Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices

PURPOSE

CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success.

METHODS

In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing.

RESULTS

Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

Policy Preferences Regarding Health Data Sharing Among Patients With Cancer: Public Deliberations

BACKGROUND

Precision health offers the promise of advancing clinical care in data-driven, evidence-based, and personalized ways. However, complex data sharing infrastructures, for-profit (commercial) and nonprofit partnerships, and systems for data governance have been created with little attention to the values, expectations, and preferences of patients about how they want to be engaged in the sharing and use of their health information. We solicited patient opinions about institutional policy options using public deliberation methods to address this gap.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to understand the policy preferences of current and former patients with cancer regarding the sharing of health information collected in the contexts of health information exchange and commercial partnerships and to identify the values invoked and perceived risks and benefits of health data sharing considered by the participants when formulating their policy preferences.

METHODS

We conducted 2 public deliberations, including predeliberation and postdeliberation surveys, with patients who had a current or former cancer diagnosis (n=61). Following informational presentations, the participants engaged in facilitated small-group deliberations to discuss and rank policy preferences related to health information sharing, such as the use of a patient portal, email or SMS text messaging, signage in health care settings, opting out of commercial data sharing, payment, and preservation of the status quo. The participants ranked their policy preferences individually, as small groups by mutual agreement, and then again individually in the postdeliberation survey.

RESULTS

After deliberation, the patient portal was ranked as the most preferred policy choice. The participants ranked no change in status quo as the least preferred policy option by a wide margin. Throughout the study, the participants expressed concerns about transparency and awareness, convenience, and accessibility of information about health data sharing. Concerns about the status quo centered around a lack of transparency, awareness, and control. Specifically, the patients were not aware of how, when, or why their data were being used and wanted more transparency in these regards as well as greater control and autonomy around the use of their health data. The deliberations suggested that patient portals would be a good place to provide additional information about data sharing practices but that over time, notifications should be tailored to patient preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests the need for increased disclosure of health information sharing practices. Describing health data sharing practices through patient portals or other mechanisms personalized to patient preferences would minimize the concerns expressed by patients about the extent of data sharing that occurs without their knowledge. Future research and policies should identify ways to increase patient control over health data sharing without reducing the societal benefits of data sharing.

"Extremely slow and capricious": A qualitative exploration of genetic researcher priorities in selecting shared data resources

PURPOSE

Genetic researchers' selection of a database can have scientific, regulatory, and ethical implications. It is important to understand what is driving database selection such that database stewards can be responsive to user needs while balancing the interests of communities in equitably benefiting from advances.

METHODS

We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with US academic genetic researchers working with private, government, and collaboratory data stewards to explore factors that they consider when selecting a genetic database.

RESULTS

Interviewees used existing databases to avoid burdens of primary data collection, which was described as expensive and time-consuming. They highlighted ease of access as the most important selection factor, integrating concepts of familiarity and efficiency. Data features, such as size and available phenotype, were also important. Demographic diversity was not originally cited by any interviewee as a pivotal factor; when probed, most stated that the option to consider diversity in database selection was limited. Database features, including integrity, harmonization, and storage were also described as key components of efficient use.

CONCLUSION

There is a growing market and competition between genetic data stewards. Data need to be accessible, harmonized, and administratively supported for their existence to be translated into use and, in turn, result in scientific advancements across diverse communities.

The natural pattern of birth timing and gestational age in the U.S. compared to England, and the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To examine cross-national differences in gestational age over time in the U.S. and across three wealthy countries in 2020 as well as examine patterns of birth timing by hour of the day in home and spontaneous vaginal hospital births in the three countries.

METHODS

We did a comparative cohort analysis with data on gestational age and the timing of birth from the United States, England and the Netherlands, comparing hospital and home births. For overall gestational age comparisons, we drew on national birth cohorts from the U.S. (1990, 2014 & 2020), the Netherlands (2014 & 2020) and England (2020). Birth timing data was drawn from national data from the U.S. (2014 & 2020), the Netherlands (2014) and from a large representative sample from England (2008-10). We compared timing of births by hour of the day in hospital and home births in all three countries.

RESULTS

The U.S. overall mean gestational age distribution, based on last menstrual period, decreased by more than half a week between 1990 (39.1 weeks) and 2020 (38.5 weeks). The 2020 U.S. gestational age distribution (76% births prior to 40 weeks) was distinct from England (60%) and the Netherlands (56%). The gestational age distribution and timing of home births was comparable in the three countries. Home births peaked in early morning between 2:00 am and 5:00 am. In England and the Netherlands, hospital spontaneous vaginal births showed a generally similar timing pattern to home births. In the U.S., the pattern was reversed with a prolonged peak of spontaneous vaginal hospital births between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest organizational priorities can potentially disturb natural patterns of gestation and birth timing with a potential to improve U.S. perinatal outcomes with organizational models that more closely resemble those of England and the Netherlands.

Public Deliberation Process on Patient Perspectives on Health Information Sharing: Evaluative Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

Precision oncology is one of the fastest-developing domains of personalized medicine and is one of many data-intensive fields. Policy for health information sharing that is informed by patient perspectives can help organizations align practice with patient preferences and expectations, but many patients are largely unaware of the complexities of how and why clinical health information is shared.

OBJECTIVE

This paper evaluates the process of public deliberation as an approach to understanding the values and preferences of current and former patients with cancer regarding the use and sharing of health information collected in the context of precision oncology.

METHODS

We conducted public deliberations with patients who had a current or former cancer diagnosis. A total of 61 participants attended 1 of 2 deliberative sessions (session 1, n=28; session 2, n=33). Study team experts led two educational plenary sessions, and trained study team members then facilitated discussions with small groups of participants. Participants completed pre- and postdeliberation surveys measuring knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about precision oncology and data sharing. Following informational sessions, participants discussed, ranked, and deliberated two policy-related scenarios in small groups and in a plenary session. In the analysis, we evaluate our process of developing the deliberative sessions, the knowledge gained by participants during the process, and the extent to which participants reasoned with complex information to identify policy preferences.

