findings suggest a sustained rally-around-the-flag effect in both high-trust societies, indicating that the choice of pandemic strategy, whether strict lockdowns or voluntary compliance, did not undermine trust in institutions or fellow citizens.

• Antonini, Marcello; Singh, Renu; Torbica, Alessia Melegaro Aleksandra; Ward, Jeremy Keith; Berardi, Chiara & Attwell, Katie [Show all 15 contributors for this article] (2026). Democracy, Trust, and Political Orientation: Disentangling Mechanisms Shaping Individuals’ Vaccine Attitudes. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law. ISSN 0361-6878. 51(1), p. 45–82. doi: 10.1215/03616878-12166725. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Context: In recent decades, many countries experienced a reduction in the quality and functioning of democratic institutions and norms accompanied by rising social distrust and opposing political views. The decline in vaccine confidence might be linked to these trends. This study explores the political factors influencing individual attitudes toward vaccination across 22 upper-middleincome and high-income countries, examining the interaction between political orientation, trust in public health authorities, and levels of democracy. Methods: The authors used the VaxPref database, encompassing demographically representative data from 50,242 respondents collected between July 2022 and June 2023, to conduct an analysis on three levels: pooled sample, democracy groups, and country-specific analyses. Results: The authors found that higher democracy scores generally correlated with lower levels of vaccine skepticism. People in the political center and on the political right expressed more skepticism toward vaccines overall. However, trust in public health authorities emerged as the determinant that explains the largest variation in vaccine attitudes. Conclusions: These findings suggest a greater effectiveness of democratic systems in fostering vaccine confidence and the need to depoliticize vaccination efforts. Building and maintaining trust in scientific information and technical expertise is critical. Blunt measures like vaccination mandates may not sustain long-term confidence, particularly in democratic contexts. Effective interventions should prioritize comprehensive school-based education to promote preventive health behaviors coupled with targeted trust-enhancing communication strategies.

• Hagen, Terje P. & Feiring, Eli (2025). Health Policy Reforms for Three Decades. In Kolltveit, Kristoffer; Allern, Elin Haugsgjerd; Braut-Hegghammer, Målfrid & Rasch, Bjørn Erik (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Norwegian Politics. Oxford University Press. ISSN 9780198888581. p. 590–604. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198888581.013.0031. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This chapter examines Norway’s semi-decentralized national health service system, with municipalities responsible for primary health care and social services and with specialist care administered by state-owned regional health authorities. The provision of services free of charge has led to a significant demand that often surpasses the supply capacity. To address this issue, rationing is implemented through various mechanisms, primarily through allocating predominantly global budgets to regional health authorities and municipalities. In addition, Norway has adopted an explicit priority-setting approach for resource allocation within the health-care sector. Together with the use of ‘top-up’ economic incentives, this approach has helped reduce the problem of long waiting times, which is prevalent in many countries with tax-based health insurance. However, critics argue that models reliant on economic incentives have overshadowed traditional principles of accountability based on trust, and we now observe a reduction of these incentives and a search for alternatives.

• Torjusen, Marius Lamberg; Feiring, Eli; Barra, Mathias; Vøllestad, Nina Køpke & Solberg, Carl Tollef (2024). Priority Setting in Norwegian Municipal and Health Care Services: A Thematic Analysis of Public Consultation Documents. Tidsskrift for omsorgsforskning. ISSN 2387-5976. 10(2), p. 124–137. doi: 10.18261/tfo.10.2.9. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Despite Norway’s long history of open priority setting in healthcare, formal priority setting in municipal health and care services had been lacking prior to the publication of a Norwegian official report (English: Green paper, Norwegian: NOU) on the topic in 2018 (the Blankholm report). This article examines the reception of the report’s proposals from different stakeholders. Methods: We analysed 123 public consultation documents on the Blankholm report using a combined deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The consultation bodies represented the views of stakeholders, including patient and professional organisations, directorates, academic institutions, hospitals, and municipalities. Results: Our analysis resulted in two main themes: 1) Concerns about whether the proposed criteria are fit for purpose and 2) Concerns about infringing upon the principle of municipal autonomy and scepticism regarding whether the proposed priority setting process will enhance municipal services. Conclusion: Although there is acceptance for the necessity of priority setting, several issues remain. These issues relate to the proposals' lack of definition, the complexity of municipal health and care services, and a distrust between municipalities and the central government.

• Fystro, Joar Røkke & Feiring, Eli (2023). Mapping out the arguments for and against patient non-attendance fees in healthcare: An analysis of public consultation documents. Journal of Medical Ethics. ISSN 0306-6800. 49(12), p. 844–849. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108856. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background Patients not attending their appointments without giving notice burden healthcare services. To reduce non-attendance rates, patient non-attendance fees have been introduced in various settings. Although some argue in narrow economic terms that behavioural change as a result of financial incentives is a voluntary transaction, charging patients for non-attendance remains controversial. This paper aims to investigate the controversies of implementing patient non-attendance fees. Objective The aim was to map out the arguments in the Norwegian public debate concerning the introduction and use of patient non-attendance fees at public outpatient clinics. Methods Public consultation documents (2009–2021) were thematically analysed (n=84). We used a preconceived conceptual framework based on the works of Grant to guide the analysis. Results A broad range of arguments for and against patient non-attendance fees were identified, here referring to the acceptability of the fees’ purpose, the voluntariness of the responses, the effects on the individual character and institutional norms and the perceived fairness and comparative effectiveness of patient non-attendance fees. Whereas the aim of motivating patients to keep their appointments to avoid poor utilisation of resources and increased waiting times was widely supported, principled and practical arguments against patient non-attendance fees were raised. Conclusion A narrow economic understanding of incentives cannot capture the breadth of arguments for and against patient non-attendance fees. Policy makers may draw on this insight when implementing similar incentive schemes. The study may also contribute to the general debate on ethics and incentives.