RESULTS

The deliberation process was rated highly by participants. Participants felt they were listened to by their group facilitator, that their opinions were respected by their group, and that the process that led to the group's decision was fair. Participants demonstrated improved knowledge of health data sharing policies between pre- and postdeliberation surveys, especially regarding the roles of physicians and health departments in health information sharing. Qualitative analysis of reasoning revealed that participants recognized complexity, made compromises, and engaged with trade-offs, considering both individual and societal perspectives related to health data sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

The deliberative approach can be valuable for soliciting the input of informed patients on complex issues such as health information sharing policy. Participants in our two public deliberations demonstrated that giving patients information about a complex topic like health data sharing and the opportunity to reason with others and discuss the information can help garner important insights into policy preferences and concerns. Data on public preferences, along with the rationale for information sharing, can help inform policy-making processes. Increasing transparency and patient engagement is critical to ensuring that data-driven health care respects patient autonomy and honors patient values and expectations.

Taking the burden off: a study of the quality of ethics consultation in the time of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The quality of ethics consults is notoriously difficult to measure. Survey-based assessments cannot capture nuances of consultations. To address this gap, we conducted interviews with health professionals who requested ethics consults during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

Healthcare professionals requesting ethics consultation between March 2020 and May 2020 at a tertiary academic medical centre were eligible to participate. We asked participants to comment on the consults they called and thematically analysed responses to identify features associated with optimal quality consultations.

RESULTS

Of 14 healthcare providers, 8 (57%) were women and professions were as follows: 11 (79%) medical doctors, 1 (7%) social worker, 1 (7%) physician assistant and 1 (7%) nurse practitioner. Two aspects of quality emerged: satisfaction and value. Themes within the domain of satisfaction included: responsiveness of the ethics consultant, willingness to consult, institutional role of the ethics service and identifying areas for improvement. When describing value, respondents spoke of the intrapersonal and interpersonal worth of consultation.

CONCLUSION

Participants were generally satisfied with ethics consultation services, similar to opinions of those found in pre-COVID-19 survey studies. Our qualitative approach allowed for a richer exploration of the value of ethics consultation during the pandemic and has implications for ethics consultation services more broadly. Ethics consultation-emphasising both the process and outcome-created valuable moral spaces, promoting thoughtful and ethical responses to dilemmas in patient care. Future assessments should incorporate patient and family/surrogate perspectives and explore the domain of education as an additional quality measure.

Patient Experiences, Trust, and Preferences for Health Data Sharing

PURPOSE

Scholars have examined patients' attitudes toward secondary use of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Evidence suggests that trust in health care organizations and physicians is critical. Less is known about experiences that shape trust and how they influence data sharing preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To explore learning health care system (LHS) ethics, democratic deliberations were hosted from June 2017 to May 2018. A total of 217 patients with cancer participated in facilitated group discussion. Transcripts were coded independently. Finalized codes were organized into themes using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Two previous analyses reported on patient preferences for consent and data use; this final analysis focuses on the influence of personal lived experiences of the health care system, including interactions with providers and insurers, on trust and preferences for data sharing.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis identified four domains of patients' lived experiences raised in the context of the policy discussions: (1) the quality of care received, (2) the impact of health care costs, (3) the transparency and communication displayed by a provider or an insurer to the patient, and (4) the extent to which care coordination was hindered or facilitated by the interchange between a provider and an insurer. Patients discussed their trust in health care decision makers and their opinions about LHS data sharing.

CONCLUSION

Additional resources, infrastructure, regulations, and practice innovations are needed to improve patients' experiences with and trust in the health care system. Those who seek to build LHSs may also need to consider improvement in other aspects of care delivery.

Development of a multicomponent implementation strategy to reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk in patients using warfarin and antiplatelet therapy, and protocol for a pragmatic multilevel randomized factorial pilot implementation trial

BACKGROUND

The concomitant use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Two underused evidence-based practices (EBPs) can reduce the risk: de-prescribe unnecessary antiplatelet therapy or initiate a proton pump inhibitor. We describe the development of a multicomponent intervention to increase use of these EBPs in patients treated with warfarin and followed by an anticoagulation monitoring service (AMS), and the design of a pilot pragmatic implementation trial.

METHODS

A participatory planning group iteratively used Implementation Mapping and the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop implementation strategies and plan the trial. Informed by qualitative interviews with patients and clinicians, we drew on several implementation science theories, as well as self-determination theory, to design interventions. For patients, we developed an activation guide to help patients discuss the EBPs with their clinicians. For clinicians, we developed two electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions: (1) clinician notification (CN) consists of a templated message that identifies a patient as high risk, summarizes the EBPs, and links to a guidance statement on appropriate use of antiplatelet therapy. (2) Clinician notification with nurse facilitation (CN+NF) consists of a similar notification message but includes additional measures by nursing staff to support appropriate and timely decision-making: the nurse performs a chart review to identify any history of vascular disease, embeds indication-specific guidance on antiplatelet therapy in the message, and offers to assist with medication order entry and patient education. We will conduct a pilot factorial cluster- and individual-level randomized controlled trial with a primary objective of evaluating feasibility. Twelve clinicians will be randomized to receive either CN or CN+NF for all their patients managed by the AMS while 50 patients will be individually randomized to receive either the activation guide or usual care. We will explore implementation outcomes using patient and clinician interviews along with EHR review.

DISCUSSION

This pilot study will prepare us to conduct a larger optimization study to identify the most potent and resource conscious multicomponent implementation strategy to help AMSs increase the use of best practices for upper GI bleeding risk reduction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05085405 . Registered on October 19, 2021-retrospectively registered.

"I'm Being Forced to Make Decisions I Have Never Had to Make Before": Oncologists' Experiences of Caring for Seriously Ill Persons With Poor Prognoses and the Dilemmas Created by COVID-19

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a new set of problems for clinicians. This study examines the experiences of oncologists providing care to seriously ill persons near the end of life in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Between January 2020 and August 2020, we conducted semistructured, in-depth individual interviews with 22 purposefully sampled oncologists from practices enrolled in the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium. Deidentified transcripts of the interviews were examined using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Our respondents described several novel problems created by the COVID-19 pandemic, including: (1) ethical challenges, (2) the need to manage uncertainty-physically and emotionally-on the part of both patients and oncologists, and (3) the difficulty of integrating technology and communication for seriously ill persons. These problems were made more complex by features of the pandemic: resource scarcity (and the need to fairly allocate poor resources), delays in care, high levels of fear, and the increased importance of advance care planning. Nonabandonment served as a way to cope with increased stress, and the use of telemedicine became an increasingly important medium of communication.

CONCLUSION

This study offers an in-depth exploration of the problems faced by oncologists as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and how they navigated them. Optimal decision making for seriously ill persons with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic must include open acknowledgment of the ethical challenges involved, the emotions experienced by both patients and their oncologists, and the urgent need to integrate technology with compassionate communication in determining patient preferences.

A Tale of Two Bioethics

Phase 1 drug trials-first-in-human tests of new pharmaceuticals- are necessary for FDA approval, and healthy volunteers are necessary to conduct those trials. Bioethicists are rightly concerned with the morally problematic aspects of these trials: Are risks and benefits balanced? Are would-be volunteers sufficiently informed, and have they given proper consent? But these are not the only, or even the most worrisome, ethical problems with Phase 1 research. In Adverse Events (2020), Jill Fisher looks beyond these ordinary bioethical concerns to the moral complications associated with the motivations of healthy volunteers and the demands of the everyday work of running those trials. Her work is the latest example of a much needed "second bioethics." Unlike the "first bioethics," this approach views health-care institutions from the outside, examining the structural and organizational sources that generate the ethical quandaries bioethicists are called upon to mediate and the ethical problems they often fail to see. Adverse Events makes clear that the moral problems of medicine can only be addressed by supporting bioethics of both types-the first and the second.

Barriers to Guideline-Based Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors to Prevent Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

PURPOSE

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most common serious adverse drug events. Guidelines recommend proton pump inhibitor (PPI) gastroprotection to prevent upper GI bleeding in high-risk patients, but this practice is underused.

METHODS

To explore prescribing practices and barriers to the use of PPI gastroprotection, including dynamics within and across specialties, we conducted semistructured interviews with physicians in 4 specialties at a single institution. We performed thematic analysis of barriers, organized around the theoretical domains framework.

RESULTS

The sample included 5 primary care physicians (PCPs), 4 cardiologists, 3 gastroenterologists, and 3 vascular surgeons. Most PCPs, gastroenterologists, and vascular surgeons seldom prescribed PPI gastroprotection. Cardiologists varied most in their use of PPI gastroprotection, with some prescribing it consistently and others never. Major barriers related to the following 3 themes: (1) knowledge, (2) decision processes, and (3) professional role. Knowledge of guidelines was greatest among cardiologists and gastroenterologists and low among PCPs and vascular surgeons, and PCPs tended to focus on adverse effects associated with PPIs, which made them reluctant to prescribe them. For cardiologists, prevention of bleeding was usually a priority, but they sometimes deferred prescribing to others. For the other 3 specialties, PPI gastroprotection was a low priority. There was unclear delineation of responsibility for prescribing gastroprotection between specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Major barriers to PPI gastroprotection relate to knowledge, decision processes, and professional role, which operate differentially across specialties. Multicomponent interventions will likely be necessary to improve guideline-based use of PPIs to prevent upper GI bleeding.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

What patients with eosinophilic esophagitis may not share with their providers: a qualitative assessment of online health communities

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) experience their symptoms, receive care, and cope with their disease. Patients commonly seek peer support from online communities, which provide insights on unmet needs and barriers to care. We performed a qualitative analysis of electronic health forums to characterize patient-to-patient conversations about EoE symptoms and the experience of disease.

METHODS

We identified three publicly accessible electronic health forums hosting EoE communities. Conversation threads posted between July 2018 and June 2020 were coded using emergent and a priori codes based on the THRIVE conceptual framework of coping with chronic illness.

RESULTS

Of 659 threads (4,933 posts) collected over two years, a random sample of 240 threads (30 per 3-month quarter) were selected for analysis. Thematic saturation was reached after 172 threads. Patient experience of EoE was driven by their perspectives in four key domains: (i) perception of EoE as episodic rather than chronic, (ii) treatment choices, (iii) personal definitions of success in the disease, and (iv) views of providers.

CONCLUSION

Online health communities are a valuable and unfiltered source of patient perspectives that can be used to understand patient needs and goals. EoE patients interpret their disease as sporadic events and lack reliable sources of knowledge, which may influence how patients prioritize treatment. If providers are to succeed in providing high-quality EoE care, they need to equip themselves with evidence-based knowledge, engage in shared decision making, and look outside of clinical settings to recognize barriers to disease management.

What Do Women Want? Consent for the Use of Electronic Fetal Monitoring

BACKGROUND

Guidelines published by professional associations of midwives, obstetricians, and nurses in the United States recommend against using continuous cardiotocography (CTG) in low-risk patients. In the United States, CTG or electronic fetal/uterine monitoring (EFM) rather than auscultation with a fetoscope or Pinard horn is the norm. Interpretation of the fetal heart rate (FHR) and uterine activity (UA) tracings provided by continuous EFM may be associated with the decision for a cesarean birth. Typically, consent is not sought in the decision about type of monitoring. No studies were identified where women's attitudes about the need to consent to the type of fetal monitoring used during labor have been explored. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to examine women's attitudes about the use of EFM in a healthcare setting.

METHODS

We asked a sample of women aged 18–50 years to respond to one of three monitoringscenarios. The scenarios were used to distinguish between attitudes about monitoring in general, monitoring the health of a mother in labor, and monitoring the health of the fetus during labor. Wemeasured their level of interest in being monitored and their opinions about whether healthcare providers should be required to obtain consent for the monitoring described in the scenario.

RESULTS

Interest in receiving monitoring (across all three scenarios) was moderate, with the highest level of interest in monitoring the fetus during labor and the least interest in monitoring a general health context. Across all scenarios, 82% of respondents believed that practitioners should obtain consent for monitoring, 14% were unsure, and 4% said there should not be a requirement for consent. While low (6%), the percentage responding that consent was not needed was highest in monitoring a fetus in labor.

CONCLUSIONS

Women in our study expressed a strong preference for the opportunity to consent to the use of monitoring regardless of the healthcare scenario. There is findings suggest the need for further research exploring what women do and do not know about CTG and what their informed performance are a pressing need to rethink the role of a pressing need to rethink the role of shared decision-making and informed consent about the type of monitoring use during labor.