• Fystro, Joar Røkke & Feiring, Eli (2023). Policy-makers' conception of patient non-attendance fees in specialist healthcare: a qualitative document analysis. BMJ Open. 13(11). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077660. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Objectives: Patients missing their scheduled appointments in specialist healthcare without giving notice can undermine efficient care delivery. To reduce patient non-attendance and possibly compensate healthcare providers, policy-makers have noted the viability of implementing patient non-attendance fees. However, these fees may be controversial and generate public resistance. Identifying the concepts attributed to non-attendance fees is important to better understand the controversies surrounding the introduction and use of these fees. Patient non-attendance fees in specialist healthcare have been extensively debated in Norway and Denmark, two countries that are fairly similar regarding political culture, population size and healthcare system. However, although Norway has implemented a patient non-attendance fee scheme, Denmark has not. This study aimed to identify and compare how policy-makers in Norway and Denmark have conceptualised patient non-attendance fees over three decades. Design: A qualitative document study with a multiple-case design. Methods: A theory-driven qualitative analysis of policy documents (n=55) was performed. Results: Although patient non-attendance fees were seen as a measure to reduce non-attendance rates in both countries, the specific conceptualisation of the fees differed. The fees were understood as a monetary disincentive in Norwegian policy documents. In the Danish documents, the fees were framed as an educative measure to foster a sense of social responsibility, as well as serving as a monetary disincentive. The data suggest, however, a recent change in the Danish debate emphasising fees as a disincentive. In both countries, fees were partly justified as a means of compensating providers for the loss of income. Conclusions: The results demonstrate how, as a regulative policy tool, patient non-attendance fees have been conceptualised and framed differently, even in apparently similar contexts. This suggests that a more nuanced and complex understanding of why such fees are debated is needed.

• Kellner, Adrian; Martinussen, Pål Erling & Feiring, Eli (2023). Don't stand so close to me: Perceptions of others’ compliance with COVID-19 recommendations and support for strict policy measures in Norway. Health Policy. ISSN 0168-8510. 136. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104899. Full text in Research Archive
• Hagstuen, Per Ove & Feiring, Eli (2023). Rollen som kommuneoverlege etter pandemien – en kvalitativ studie. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening (Tidsskriftet). ISSN 0029-2001. 143(12). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.23.0039. Full text in Research Archive
• Fystro, Joar Røkke; Hofmann, Bjørn Morten & Feiring, Eli (2022). On the person in personal health responsibility. BMC Medical Ethics. 23(1). doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00802-y. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In this paper, we start by comparing the two agents, Ann and Bob, who are involved in two car crashes. Whereas Ann crashes her car through no fault of her own, Bob crashes as a result of reckless driving. Unlike Ann, Bob is held criminally responsible, and the insurance company refuses to cover the car’s damages. Nonetheless, Ann and Bob both receive emergency hospital treatment that a third party covers, regardless of any assessment of personal responsibility. What warrants such apparent exceptionalism with respect to personal responsibility in the healthcare context? We turn our attention to an understudied aspect of the debate on personal health responsibility, namely, the conceptualisation of the person in need of emergency hospital treatment. Drawing on the research of Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols, we propose that a context-dependent conceptualisation of the person may help explain a reluctance to ascribe responsibility to the individual for negative health outcomes.

• Kjelsnes, Ashwanee A. & Feiring, Eli (2022). Models of integrated care for older people with frailty: a horizon scanning review. BMJ Open. 12(4). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060142. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Objectives Frailty, a multifaceted geriatric condition, is an emerging global health problem. Integrated care models designed to meet the complex needs of the older people with frailty are required. Early identification of innovative models may inform policymakers and other stakeholders of service delivery alternatives they can introduce and locally adapt so as to tackle system fragmentation and lack of coordination. This study used horizon scanning methodologies to systematically search for, prioritise and assess new integrated care models for older people with frailty and investigated experts’ views on barriers and facilitators to the adoption of horizon scanning in health services research. Methods A four-step horizon scanning review was performed. Frailty-specific integrated care models and interventions were identified through a review of published literature supplemented with grey literature searches. Results were filtered and prioritised according to preset criteria. An expert panel focus group session assessed the prioritised models and interventions on innovativeness, impact and potential for implementation. The experts further evaluated horizon scanning for its perceived fruitfulness in aiding decision-making. Results Nine integrated care models and interventions at system level (n=5) and community level (n=4) were summarised and assessed by the expert panel (n=7). Test scores were highest for the Walcheren integrated care model (system-based model) and EuFrailSafe (community-based intervention). The participants stated that horizon scanning as a decision-making tool could aid in assessing knowledge gaps, criticising the status quo and developing new insights. Barriers to adoption of horizon scanning on individual, organisational and wider institutional level were also identified. Conclusion Study findings demonstrated that horizon scanning is a potentially valuable tool in the search for innovative service delivery models. Further studies should evaluate how horizon scanning can be institutionalised and effectively used for serving this purpose.

• HAIG, YLVA & Feiring, Eli (2022). Stakeholder views of the development of a clinical quality registry for interventional radiology: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research. 22(44). doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07423-y. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background Clinical quality registries (CQRs) can likely improve quality in healthcare and research. However, studies indicate that effective use of CQRs is hindered by lack of engagement and interest among stakeholders, as well as factors related to organisational context, registry design and data quality. To fulfil the potential of CQRs, more knowledge on stakeholders’ perceptions of the factors that will facilitate or hamper the development of CQRs is essential to the more appropriate targeting of registry implementation and the subsequent use of the data. The primary aim of this study was to examine factors that can potentially affect the development of a national CQR for interventional radiology in Norway from the perspective of stakeholders. Furthermore, we wanted to identify the intervention functions likely to enable CQR development. Only one such registry, located in Sweden, has been established. To provide a broader context for the Norwegian study, we also sought to investigate experiences with the development of this registry. Methods A qualitative study of ten Norwegian radiologists and radiographers using focus groups was conducted, and an in-depth interview with the initiator of the Swedish registry was carried out. Questions were based on the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation for Behaviour Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. The participants’ responses were categorised into predefined themes using a deductive process of thematic analysis. Results Knowledge of the rationale used in establishing a CQR, beliefs about the beneficial consequences of a registry for quality improvement and research and an opportunity to learn from a well-developed registry were perceived by the participants as factors facilitating CQR development. The study further identified a range of development barriers related to environmental and resource factors (e.g., a lack of organisational support, time) and individuallevel factors (e.g., role boundaries, resistance to change), as well as several intervention functions likely to be appropriate in targeting these barriers. Conclusion This study provides a deeper understanding of factors that may be involved in the behaviour of stakeholders regarding the development of a CQR. The findings may assist in designing, implementing and evaluating a methodologically rigorous CQR intervention.

• Nilsen, Heidi & Feiring, Eli (2022). Local public health projectification in practice: a qualitative study of facilitators and barriers to a public health plan implementation. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. ISSN 1403-4948. doi: 10.1177/14034948221080402. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Aims: To identify factors perceived by local government employees to affect the implementation of a municipal public health plan. Methods: Qualitative individual interviews ( n=13) were carried out. Participants were sampled from three districts in Oslo municipality, Norway, and asked about their experiences with an ongoing implementation of the Oslo Public Health Plan (2017–2020). The conceptual framework of public sector projectification – a growing reliance on project organisation of policies – informed the study. The consolidated framework for implementation research was used to aid data coding and subsequent thematic analysis. Results: Implementation facilitators included factors perceived to support flexibility, including plan adaptability to the local setting, and factors perceived to enable structure and control during the implementation process, such as the articulation of specific goals and a shared understanding of public health work. Barriers were mainly related to complex aspects of the plan, such as the need to involve multiple stakeholders and levels of governance, and to tensions between the time-limited implementation process and the permanent organisational structures. Conclusions: This study has demonstrated how research-based methods can be used for the evaluation of a local community implementation process. It has identified implementation determinants using a predetermined taxonomy of operationally defined factors that are likely to influence implementation. However, while implementing a time-limited public health plan can be seen as ‘taking action’ in relation to multidimensional and complex problems, further research is needed to investigate whether plan implementation has a long-term impact on the surrounding organisation and, eventually, on public health outcomes.

• Håvi, Gry; Feiring, Eli & Opheim, Randi (2022). «Mer enn bare en håndlanger»: oppfatninger om sykepleierens betydning for kvalitet ved koloskopi. Sykepleien Forskning. ISSN 1890-2936. 17. doi: 10.4220/Sykepleienf.2022.90030. Full text in Research Archive
• Waggestad-Stoa, Malin Nuth; Traina, Gloria & Feiring, Eli (2022). Barriers and facilitators to adopting horizon scanning to identify novel integrated care models: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Innovations. ISSN 2055-8074. p. 1–7. doi: 10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000804. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Objectives Horizon scanning methodologies are employed in healthcare to identify and prioritise innovations at the early stages of development processes. To date, horizon scanning has been predominantly applied to early awareness systems of health technologies to facilitate healthcare planning. Still, horizon scanning methodologies may also be relevant for identifying novel healthcare delivery models and interventions. This study aimed to examine perceptions of determinants for adopting horizon scanning in the context of the development of integrated care models. Methods Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted between March and May 2021. The interviewees (n=10) were participants in innovation projects in the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. Data were analysed thematically with the aid of a predefined framework adapted from behavioural change theory. Results Determinants of adopting horizon scanning were reported at the individual, organisational and wider institutional levels. Seven domains were perceived to enable or hinder stakeholders’ potential use of horizon scanning: knowledge of structured reviews, skills to perform horizon scanning, beliefs about consequences (validity and reliability of information, outcomes of filtering and priority setting, stakeholder involvement), beliefs about capabilities (technical skills, knowledge of roles and professional identities, organisational regulations), emotions (positivity, engagement, change fatigue), organisational resources (professional library, time, management support), context (complexity of ‘integrated care’, professional hierarchies, legal and political regulations). Conclusions This study provides novel insights into potential determinants for adopting horizon scanning to identify, assess and prioritise innovative integrated care models. The findings may assist organisations considering using horizon scanning and inform strategies to mitigate barriers and promote facilitators.

• Feiring, Eli & Solberg, Carl Tollef (2021). Prioritering av koronavaksine: Råd og prosess. Michael. ISSN 1893-9651. 18(28), p. 49–59. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Høsten 2020 inviterte Folkehelseinstituttet oss til å delta i en ekstern gruppe som skulle gi råd om prioritering av koronavaksiner i Norge. Gruppens mandat var å utarbeide mål for det norske koronavaksinasjonsprogrammet, samt gi overordnede anbefalinger om prioriterte grupper i den første fasen av vaksina- sjonen. Gruppen anbefalte å prioritere risikogruppen og helsepersonell og åpnet for geografisk prioritering avhengig av smitteutbredelsen i samfunnet. Gruppens rådgivende rapport var en del av et stort flerfaglig arbeid, som inkluderte epi- demiologi, medisin, smittevern, datamodellering av koronavaksinenes effekter og samfunnsøkonomiske lønnsomhetsanalyser. Prioritering betyr at noen får først, mens andre må vente. I samfunnet er det uenighet om verdier, prinsipper og mål for vaksineprioritering. I denne artikkelen belyser vi gruppens arbeids- prosess, råd, og begrunnelser nærmere, og peker på verdiavveininger som er særlig utfordrende.

• Feiring, Eli & Solberg, Carl Tollef (2021). Priority setting of COVID-19 vaccines in Norway: Advice and process (English translation). Michael. ISSN 1893-9651. 28, p. 49–59. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In the autumn of 2020, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health invited us to participate in an external group that would be advising on COVID-19 vaccine priority-setting in Norway. The group’s mandate was to set goals for the Norwegian National Coronavirus Immunisation Programme, as well as to provide general recommendations regarding priority groups in the first phase of the vaccine deployment. The group recommended prioritising the risk group and healthcare personnel and also proposed geographical prioritisation depending on community case incidence. The group’s advisory report was part of a large-scale multidisciplinary project comprising epidemiology, medicine, infection control, computer modelling of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and economic cost-benefit analyses. Priority setting implies that some citizens are given preference ahead of others who must wait. In Norway, as elsewhere, there is disagreement concerning the values, principles and goals determining vaccine prioritisation. In this article, we present an account of the group’s work process, advice, and rationales in more detail and identify values-based ‘trade-offs’ that pose particular challenges.

• Feiring, Eli; Traina, Gloria; Fystro, Joar Røkke & Hofmann, Bjørn (2020). Avoiding hypersensitive reluctance to address parental responsibility in childhood obesity. Journal of Medical Ethics. ISSN 0306-6800. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106120. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Childhood obesity is an increasing health problem. Prior empirical research suggests that, although discussing lifestyle behaviours with parents could help prevent childhood obesity and its health-related consequences, physicians are reluctant to address parental responsibility in the clinical setting. Therefore, this paper questions whether parents might be (or might be held) responsible for their children’s obesity, and if so, whether parental responsibility ought to be addressed in the physician–patient/parent encounter. We illustrate how different ideal-typical models of the physician–patient/parent interaction emphasise different understandings of patient autonomy and parental responsibility and argue that these models advocate different responses to an appeal for discussing parents’ role in childhood obesity. We suggest that responsibility should be attributed to parents because of their parental roles in providing for their children’s welfare. We also argue that whether, and how, this responsibility gives rise to a requirement to act depends on the parents’ capacities. A deliberative-oriented physician–patient/parent interaction best captures the current ideals of antipaternalism, patient autonomy, and shared and evidence-informed decision-making, and might facilitate parental role development. We conclude that, while not discussing parental responsibility for childhood obesity in the clinical setting can be warranted in particular cases, this cannot be justified as a general rule.