Do people have an ethical obligation to share their health information? Comparing narratives of altruism and health information sharing in a nationally representative sample

BACKGROUND

With the emergence of new health information technologies, health information can be shared across networks, with or without patients' awareness and/or their consent. It is often argued that there can be an ethical obligation to participate in biomedical research, motivated by altruism, particularly when risks are low. In this study, we explore whether altruism contributes to the belief that there is an ethical obligation to share information about one's health as well as how other health care experiences, perceptions, and concerns might be related to belief in such an obligation.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey using the National Opinion Research Center's (NORC) probability-based, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. Our final analytic sample included complete responses from 2069 participants. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine how altruism, together with other knowledge, attitudes, and experiences contribute to the belief in an ethical obligation to allow health information to be used for research.

RESULTS

We find in multivariable regression that general altruism is associated with a higher likelihood of belief in an ethical obligation to allow one's health information to be used for research (OR = 1.22, SE = 0.14, p = 0.078). Trust in the health system and in care providers are both associated with a significantly higher likelihood of believing there is an ethical obligation to allow health information to be used (OR = 1.48, SE = 0.76, p<0.001; OR = 1.58, SE = 0.26, p<0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Belief that there is an ethical obligation to allow one's health information to be used for research is shaped by altruism and by one's experience with, and perceptions of, health care and by general concerns about the use of personal information. Altruism cannot be assumed and researchers must recognize the ways encounters with the health care system influence (un)willingness to share one's health information.

Governance of a Learning Health Care System for Oncology: Patient Recommendations

PURPOSE

The learning health care system (LHS) was designed to enable real-time learning and research by harnessing data generated during patients' clinical encounters. This novel approach begets ethical questions regarding the oversight of users and uses of patient data. Understanding patients' perspectives is vitally important.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted democratic deliberation sessions focused on CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS. Experts presented educational content, and then small group discussions were held to elicit viewpoints. The deliberations centered around whether policies should permit or deny certain users and uses of secondary data. De-identified transcripts of the discussions were examined by using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis identified two thematic clusters: expectations and concerns, which seemed to inform LHS governance recommendations. Participants expected to benefit from the LHS through the advancement of medical knowledge, which they hoped would improve treatments and the quality of their care. They were concerned that profit-driven users might manipulate the data in ways that could burden or exploit patients, hinder medical decisions, or compromise patient-provider communication. It was recommended that restricted access, user fees, and penalties should be imposed to prevent users, especially for-profit entities, from misusing data. Another suggestion was that patients should be notified of potential ethical issues and included on diverse, unbiased governing boards.

CONCLUSION

If patients are to trust and support LHS endeavors, their concerns about for-profit users must be addressed. The ethical implementation of such systems should consist of patient representation on governing boards, transparency, and strict oversight of for-profit users.

Physicians' Perceptions of Proton Pump Inhibitor Risks and Recommendations to Discontinue: A National Survey

OBJECTIVE

To provide contemporary estimates of internists' perceptions of adverse effects associated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and self-reported clinical use.

METHODS

We invited 799 internists, including specialists and postgraduate trainees, to complete an online survey. Topics included perceptions of PPI adverse effects (AEs) and effectiveness for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) prevention, changes in prescribing, and management recommendations for patients using PPIs for gastroesophageal reflux disease or UGIB prevention. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with appropriate PPI continuation in the scenario of a patient at high risk for UGIB.

RESULTS

Among 437 respondents (55% response rate), 10% were trainees and 72% specialized in general medicine, 70% were somewhat/very concerned about PPI AEs, and 76% had somewhat/very much changed their prescribing. A majority believed PPIs increase the risk for 6 of 12 AEs queried. Fifty-two percent perceived PPIs to be somewhat/very effective for UGIB prevention. In a gastroesophageal reflux disease scenario in which PPI can be safely discontinued, 86% appropriately recommended PPI discontinuation. However, in a high-risk UGIB prevention scenario in which long-term PPI use is recommended, 79% inappropriately recommended discontinuation. In this latter scenario, perceived effectiveness for bleeding prevention was strongly associated with continuing PPI (odds ratio 7.68, P < 0.001 for moderately; odds ratio 17.3, P < 0.001 for very effective). Other covariates, including concern about PPI AEs, had no significant association.

DISCUSSION

Most internists believe PPIs cause multiple AEs and recommend discontinuation even in patients at high risk for UGIB. Future interventions should focus on ensuring that PPIs are prescribed appropriately according to individual risks and benefits.

Eliciting patient views on the allocation of limited healthcare resources: a deliberation on hepatitis C treatment in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

In response to the development of highly effective but expensive new medications, policymakers, payors, and health systems are considering novel and pragmatic ways to provide these medications to patients. One approach is to target these treatments to those most likely to benefit. However, to maximize the fairness of these policies, and the acceptance of their implementation, the values and beliefs of patients should be considered. The provision of treatments for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in the resource-constrained context of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) offered a real-world example of this situation, providing the opportunity to test the value of using Democratic Deliberation (DD) methods to solicit the informed opinions of laypeople on this complex issue.

METHODS

We recruited Veterans (n = 30) from the VHA to attend a DD session. Following educational presentations from content experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions to: 1) identify strategies to overcome CHC treatment barriers and 2) evaluate, vote on, and modify/improve two CHC treatment policies - "first come, first served" (FCFS) and "sickest first" (SF). We used transcripts and facilitators' notes to identify key themes from the small group discussions. Additionally, participants completed pre- and post-DD surveys.

RESULTS

Most participants endorsed the SF policy over the FCFS policy, emphasizing the ethical and medical appropriateness of treating the sickest first. Concerns about SF centered on the difficulty of implementation (e.g., how is "sickest" determined?) and unfairness to other Veterans. Proposed modifications focused on: 1) the need to consider additional health factors, 2) taking behavior and lifestyle into account, 3) offering education and support, 4) improving access, and 5) facilitating better decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

DD offered a robust and useful method for addressing the allocation of the scarce resource of CHC treatment. Participants were able to develop a modified version of the SF policy and offered diverse recommendations to promote fairness and improve quality of care for Veterans. DD is an effective approach for incorporating patient preferences and gaining valuable insights for critical healthcare policy decisions in resource-limited environments.