• Traina, Gloria & Feiring, Eli (2020). ‘There is no such thing as getting sick justly or unjustly’–a qualitative study of clinicians’ beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation. BMC Health Services Research. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05364-6. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background Concerns have been raised regarding the reasonableness of using personal health responsibility as a principle or criterion for setting priorities in healthcare. While this debate continues, little is known about clinicians’ views on the role of patient responsibility in clinical contexts. This paper contributes to the knowledge on the empirical relevance of personal responsibility for priority setting at the clinical level. Methods A qualitative study of Norwegian clinicians (n = 15) was designed, using semi-structured interviews with vignettes to elicit beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation. Sampling was undertaken purposefully. The interviews were conducted in three hospital trusts in South-Eastern Norway between May 2018 and February 2019 and were analysed with conceptually driven thematic analysis. Results The findings suggest that clinicians endorsed a general principle of personal health responsibility but were reluctant to introduce personal health responsibility as a formal priority setting criterion. Five main objections were cited, relating to avoidability, causality, harshness, intrusiveness, and inequity. Still, both retrospective and prospective attributions of personal responsibility were perceived as relevant in specific clinical settings. The most prominent argument in favour of personal health responsibility was grounded in the idea that holding patients responsible for their conduct would contribute to the efficient use of healthcare resources. Other arguments included fairness to others, desert and autonomy, but such standpoints were controversial and held only marginal relevance. Conclusions Our study provides important novel insights into the clinicians’ beliefs about personal health responsibility improving the empirical knowledge concerning its fairness and potential applications to healthcare prioritisation. These findings suggest that although personal health responsibility would be difficult to implement as a steering criterion within the main priority setting framework, there might be clinical contexts where it could figure in prioritisation practices. Additional research on personal health responsibility would benefit from considering the multiple clinical encounters that shape doctor-patient relationships and that create the information basis for eligibility and prioritisation for treatment.

• Elster, Jakob & Feiring, Eli (2020). Når er registerbasert helse- og helsetjenesteforskning uten samtykke etisk forsvarlig? In Befring, Anne Kjersti Cecelia & Sand, Inger Johanne (Ed.), Kunstig intelligens og big data i helsesektoren Rettslige perspektiver. Gyldendal Juridisk. ISSN 9788205531963. p. 452–474. Full text in Research Archive
• Traina, Gloria & Feiring, Eli (2020). Priority setting and personal health responsibility: an analysis of Norwegian key policy documents. Journal of Medical Ethics. ISSN 0306-6800. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105612. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background The idea that individuals are responsible for their health has been the focus of debate in the theoretical literature and in its concrete application to healthcare policy in many countries. Controversies persist regarding the form, substance and fairness of allocating health responsibility to the individual, particularly in universal, need-based healthcare systems. Objective To examine how personal health responsibility has been framed and rationalised in Norwegian key policy documents on priority setting. Methods Documents issued or published by the Ministry of Health and Care Services between 1987 and 2018 were thematically analysed (n=14). We developed a predefined conceptual framework that guided the analysis. The framework included: (1) the subject and object of responsibility, (2) the level of conceptual abstraction, (3) temporality, (4) normative justificatory arguments and (5) objections to the application of personal health responsibility. Results As an additional criterion, personal health responsibility has been interpreted as relevant if: (A) the patient’s harmful behaviour is repeated after receiving treatment (retrospectively), and if (B) the success of the treatment is conditional on the patient’s behavioural change (prospectively). When discussed as a retrospective criterion, considerations of reciprocal fairness have been dominant. When discussed as a prospective criterion, the expected benefit of treatment justified its relevance. Conclusion Personal health responsibility appears to challenge core values of equality, inclusion and solidarity in the Norwegian context and has been repeatedly rejected as a necessary criterion for priority setting. However, the responsibility criterion seems to have some relevance in particular priority setting decisions.

• Feiring, Eli & Westdahl, Stine (2020). Factors influencing the use of video interpretation compared to in-person interpretation in hospitals: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research. 20(856). doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05720-6. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background Facilitating access to professional interpretation services is key to equitable hospital care for migrants with limited language proficiency; however, interpreter underuse has been documented. The factors that potentially enable or hinder professional interpreter use are not well understood. We aimed to compare perceptions held by hospital managers and healthcare practitioners of the factors influencing the use of remote video interpretation and in-person interpretation. Methods This study employed a retrospective qualitative design. Two hospitals, located in Austria and Norway, with adequately similar baseline characteristics were purposively selected. Both hospitals used in-person interpreters, and the Austrian hospital had recently introduced remote video interpretation as an alternative and supplement. Fifteen managers and healthcare practitioners participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Data were thematically analysed with the aid of behavioural system theory. Results Across sites, the facilitators of interpreter use included individual factors (knowledge about interpreter services, skills to assess when/how to use an interpreter, beliefs about favourable consequences), as well as organisational factors (soft budget constraints). Barriers were identified at the individual level (lack of interpersonal skills to handle difficult provider-interpreter situations, lack of skills to persuade patients to accept interpreter use, lack of trust in service professionalism), and at the organisational level (limited interpreter availability, time constraints). The introduction of remote video interpretation services seemed to counteract the organisational barriers. Video interpretation was further perceived to enable patient confidentiality, which was regarded as a facilitator. However, video interpretation introduced specific barriers, including perceived communication deficiencies. Conclusion This study has identified a range of factors that are perceived to influence the use of interpreters in hospitals. The research suggests that-implementing remote video interpretation services lessens the barriers to use and that such services should be introduced in hospital settings as an alternative or supplement to in-person interpreters. Further intervention functions should be considered to bring about change in the use of interpretation services, including developing guidelines for interpreter use, educating staff in the appropriate use of video technology, and training staff in communicating with interpreter and patients with limited language proficiency.

• Traina, Gloria; Martinussen, Pål Erling & Feiring, Eli (2019). Being Healthy, Being Sick, Being Resposnible: Attitudes towards Responsibility for Health in a Public Healthcare System. Public Health Ethics. ISSN 1754-9973. 12(2), p. 145–157. doi: 10.1093/phe/phz009. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Lifestyle-induced diseases are becoming a burden on healthcare, actualizing the discussion on health responsibilities. Using data from the National Association for Heart and Lung Diseases (LHL)’s 2015 Health Survey (N = 2689), this study examined the public’s attitudes towards personal and social health responsibility in a Norwegian population. The questionnaires covered self-reported health and lifestyle, attitudes towards personal responsibility and the authorities’ responsibility for promoting health, resource-prioritisation and socio-demographic characteristics. Block-wise multiple linear regression assessed the association between attitudes towards health responsibilities and individual lifestyle, political orientation and health condition. We found a moderate support for social responsibility across political views. Respondents reporting unhealthier eating habits, smokers and physically inactive were less supportive of health promotion policies (including information, health incentives, prevention and regulations). The idea that individuals are responsible for taking care of their health was widely accepted as an abstract ideal. Yet, only a third of the respondents agreed with introducing higher co-payments for treatment of ‘self-inflicted’ conditions and levels of support were patterned by health-related behaviour and left-right political orientation. Our study suggests that a significant support for social responsibility does not exclude a strong support for personal health responsibility. However, conditional access to healthcare based on personal lifestyle is still controversial.

• Feiring, Eli & Friis, Tori (2019). Facilitators and barriers to clincians' use of COPD action plans in self-management support: A qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling. ISSN 0738-3991. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.11.002. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Objective Written action plans for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aim at early recognition of exacerbations and self-initiation of interventions. Previous research suggest underuse of COPD action plans. We wanted to 1) examine which factors clinicians in specialist healthcare perceived as influencing clinicians’ use of written action plans in COPD-self management support and 2) propose a framework for understanding the factors affecting clinicians’ use of action plans in routine practice. Methods We performed a theory-driven retrospective qualitative study. Documentary data were collected to describe the COPD action plan in context. In-depth interviews with clinicians (n = 8) were carried out. Interview data were thematically analyzed, using a predetermined model for understanding behavior. Results Our study revealed that a number of factors influenced clinicians’ use of action plans, including their capabilities (knowledge and skills to identify “the right patient” and to individualize the plan template) and motivations (beliefs, reinforcements, and emotions s.a. frustration, fear, and distrust), together with organizational and social opportunities (resources, patient, and GP preferences). Conclusion A multilevel understanding of factors that affect clinicians’ use of action plans in self-management support is needed. Practice implication The proposed framework can be used to guide future initiatives to promote targeted self-management support.

• Feiring, Eli & Wang, Hege (2018). Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting. BMC Health Services Research. 18. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3137-3. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background Governments are facing tough choices about whether to fund new, promising but highly expensive drugs within the public healthcare system. Decisions that some drugs are not sufficiently beneficial relative to their cost to merit public funding are often contentious. The importance of making decisions that stakeholders can understand and accept as legitimate is increasingly recognized and is commonly understood to be a crucial component for stakeholder support and successful implementation. Yet, little is known about clinicians’ perceptions of legitimate limit-setting. This study aimed to examine oncologists’ perceptions of the legitimacy of governmental decisions to deny patients access to new cancer drugs because effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the drugs has not been demonstrated. Methods Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 12 Norwegian oncologists were carried out. Data were interpreted with the use of theory driven thematic analysis. The analytical framework of Accountability for reasonableness aided data gathering and interpretation. Results The participants endorsed the ideal of explicit criteria-based priority setting. Yet, when confronted with actual rationing decisions, they were far more equivocal. They advocated for increased access to drugs and were not always prepared to accept rationing of drugs they felt would benefit their patient. Distrust in the Norwegian centralised drug review process was found and different rationales were identified: i) Lack of engagement with the process, ii) Disagreement with the use of rationing criteria, iii) Lack of transparency and lack of dispute resolution procedures. Concerns about the wider implications of rationing decisions were reported. Most importantly, these related to negative impact on patient-doctor relationship of micro-level rationing and to inequities in drug availability resulting from privatisation of high-cost cancer treatment. Conclusions Drawing on the analytical framework, we conclude that perceptions of legitimacy regarding rationing of high-cost drugs include procedural fairness. However, notions of substantive justice also seem to be important for accepting reasons given for decisions. Regulatory legitimacy may further warrant a more sophisticated theoretical account of second-order beliefs about the justifiability of rationing new technologies. These findings indicate a need for a broader concept of legitimacy than is commonly used in the literature on healthcare prioritisation.

• Feiring, Eli & Lie, Astrid Eidesvik (2018). Factors perceived to influence implementation of task shifting in highly specialised healthcare: a theory-based qualitative approach. BMC Health Services Research. 18:899, p. 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3719-0. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background New approaches to control healthcare expenditures and increase access to quality care are required by decision-makers in high-income countries. One strategy is to reallocate tasks from doctors to nurses. Evidence suggests that quality, effectiveness and efficiency of task shifting are context sensitive and affected by implementation. However, little is known about implementability of task shifting in specialised healthcare. We aimed to identify factors perceived to influence implementation of doctor-to-nurse task shifting in a hospital setting and improve understanding of task shifting implementability by using theory-based frameworks for analysing behaviour. Nurse-led bone marrow examination exemplified task shifting from the medical to the nursing domain. Methods Doctors and nurses (n = 17) in a haematology department at a Norwegian university hospital were asked about factors perceived to influence implementation of nurse-led bone marrow aspirations and biopsies. Methods included in-depth semi-structured interviews (n = 11) and focus-group discussion (n = 6). Data were analysed using the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation behaviour model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results Ten factors perceived to influence implementation were identified. Three factors were related to capability, including (1) knowledge and acceptability of task shifting rationale; (2) dynamic role boundaries; and (3) technical skills to perform biopsies and aspirations. Five factors were related to motivation, including (4) beliefs about task shifting consequences, such as efficiency, quality and patient satisfaction; (5) beliefs about capabilities, such as technical, communicative and emotional skills; (6) job satisfaction and esteem; (7) organisational culture, such as team optimism; and (8) emotions, such as fear of informal nurse hierarchy and envy. The last two factors were related to opportunity, including (9) project planning and leadership, and voluntariness; and (10) patient preferences. Conclusion Task shifting from doctors to nurses in specialised healthcare requires not only development of technical skills but also complex changes in organisation, clinical routines and role identity. Educational and organisational interventions to build a team-oriented culture could potentially increase the possibility of successful task shifting and stimulate nurses to take on untraditional responsibilities. Environmental restructuring to support doctors using their time in activities only doctors can perform may be needed to realise potential efficiency gains.