Patient Preferences Regarding Informed Consent Models for Participation in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology

PURPOSE

The expansion of learning health care systems (LHSs) promises to bolster research and quality improvement endeavors. Stewards of patient data have a duty to respect the preferences of the patients from whom, and for whom, these data are being collected and consolidated.

METHODS

We conducted democratic deliberations with a diverse sample of 217 patients treated at 4 sites to assess views about LHSs, using the example of CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS, to stimulate discussion. In small group discussions, participants deliberated about different policies for how to provide information and to seek consent regarding the inclusion of patient data. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of participants, 67% were female, 61% were non-Hispanic Whites, and the mean age was 60 years. Patients' opinions about sharing their data illuminated 2 spectra: trust/distrust and individualism/collectivism. Positions on these spectra influenced the weight placed on 3 priorities: promoting societal altruism, ensuring respect for persons, and protecting themselves. In turn, consideration of these priorities seemed to inform preferences regarding patient choices and system transparency. Most advocated for a policy whereby patients would receive notification and have the opportunity to opt out of including their medical records in the LHS. Participants reasoned that such a policy would balance personal protections and societal welfare.

CONCLUSION

System transparency and patient choice are vital if patients are to feel respected and to trust LHS endeavors. Those responsible for LHS implementation should ensure that all patients receive an explanation of their options, together with standardized, understandable, comprehensive materials.

Reinforcing medical authority: clinical ethics consultation and the resolution of conflicts in treatment decisions

Despite substantial efforts in the past 15 years to professionalise the field of clinical ethics consultation, sociologists have not re-examined past hypotheses about the role of such services in medical decision-making and their effect on physician authority. In relation to those hypotheses, we explore two questions: (i) What kinds of issues does ethics consultation resolve? and (ii) what is the nature of the resolution afforded by these consults? We examined ethics consultation records created between 2011 and mid-2015 at a large tertiary care US hospital and found that in most cases, the problems addressed are not novel ethical dilemmas as classically conceived, but are instead disagreements between clinicians and patients or their surrogates about treatment. The resolution offered by a typical ethics consultation involves strategies to improve communication rather than the parsing of ethical obligations. In cases where disagreements persist, the proposed solution is most often based on technical clinical judgements, reinforcing the role of physician authority in patient care and the ethical decisions made about that care.

Effect of Public Deliberation on Patient Attitudes Regarding Consent and Data Use in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology

PURPOSE

We sought to generate informed and considered opinions regarding acceptable secondary uses of deidentified health information and consent models for oncology learning health care systems.

METHODS

Day-long democratic deliberation sessions included 217 patients with cancer at four geographically and sociodemographically diverse sites. Patients completed three surveys (at baseline, immediately after deliberation, and 1-month follow-up).

RESULTS

Participants were 67.3% female, 21.7% black, and 6.0% Hispanic. The most notable changes in perceptions after deliberation related to use of deidentified medical-record data by insurance companies. After discussion, 72.3% of participants felt comfortable if the purpose was to make sure patients receive recommended care (v 79.5% at baseline; P = .03); 24.9% felt comfortable if the purpose was to determine eligibility for coverage or reimbursement (v 50.9% at baseline; P < .001). The most notable change about secondary research use related to believing it was important that doctors ask patients at least once whether researchers can use deidentified medical-records data for future research. The proportion endorsing high importance decreased from baseline (82.2%) to 68.7% immediately after discussion (P < .001), and remained decreased at 73.1% (P = .01) at follow-up. At follow-up, non-Hispanic whites were more likely to consider it highly important to be able to conduct medical research with deidentified electronic health records (96.8% v 87.7%; P = .01) and less likely to consider it highly important for doctors to get a patient's permission each time deidentified medical record information is used for research (23.2% v 51.6%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This research confirms that most patients wish to be asked before deidentified medical records are used for research. Policies designed to realize the potential benefits of learning health care systems can, and should be, grounded in informed and considered public opinion.

Identification of core ethical topics for interprofessional education in the intensive care unit: a thematic analysis

Medical educators have not identified effective approaches for interprofessional ethics education of clinicians who work in intensive care units (ICUs), in spite of the fact that ICUs have a high incidence of ethical conflicts. As a first step in designing an interprofessional ethics education initiative tailored to the needs of ICU team members, we interviewed 12 professionals from the medical and surgical ICUs of a tertiary care academic medical center to understand what they know about medical ethics. Respondents were interviewed between November 2016 and February 2017. We used the 'think aloud' approach and realist thematic analysis of the sessions to evaluate the extent and content of interprofessional team members' knowledge of medical ethics. We found wide variation in their knowledge of and facility in applying the principles and concepts of biomedical ethics and ways of resolving ethical conflicts. Ethics education tailored to these areas will help equip critical care professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills to discuss and address ethical conflicts encountered in the ICU. Preventive ethics rounds are one approach for providing real-time, embedded interprofessional ethics education in the clinical setting.

Coaching a slow birth with the woman in an empowered position may be less harmful than routine hands-on practice to protect against severe tears in birth - A discussion paper

BACKGROUND

Different hands-on interventions to protect women from severe perineal tears after birth have been widely implemented. Evidence to support the routine use of hands-on interventions to reduce severe tears is mainly based on aggregated data from observational studies.

AIM

To critically discuss the current evidence for the implementation of hands-on intervention as a routine practice to protect women from severe tears after birth.

DISCUSSION

Observational studies have been used to justify the routine use of hands-on intervention to protect women from severe perineal tears despite randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews showing lack of benefit. There is strong evidence supporting the slow speed at the time of birth to prevent severe perineal tears. While hands-on intervention does reduce the speed of birth, it may have a negative effect on the birth process, on neonatal outcomes and women's agency.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based practice requires sufficient evaluation of interventions before being implemented in clinical practice as well as valuing the level of evidence when making clinical decisions. Evaluation of hands-on interventions to protect women from severe perineal tears must include not just one outcome of interest, but also an assessment of how the intervention interferes with the normal mechanism of birth, and how it affects neonatal outcomes and the autonomy of women.