• Feiring, Eli & Walter, Anne Berit (2017). Antimicrobial stewardship: a qualitative study of the development of national guidelines for antibiotic use in hospitals. BMC Health Services Research. 17(747). doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2683-4. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background As effective antibiotics are becoming a scarce resource, governmental regulation is needed to promote responsible use. Implementation of antibiotic stewardship and practice guidelines in health care facilities seems to be crucial to this effort. Empirical studies suggest, however, that guidelines have limited influence on health professionals’ behavior and practice. Barriers and facilitators to guideline implementability are much studied, but little attention has been given to health professionals’ perceptions of normative acceptability of guidelines as a condition for compliance. The aim of the present study was first, to examine if and how aspects potentially promoting acceptability and compliance among clinical target users were addressed during development of Norwegian national guidelines for antibiotic use in hospitals and second, to identify procedural characteristics of the development process that were perceived by target users to yield legitimate guidelines. Methods Qualitative deductive thematic analysis was used. A theoretical framework inspired by the AGREE II Instrument and the Accountability for reasonableness framework assisted data gathering and interpretation. Archival data was collected and used to detail the guideline development process. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with eight clinicians with extensive knowledge of the guidelines were carried out. Results Guideline development was characterized by i) broad agreement about scope and purpose, ii) broad involvement of stakeholders in the development process, iii) use of systematic methods to search for and apply evidence, iv) easily identifiable and specific recommendations, v) provision of tools on how to put recommendations into practice, and vi) editorial independence. Several procedural characteristics were perceived by the interviewees as promoting guideline legitimacy; i) diverse perspectives systematically involved in the process, ii) accessibility and transparency of the rationales for decision making, iii) opportunities for appeals and reconsiderations, and iv) regulative authority. Conclusions This study provides insights as to how guidelines that are intended to promote responsible use of antibiotics in hospitals can be carefully developed to facilitate perceptions of relevance, transparency, and authority by health professionals.

• Feiring, Eli (2017). Liberal helsepolitikk - mot privatisering av høykostnadsbehandling? Michael. ISSN 1893-9651. 14, p. 2019–2027. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Spørsmålet om hvilke helsetjenester som bør omfattes av et offentlig ansvar, og hvilke tjenester som bør kunne overlates til markedet for private ytelser, er sentralt i den helsepolitiske debatten. I denne artikkelen diskuteres forholdet mellom offentlig og privat ansvar i tilknytning til høykostnadsmedisin og tilgang til nye kreftlegemidler. Det argumenteres for det første for at det offentlige helsevesenet legitimt kan rasjonere behandlingstilbud som omfatter dyre legemidler med liten eller usikker effekt. For det andre argumenteres det for at den enkelte bør gis anledning til å finansiere slike legemidler gjennom privat helseforsikring, gitt en liberal helsepolitisk kontekst. For det tredje argumenteres det for at hele behandlingen knyttet til privat finansierte legemidler, som administrasjon, bruk og oppfølging, bør foregå i privat regi. Ved å tillate behandling med privat finansierte legemidler i offentlige sykehus, vil tilliten til prioriteringssystemet kunne forvitre. Rasjoneringsbeslutningene bør derfor ikke bare gjelde selve legemiddelet, men også den videre behandlingen knyttet til å ta det i bruk.

• Feiring, Eli & Wang, Hege (2016). Prioritering i praksis. Onkonytt. ISSN 1503-7886. p. 58–61. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2015). Lifestyles. In Have, Henk ten (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer. ISSN 9783319055442. p. 1–11. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_273-1. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli & Ugstad, Kristian (2014). Interpretations of legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric admission: a qualitative analysis. BMC Health Services Research. 14(500). doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0500-x. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background The use of involuntary admission in psychiatry may be necessary to enable treatment and prevent harm, yet remains controversial. Mental health laws in high-income countries typically permit coercive treatment of persons with mental disorders to restore health or prevent future harm. Criteria intended to regulate practice leave scope for discretion. The values and beliefs of staff may become a determinating factor for decisions. Previous research has only to a limited degree addressed how legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric admission are interpreted by clinical decision-makers. We examined clinicians’ interpretations of criteria for involuntary admission under the Norwegian Mental Health Care Act. This act applies a status approach, whereby involuntary admission can be used at the presence of mental disorder and need for treatment or perceived risk to the patient or others. Further, best interest assessments carry a large justificatory burden and open for a range of extra-legislative factors to be considered. Methods Deductive thematic analysis was used. Three ideal types of attitudes-to-coercion were developed, denoted paternalistic, deliberative and interpretive. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 10 Norwegian clinicians with experience from admissions to psychiatric care were carried out. Data was fit into the preconceived analytical frame. We hypothesised that the data would mirror the recent shift from paternalism towards a more human rights focused approach in modern mental health care. Results The paternalistic perspective was, however, clearly expressed in the data. Involuntary admission was considered to be in the patient’s best interest, and patients suffering from serious mental disorder were assumed to lack decision-making capacity. In addition to assessment of need, outcome effectiveness and risk of harm, extra-legislative factors such as patients’ functioning, experience, resistance, networks, and follow-up options were told to influence decisions. Variation in how these multiple factors were taken into consideration was found. Some of the participants’ statements could be attributed to the deliberative perspective, most of which concerned participants’ beliefs about an ideal decision-making situation. Conclusions Our data suggest how a deliberative-oriented ideal of reasoning about legal criteria for involuntary admission lapses into paternalism in clinical decision-making. Supplementary professional guidelines should be developed.