Obstetric Ethics and the Invisible Mother

These mother-told stories of birth, describing disrespectful and harmful care, make the invisibility of birthing women visible. The concerns and needs of women in labor fade in the face of hospital policies and the perceived needs of their soon-to-be-born babies. Bioethics contributes to this lack of regard for mothers by framing the moral problems of birth in terms of maternal-fetal conflict, where the autonomy of the mother is weighed against the obligation of beneficence to the baby. Replacing the principlist commitment to autonomy with respect-an obligation that does not compete with beneficence-is a first step toward correcting the problems in care identified here.

Internists' Perceptions of Proton Pump Inhibitor Adverse Effects and Impact on Prescribing Practices: Results of a Nationwide Survey

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have linked proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with serious adverse effects. The study aimed to evaluate internists' perceptions of PPI harms and effects on prescribing.

METHODS

This was an online survey of a representative sample of the American College of Physicians in 2013. We queried familiarity with and concern about PPI adverse effects (1 - 7 Likert-type scales, anchored by "not at all" and "extremely"). We also asked how frequently (often, sometimes, rarely, or never) participants used any of three "de-escalation" strategies to stop or reduce PPIs because of concern about adverse effects: reducing patients' PPI dose, switching to H2 blocker, or discontinuing PPI. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between sometimes/often using any PPI de-escalation strategy and gender, time in practice, familiarity, and concern.

RESULTS

The response rate was 53% (487/914). Seventy percent were male, median time in practice was 11 - 15 years, and most practiced general medicine (58%). Ninety-nine percent reported at least some familiarity with reported adverse effects (mean 4.9, standard deviation (SD) 1.0), and 98% reported at least some concern (mean 4.6, SD 1.3). Sixty-three percent reported sometimes/often reducing the PPI dose, 52% switching to H2 blocker, and 44% discontinuing PPI. In multivariable analysis, familiarity with adverse effects (OR 1.66 (1.31 - 2.10) for 1-point increase, P < 0.001) and concern (OR 2.14 (1.76 - 2.61) for 1-point increase, P < 0.001) were independently associated with de-escalation. Gender and time in practice had no effects.

CONCLUSION

Almost all internists report awareness and concern about PPI adverse effects, and most are de-escalating PPIs as a result. Research on which approach is most effective for which patients is critically important.

A Question of Social Justice: How Policies of Profit Negate Engagement of Developing World Bioethicists and Undermine Global Bioethics

We identify the ways the policies of leading international bioethics journals limit the participation of researchers working in the resource-constrained settings of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the development of the field of bioethics. Lack of access to essential scholarly resources makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many LMIC bioethicists to learn from, meaningfully engage in, and further contribute to the global bioethics discourse. Underrepresentation of LMIC perspectives in leading journals sustains the hegemony of Western bioethics, limits the presentation of diverse moral visions of life, health, and medicine, and undermines aspirations to create a truly "global" bioethics. Limited attention to this problem indicates a lack of empathy and moral imagination on the part of bioethicists in high-income countries, raises questions about the ethics of bioethics, and highlights the urgent need to find ways to remedy this social injustice.

Physician Experiences and Understanding of Genomic Sequencing in Oncology

The amount of information produced by genomic sequencing is vast, technically complicated, and can be difficult to interpret. Appropriately tailoring genomic information for non-geneticists is an essential next step in the clinical use of genomic sequencing. To initiate development of a framework for genomic results communication, we conducted eighteen qualitative interviews with oncologists who had referred adult cancer patients to a matched tumor-normal tissue genomic sequencing study. In our qualitative analysis, we found varied levels of clinician knowledge relating to sequencing technology, the scope of the tumor genomic sequencing study, and incidental germline findings. Clinicians expressed a perceived need for more genetics education. Additionally, they had a variety of suggestions for improving results reports and possible resources to aid in results interpretation. Most clinicians felt genetic counselors were needed when incidental germline findings were identified. Our research suggests that more consistent genetics education is imperative in ensuring the proper utilization of genomic sequencing in cancer care. Clinician suggestions for results interpretation resources and results report modifications could be used to improve communication. Clinicians' perceived need to involve genetic counselors when incidental germline findings were found suggests genetic specialists could play a critical role in ensuring patients receive appropriate follow-up.

The use of an online comment system in clinical ethics consultation

BACKGROUND

Although a mechanism for resolving ethical issues in patient care is required for accreditation of American hospitals, there are no formal qualifications for providing clinical ethics consultation (CEC), and there remains great variability in the composition of ethics committees and consult services. Consequently, the quality of CEC also varies depending on the qualifications of those performing CEC services and the format of CEC utilized at an institution. Our institution implemented an online CEC comment system to build upon existing practices to promote consistency and broad consensus in CEC services and enable quality assurance.

METHODS

This qualitative study explored the use of an online comment system in ethics consultation and its impact on consensus building and quality assurance. All adult ethics consultations recorded between January 2011 and May 2015 (n = 159) were analyzed for themes using both open and directed coding methods.

RESULTS

We found that comments broadly reflected three categories: expressions of approval/agreement (87% of consults), comments about the case (89%), and comments about the written record (72%). More than one-third of consults included responses to other comments (37%). The most common types of "comments about the case" included requests for additional information (36%), recommendations for additional services (21%), and references to formal policies/standards (28%). Comments often spanned multiple categories and themes. Comments about the written record emphasized accessibility, clarity, and specificity in ethics consultation communication.

CONCLUSIONS

We find the online system allows for broad committee participation in consultations and helps improve the quality of CEC provided by allowing for substantive discussion and consensus building. Further, we find the use of an online comment system and subsequent records can serve as an educational tool for students, trainees, and ethics committee members.

Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Ethics of Rapid-Learning Health Systems

Purpose To inform the evolving implementation of CancerLinQ and other rapid-learning systems for oncology care, we sought to evaluate perspectives of patients with cancer regarding ethical issues. Methods Using the GfK Group online research panel, representative of the US population, we surveyed 875 patients with cancer; 621 (71%) responded. We evaluated perceptions of appropriateness (scored from 1 to 10; 10, very appropriate) using scenarios and compared responses by age, race, and education. We constructed a scaled measure of comfort with secondary use of deidentified medical information and evaluated its correlates in a multivariable model. Results Of the sample, 9% were black and 9% Hispanic; 38% had completed high school or less, and 59% were age ≥ 65 years. Perceptions of appropriateness were highest when consent was obtained and university researchers used data to publish a research study (weighted mean appropriateness, 8.47) and lowest when consent was not obtained and a pharmaceutical company used data for marketing (weighted mean appropriateness, 2.7). Most respondents (72%) thought secondary use of data for research was very important, although those with lower education were less likely to endorse this (62% v 78%; P < .001). Overall, 35% believed it was necessary to obtain consent each time such research was to be performed; this proportion was higher among blacks/Hispanics than others (48% v 33%; P = .02). Comfort with the use of deidentified information from medical records varied by scenario and overall was associated with distrust in the health care system. Conclusion Perceptions of patients with cancer regarding secondary data use depend on the user and the specific use of the data, while also frequently differing by patient sociodemographic factors. Such information is critical to inform ongoing efforts to implement oncology learning systems.

Regarding Bioethics: A Sociology of Morality

C. Wright Mills said that when done well, sociology illuminates the intersection of biography and history. This essay examines how the author's vocational choices and career path were shaped by historical circumstance, leading him to a degree in sociology and to participation in the odd and interesting interdiscipline of bioethics. Drawing on a distinction between sociology in bioethics and sociology of bioethics, the essay considers the value of sociology to the bioethical project.

The state of the art of twinning, a concept analysis of twinning in healthcare

BACKGROUND

Inequities in health have garnered international attention and are now addressed in Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG3), which seeks to 'promote well-being for all'. To attain this goal globally requires innovative approaches, one of which is twinning. According to the International Confederation of Midwives, twinning focusses on empowering professionals, who can subsequently be change-agents for their communities. However, twinning in healthcare is relatively new and because the definition and understanding of twinning lacks clarity, rigorous monitoring and evaluation are rare. A clear definition of twinning is essential for the development of a scientific base for this promising form of collaboration.

METHOD

We conducted a Concept Analysis (CA) of twinning in healthcare using Morse's method. A qualitative study of the broad literature was performed, including scientific papers, manuals, project reports, and websites. We identified relevant papers through a systematic search using scientific databases, backtracking of references, and experts in the field.

RESULTS

We found nineteen papers on twinning in healthcare. This included twelve peer reviewed research papers, four manuals on twinning, two project reports, and one website. Seven of these papers offered no definition of twinning. In the other twelve papers definitions varied. Our CA of the literature resulted in four main attributes of twinning in healthcare. First, and most frequently mentioned, was reciprocity. The other three attributes were that twinning: 2) entails the building of personal relationships, 3) is dynamic process, 4) is between two named organisations across different cultures. The literature also indicated that these four attributes, and especially reciprocity, can have an empowering effect on healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these four attributes we developed the following operational definition: Twinning is a cross-cultural, reciprocal process where two groups of people work together to achieve joint goals. A greater understanding and a mature definition of twinning results in clear expectations for participants and thus more effective twinning. This can be the starting point for new collaborations and for further international studies on the effect of twinning in healthcare.

Are patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at risk of a therapeutic misconception?

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are at risk of a therapeutic misconception (TM) in which they misconceive research as treatment or overestimate the likelihood of its benefit.

METHODS

72 patients with ALS recruited via academic and patient organisations were surveyed using a hypothetical first-in-human intervention study scenario. We elicited their understanding of the purpose of the study ('purpose-of-research question') and then asked how they interpreted the question. We then asked for an estimate of the likelihood that their ALS would improve by participating and asked them to explain the meaning of their estimates.

RESULTS

Although 10 of 72 (14%) subjects incorrectly said that the intervention study was 'mostly intending to help [me]' in response to the purpose-of-research question, 7 of those 10 thought that the question was asking them about their own motivations for participating. Overall, only one of 72 respondents (1.4%) both understood the purpose-of-research question as intended and gave the incorrect response. Subjects' mean estimate of likelihood of benefit was 31% (SD 26). This was due to 29 of 72 of respondents providing high estimates (50%-54% likelihood), which they said were expressions of hope and need for a positive attitude; among those who said their estimates meant 'those are the facts' or 'there is a lot of uncertainty', the estimates were much lower (12.6% and 18.5%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this group of patients with ALS considering a hypothetical first-in-human intervention study, apparent TM responses have alternative explanations and the risk of true TM appears low.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide of Patients With Psychiatric Disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014

IMPORTANCE

Euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) of psychiatric patients is increasing in some jurisdictions such as Belgium and the Netherlands. However, little is known about the practice, and it remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the characteristics of patients receiving EAS for psychiatric conditions and how the practice is regulated in the Netherlands.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This investigation reviewed psychiatric EAS case summaries made available online by the Dutch regional euthanasia review committees as of June 1, 2015. Two senior psychiatrists used directed content analysis to review and code the reports. In total, 66 cases from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinical and social characteristics of patients, physician review process of the patients' requests, and the euthanasia review committees' assessments of the physicians' actions.

RESULTS

Of the 66 cases reviewed, 70% (n = 46) were women. In total, 32% (n = 21) were 70 years or older, 44% (n = 29) were 50 to 70 years old, and 24% (n = 16) were 30 to 50 years old. Most had chronic, severe conditions, with histories of attempted suicides and psychiatric hospitalizations. Most had personality disorders and were described as socially isolated or lonely. Depressive disorders were the primary psychiatric issue in 55% (n = 36) of cases. Other conditions represented were psychotic, posttraumatic stress or anxiety, somatoform, neurocognitive, and eating disorders, as well as prolonged grief and autism. Comorbidities with functional impairments were common. Forty-one percent (n = 27) of physicians performing EAS were psychiatrists. Twenty-seven percent (n = 18) of patients received the procedure from physicians new to them, 14 of whom were physicians from the End-of-Life Clinic, a mobile euthanasia clinic. Consultation with other physicians was extensive, but 11% (n = 7) of cases had no independent psychiatric input, and 24% (n = 16) of cases involved disagreement among consultants. The euthanasia review committees found that one case failed to meet legal due care criteria.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Persons receiving EAS for psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands are mostly women and of diverse ages, with complex and chronic psychiatric, medical, and psychosocial histories. The granting of their EAS requests appears to involve considerable physician judgment, usually involving multiple physicians who do not always agree (sometimes without independent psychiatric input), but the euthanasia review committees generally defer to the judgments of the physicians performing the EAS.

"It is not guaranteed that you will benefit": True but misleading?

BACKGROUND

Participants of early-phase intervention trials for serious conditions provide high estimates of likelihood of benefit, even when informed consent forms do not promise such benefits. However, some technically correct, negatively stated benefits statements—such as "it is not guaranteed that you will benefit"—could play a role in raising expectations of benefit because in ordinary English usage such statements denote a likely but not a certain-to-occur event.

METHODS

An experimental online survey of 584 English-speaking adults recruited online. They were randomized to receive one of two benefit statements ("not guaranteed" vs "some but very small chance"), using a hypothetical scenario of an early-phase clinical trial testing an intervention to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. We assessed respondents' willingness to consider participating in the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis trial, their estimates of likelihood of benefit, and their explanations for those estimates.

RESULTS

The two arms did not differ in willingness to consider participation in the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis trial. Those receiving "not guaranteed" benefit statement had higher estimates of benefit than those receiving "some but very small chance" statement (35.7% (standard deviation 20.2) vs 28.3% (standard deviation 22.0), p < 0.0001). A total of 43% of all respondents chose expressions of positive sentiment (hope and need to stay positive) as explanations of their estimates; these respondents' estimates of benefit were higher than others but similar between the two arms. The effect of benefit statements was greatest among those who chose "Those are just the facts" as the explanation for their estimate (31.0% (standard deviation 22.4%) in "not guaranteed" arm vs 18.9% (standard deviation 21.0%) in comparison arm, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

The use of "not guaranteed" language in benefit statements, when compared to "small but very small chance" language, appeared to increase the perception of likelihood of benefit of entering an early-phase trial, especially among those who view their estimates of benefits as "facts." Such "no guarantee" benefit statements may be misleading and should not be used in informed consent forms.

Are therapeutic motivation and having one's own doctor as researcher sources of therapeutic misconception?

BACKGROUND

Desire for improvement in one's illness and having one's own doctor functioning as a researcher are thought to promote therapeutic misconception (TM), a phenomenon in which research subjects are said to conflate research with treatment.

PURPOSE

To examine whether subjects' therapeutic motivation and own doctor functioning as researcher are associated with TM.

METHODS

We interviewed 90 persons with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) enrolled or intending to enrol in sham surgery controlled neurosurgical trials, using qualitative interviews. Subjects were compared by motivation (primarily therapeutic vs primarily altruistic or dually motivated by altruistic and therapeutic motivation), and by doctor status (own doctor as site investigator vs not) on the following: understanding of purpose of study; understanding of research procedures; perception of chance of direct benefit; and recollection and perceptions concerning the risks.

RESULTS

60% had primarily therapeutic motivation and 44% had their own doctor as the site investigator, but neither were generally associated with increased TM responses. Overall level of understanding of purpose and procedures of research were high. Subjects responded with generally high estimates of probability of direct benefit, but their rationales were personal and complex. The therapeutic-motivation group was more sensitive to risks. Five (5.6%) subjects provided incorrect answers to the question about purpose of research, and yet, showed excellent understanding of research procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In persons with PD involved in sham surgery clinical trials, being primarily motivated by desire for direct benefit to one's illness or having one's own doctor as the site investigator were not associated with greater TM responses.

[Re]considering Respect for Persons in a Globalizing World

Contemporary clinical ethics was founded on principlism, and the four principles: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice, remain dominant in medical ethics discourse and practice. These principles are held to be expansive enough to provide the basis for the ethical practice of medicine across cultures. Although principlism remains subject to critique and revision, the four-principle model continues to be taught and applied across the world. As the practice of medicine globalizes, it remains critical to examine the extent to which both the four-principle framework, and individual principles among the four, suffice patients and practitioners in different social and cultural contexts. Using the four-principle model we analyze two accounts of surrogate decision making - one from the developed and one from the developing world - in which the clinician undertakes medical decision-making with apparently little input from the patient and/or family. The purpose of this analysis is to highlight challenges in assessing ethical behaviour according to the principlist model. We next describe cultural expectations and mores that inform both patient and clinician behaviors in these scenarios in order to argue that the principle of respect for persons informed by culture-specific ideas of personhood may offer an improved ethical construct for analyzing and guiding medical practice in a globalized and plural world.

Respect for cultural diversity in bioethics is an ethical imperative

The field of bioethics continues to struggle with the problem of cultural diversity: can universal principles guide ethical decision making, regardless of the culture in which those decisions take place? Or should bioethical principles be derived from the moral traditions of local cultures? Ten Have and Gordijn (Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14:1-3, 2011) and Bracanovic (Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14:229-236, 2011) defend the universalist position, arguing that respect for cultural diversity in matters ethical will lead to a dangerous cultural relativity where vulnerable patients and research subjects will be harmed. We challenge the premises of moral universalism, showing how this approach imports and imposes moral notions of Western society and leads to harm in non-western cultures.

What does it take to have a strong and independent profession of midwifery? Lessons from the Netherlands

In the 1970s, advocates of demedicalising pregnancy and birth 'discovered' Dutch maternity care. The Netherlands presented an attractive model because its maternity care system was characterised by a strong and independent profession of midwifery, close co-operation between obstetricians and midwives, a very high rate of births at home, little use of caesarean section, and morbidity and mortality statistics that were among the best in the developed world. Over the course of the following 40 years much has changed in the Netherlands. Although the home birth rate remains quite high when compared to other modern countries, it is half of what it was in the 1970s. Midwifery is still an independent medical profession, but a move toward 'integrated care' threatens to bring midwives into hospitals under the direction of medical specialists, more women are interested in medical pain relief, and there is a growing concern that current, albeit slight, increases in rates of intervention in physiological births foreshadow the end of the unique approach to birth in the Netherlands. The story of Dutch maternity care thus offers an ideal opportunity to examine the social, organisational, and cultural factors that work to support, and to diminish, the independent practice of midwifery in high-resource countries. We may wish to believe that providing ample and convincing evidence of the value of midwifery care will be enough to promote more and better use of midwifery, but the lessons from the Netherlands make clear that an array of social forces play a critical role determining the place of midwives in the health care system and how the care they provide is deployed.