• Feiring, Eli (2014). Private helseforsikringer - et gode? In Botten, Grete Synøve; Frich, Jan C; Hagen, Terje P.; Iversen, Tor & Nordby, Halvor (Ed.), Helsetjenestens nye logikk. Akademika forlag. ISSN 9788232103485. p. 117–126. Full text in Research Archive
• Aas, Eline; Alstadsæter, Annette & Feiring, Eli (2013). Does Healthcare Moderate the Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Self-rated Health? Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics. 5(1). doi: 10.4172/2155-9627.1000169. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2012). Makspris på liv og helse. In Fossheim, Hallvard & Ingierd, Helene C. (Ed.), Forskning og penger. Forskningsetiske komiteer. ISSN 9788276820638. p. 79–92. Full text in Research Archive
• Bringedal, Berit & Feiring, Eli (2011). On the relevance of personal responsibility in priority setting: a cross-sectional survey among Norwegian medical doctors. Journal of Medical Ethics. ISSN 0306-6800. 37(6), p. 357–361. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.038844. Full text in Research Archive
• Bringedal, Berit; Feiring, Eli & Berøe, Kristine (2011). Social disparities in health and the physician's role. A call for clarifying the professional ethical code. World medical journal : official journal of the World medical association. ISSN 0049-8122. 57(5), p. 196–198. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2009). REASSESSING INSURERS' ACCESS TO GENETIC INFORMATION: GENETIC PRIVACY, IGNORANCE, AND INJUSTICE. Bioethics. ISSN 0269-9702. 23(5), p. 300–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00653.x. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2008). Reassessing Insurers Access to Genetic Information: Genetic Privacy, Ignorance and Injustice. Bioethics. ISSN 0269-9702. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2008). Lifestyle, Responsibility, and Justice. Journal of Medical Ethics. ISSN 0306-6800. 34(1), p. 33–36. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.019067. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2008). Skal samfunnet belastes vår usunne livsstil? RØST: Radikalt økonominettverks skriftserie. ISSN 1503-9595. 1, p. 58–64. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli & Huseby, Robert (2007). Velferdsstat, fordelingsrettferdighet og nyliberalisme. In Mydske, Per Kristen; Claes, Dag Harald & Lie, Amund (Ed.), Nyliberalisme - ideer og politisk virkelighet. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215011622. p. 69–83. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2006). Demokratiet og rettsliggjøringen av velferdspolitikken. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning (TfS). ISSN 0040-716X. 47, p. 575–587. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2006). Konsekvenser av velferdsrettigheter. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning. ISSN 0809-2052. 9, p. 44–47. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2005). Legitime prioriteringsbeslutninger. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning. ISSN 0809-2052. p. 65–72. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli; Nagel, Hilde & Mæhle, Synne Sæther (2002). To myter om rettighetsfesting av velferdspolitikken. Retfærd: Nordic Journal of Law and Justice. ISSN 0105-1121. p. 52–70. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

• Dyb, Grete Anita; Løberg, Magnus; Feiring, Eli; Bjaalie, Jan G. & Harbo, Hanne-Cathrin Flinstad (2025). Revidert regelverk for ph.d.utdanningen. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening (Tidsskriftet). ISSN 0029-2001. 14(14). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.25.0652. Full text in Research Archive
• Aas, Eline; Kinge, Jonas Minet; Burger, Emily Annika; Pedersen, Kine; Iversen, Tor & Godager, Geir [Show all 14 contributors for this article] (2025). Feil tallgrunnlag kan koste liv i helsetjenesten. Full text in Research Archive
• Fystro, Joar Røkke & Feiring, Eli (2024). Hvorfor har vi fraværsgebyr? Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli; Løberg, Magnus; Bjaalie, Jan G.; Dyb, Grete Anita & Harbo, Hanne-Cathrin Flinstad (2023). Kjønn og helse, utdanning og forskning. 143(11). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.23.0408. Full text in Research Archive
• Fystro, Joar Røkke & Feiring, Eli (2023). Fraværsgebyrer kan lære oss noe om økonomi og etikk. Full text in Research Archive
• Fystro, Joar Røkke & Feiring, Eli (2022). 185:poster The ideas behind charging for non-attendance in healthcare: an analysis of key policy documents in Denmark and Norway. BMJ Global Health. 7. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-ISPH.53. Full text in Research Archive
• Torjusen, Marius Lamberg; Solberg, Carl Tollef; Barra, Mathias & Feiring, Eli (2022). Priority setting in Norwegian municipal health and care services: A content analysis of policy documents. BMJ Global Health. 7. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-ISPH.73. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Introduction Norway has a long tradition of open priority setting in health care services. However, the principles and instruments for priority setting have mainly been used in specialist health care. In 2017, an official committee was commissioned to evaluate if and how to adopt the three Norwegian priority-setting criteria – health benefit, resources, and severity – in the municipal health and care services. The aim of this article was to examine the arguments for and against implementing the current criteria in municipal health and care services, using documentary data from the ensuing political process. Methods Data consisted of Norwegian policy documents discussing prioritisation principles for municipal health and care services: The Official Norwegian Report 2018:6 (green paper), the written consultation responses from the hearings, and the Report to the Parliament 38 (2020-2021) (white paper). The documents were analysed using a predefined conceptual framework where arguments were categorised by their level of abstraction and the degree of (dis)agreement with the recommendations in the green paper. Results Data suggested general agreement to use the same criteria in all levels of Norwegian health service. However, disagreement was identified when considering the lack of feasible implementation processes. Recurrent themes in the data were the municipalities’ legal and financial lack of scope to set priorities under constraints, challenges regarding operationalising a supplementary physical, psychological and social mastery criterion, and prioritising in situations where the benefits are difficult to measure. Discussion The many duties and responsibilities of municipal health and care make priority setting decisions more complex than in specialist health care. In summary, the Norwegian green paper on priority setting in municipal health and care services has presented a well-received recommendation. However, how to inevitably tackle the many complex, and sometimes wicked, prioritisation problems in practice remain unanswered.

• Feiring, Eli (2021). Social insurance, mutualistic insurance and genetic information. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107542. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2020). Horizon scanning in health service research. Full text in Research Archive
• Hofmann, Bjørn Morten; Fystro, Joar; Traina, Gloria & Feiring, Eli (2019). Hypersensitive Reluctance to Address Issues of Responsibility in Childhood Obesity? Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2014). Helsevesenets vedvarende floker. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift (NNT). ISSN 0800-336X. 3, p. 383–386. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2012). Maksimal pris på helse. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2012). Demokratiet og rettsliggjrøing av velferdspolitikken. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2012). Makspris på helse. Full text in Research Archive
• Aas, Eline; Alstadsæter, Annette & Feiring, Eli (2011). Healthcare moderates impact of socioeconomic status on self-rated health. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2008). Forsikringsselskaper og genetisk informasjon. [Internet]. Nytt fra Norges forskningsråd. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2008). Usunn livsstil - hva så? Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2008). Hvem har ansvaret for følgene av usunn livsstil? Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2007). Rettighetsfesting som styringsverktøy. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2007). Distributional justice: Theory and measurement. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning (TfS). ISSN 0040-716X. 48. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2007). Rettighetsfesting av eldreomsorg. [Journal]. Morgenbladet. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2004). Rasjonering av helsehjelp. [Journal]. Klassekampen. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (1998). Er ventelisteordningen bare tull? Full text in Research Archive
• Grusd, Christian Højberg; Solberg, Carl Tollef; Feiring, Eli & Johnsen, Lars (2024). Skal vi si ja eller nei? En kritisk korpsubasert diskursanalyse om prioriteringer i norske helse- og omsorgstjenester. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Formål: Formålet med masteroppgaven er å beskrive sammenhengen mellom språk, samfunnsendringer og prioriteringer ved å analysere endringer i helsepolitiske dokumenter om prioriteringer de siste 40 årene. Teoretisk forankring og metode: Jeg har benyttet kritisk diskursanalyse som undersøker forholdet mellom språk og virkelighet og anser språket som inngang for å forstå og forklare samfunnsmessige endringer. Ved å kombinere teknikker fra korpuslingvistikk med kritisk diskursanalyse har det vært mulig å analysere store mengder med tekst samtidig som jeg anlegger et kritisk samfunnsperspektiv. Data: Datagrunnlaget for masteroppgaven er fem norske offentlige utredninger om prioriteringer i helse- og omsorgstjenestene utgitt i tidsrommet 1987–2018. Resultater, diskusjon og konklusjon: Prioriteringsdiskursen har endret seg fra å vektlegge viktigheten av negative prioriteringer, altså hva som ikke skal gjøres, til hva det er vi skal gjøre. Dette kan beskrives som en grensediskurs, som har endret seg fra et avgrensende til et inkluderende perspektiv. I tillegg er det en endring i beskrivelsen av prioriteringer fra å vektlegge utfordringene ved å sammenligne og rangere helsestørrelser til å vektlegge nødvendigheten av å sammenlikne. Prioriteringsdiskursen endrer seg med andre ord fra inkommensurabel til kommensurabel. En slik endring kan forklares i kontekst av en utvikling i samfunnet der verden i stadig større grad blir gjort forståelig for oss i kvantitative termer og får som konsekvens at prioriteringsdilemmaer blir forstått som noe som kan løses rasjonelt (forutsigbarhetsrammen). I dette «prediksjonssamfunnet» ses verden som kontroller- og kalkulerbar. Et slikt syn fordrer også at dersom noe går galt eller noen blir utsatt for uheldige eller uønskede og alvorlige hendelser vil man enkelt kunne legitimere plassering av ansvar og skyld. Jeg argumenterer for at denne overordnede sosiale strukturen fordrer et perspektiv som gjør det utfordrende å avstå fra ressursbruk i prioriteringsbeslutninger grunnet en passiv medisin, der blant annet frykten for å gjøre feil motiverer helsepersonellet.

• Feiring, Eli; Førde, Reidun; Holm, Søren; Norheim, Ole Frithjof; Solberg, Berge & Solberg, Carl Tollef [Show all 9 contributors for this article] (2020). Råd om prioriterte grupper for koronavaksinasjon i Norge. Ekspertgruppe i etikk og prioritering 15. november 2020. Folkehelseinstituttet. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli; Førde, Reidun; Holm, Søren; Norheim, Ole Frithjof; Solberg, Berge & Solberg, Carl Tollef [Show all 7 contributors for this article] (2020). The Coronavirus Immunisation Programme Advice on priority groups for coronavirus vaccination in Norway Expert group in ethics and priority setting 15 November 2020. Folkehelseinstituttet. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services has commissioned the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to organise the national coronavirus immunisationation programme. As a partial delivery of the assignment, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has established an external expert group in ethics and prioritisation (henceforth: the ethics advisory group). This ethics advisory report describes the external group's working process and conclusions concerning the order of priority of the vaccines in the first phase of the Norwegian Coronavirus Immunisation Programme. The overall objective of this ethics advisory report has been to establish clear goals for what the Coronavirus Immunisation Programme should achieve, as well as to make recommendations for which groups should be given priority in the first phase of the programme. The advisory group has proceeded from values, to goals and lastly to priority categories. The following five values were adopted as the core values to guide prioritisation: equal respect, welfare, equity, trust and legitimacy. Five goals were then proposed and ranked in order of their importance: 1) Reduce the risk of death. 2) Reduce the risk of severe illness. 3) Maintain essential services and critical infrastructure. 4) Protect employment and the economy. 5) re-open society. Based on these values and goals, three categories for prioritisation were established: risk factors for severe illness and death, the infectious situation and occupation. The ethics advisory group has suggested dynamic health priorities based on the Norwegian Government's long-term scenario for the course of the pandemic and recommended that I. risk groups and II. healthcare personnel should be prioritised in pandemic scenarios 1–2a, and that in the event of widespread infection (scenario 2b–), the priority order should instead be I. healthcare personnel, II. risk groups and III. critical societal functions. These three priority groups are in accordance with the values, goals and priority categories proposed by the ethics advisory group in this document. These are preliminary recommendations for the order of priority for coronavirus vaccines in Norway, and the ethics advisory group has taken into account that the recommendations may need to be revised if there are significant changes to the empirical evidence.

• Feiring, Eli (2005). Virkninger av rettighetslovgivning - en kunnskapsoversikt. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (2004). Rettferdig rasjonering av sykehusbehandling. Om den norske modellen for prioritering mellom pasienter med behov for spesialisert helsehjelp. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive
• Falkum, Eivind; Feiring, Eli & Gautun, Heidi (1996). Hva med dobbeltklientene? Samarbeid mellom barne- og ungdomspsykiatri. Evaluering av Klokkerhuset. Forskningsstiftelsen Fafo. ISSN 9788274221536. Full text in Research Archive
• Feiring, Eli (1992). Rettferdig fordeling - en analyse av debatten om sosial rettferdighet. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA