Building a house without foundations? A 24-country qualitative interview study on artificial intelligence in intensive care medicine

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of intensive care professionals in high-income countries (HICs) and lower-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) regarding the use and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

Individual semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted between December 2021 and August 2022 with 59 intensive care professionals from 24 countries. Transcripts were analysed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants had generally positive views about the potential use of AI in ICUs but also reported some well-known concerns about the use of AI in clinical practice and important technical and non-technical barriers to the implementation of AI. Important differences existed between ICUs regarding their current readiness to implement AI. However, these differences were not primarily between HICs and LMICs, but between a small number of ICUs in large tertiary hospitals in HICs, which were reported to have the necessary digital infrastructure for AI, and nearly all other ICUs in both HICs and LMICs, which were reported to neither have the technical capability to capture the necessary data or use AI, nor the staff with the right knowledge and skills to use the technology.

CONCLUSION

Pouring massive amounts of resources into developing AI without first building the necessary digital infrastructure foundation needed for AI is unethical. Real-world implementation and routine use of AI in the vast majority of ICUs in both HICs and LMICs included in our study is unlikely to occur any time soon. ICUs should not be using AI until certain preconditions are met.

Solidarity and reciprocity during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative interview study from Germany

BACKGROUND

While solidarity practices were important in mitigating the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, their limits became evident as the pandemic progressed. Taking a longitudinal approach, this study analyses German residents' changing perceptions of solidarity practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and examines potential reasons for these changes.

METHODS

Adults living in Germany were interviewed in April 2020 (n = 46), October 2020 (n = 43) and October 2021 (n = 40) as part of the SolPan Research Commons, a large-scale, international, qualitative, longitudinal study uniquely situated in a major global public health crisis. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

While solidarity practices were prominently discussed and positively evaluated in April 2020, this initial enthusiasm waned in October 2020 and October 2021. Yet, participants still perceived solidarity as important for managing the pandemic and called for institutionalized forms of solidarity in October 2020 and October 2021. Reasons for these changing perceptions of solidarity included (i) increasing personal and societal costs to act in solidarity, (ii) COVID-19 policies hindering solidarity practices, and (iii) a perceived lack of reciprocity as participants felt that solidarity practices from the state were not matching their individual efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining solidarity contributes to maximizing public health during a pandemic. Institutionalized forms of solidarity to support those most in need contribute to perceived reciprocity among individuals, which might increase their motivation to act in solidarity. Thus, rather than calling for individual solidarity during times of crisis, authorities should consider implementing sustaining solidarity-based social support systems that go beyond immediate crisis management.

'It's a nightmare': informed consent in paediatric genome-wide sequencing. A qualitative expert interview study from Germany and Switzerland

The use of genome-wide sequencing (GWS) in paediatrics has added complexity to informed consent (IC) and pretest counselling because of the vast number and interpretation of potential findings, and their implications. However, empirical data from continental Europe on these issues remains limited. This study therefore aimed to explore the experiences and views of medical geneticists working with children in Germany and Switzerland regarding the challenges of obtaining valid IC in paediatric GWS. Qualitative interviews with 20 medical geneticists were analysed employing reflexive thematic analysis. In the interviews, many medical geneticists questioned the validity of parents' IC due to the enormous amount of relevant information given and the variety and complexity of the possible test outcomes. Key barriers identified included familial implications, administrative challenges and struggles with non-directiveness. Medical geneticists' suggestions for improvement included increasing the number of genetics professionals and better information material, which is crucial as GWS becomes a diagnostic standard in the early care pathways of children. An adjustment of aspirations from still existing ideal of traditional fully IC to appropriate IC seems to be needed. Such a more realistic and ethically sound adaptation of the requirements for IC can lead to better 'informedness' and improve the validity of the consent. This might also help reduce the moral distress for the medical geneticists involved.

Understanding Pandemic Solidarity: Mutual Support During the First COVID-19 Lockdown in the United Kingdom

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of solidarity has been invoked frequently. Much interest has centred around how citizens and communities support one another during times of uncertainty. Yet, empirical research which accounts and understands citizen's views on pandemic solidarity, or their actual practices has remained limited. Drawing upon the analysis of data from 35 qualitative interviews, this article investigates how residents in England and Scotland enacted, understood, or criticised (the lack of) solidarity during the first national lockdown in the United Kingdom in April 2020-at a time when media celebrated solidarity as being at an all-time high. It finds that although solidarity was practiced by some people, the perceived lack of solidarity was just as pronounced. We conclude that despite frequent mobilisations of solidarity by policy makers and other public actors, actual practices of solidarity are poorly understood-despite the importance of solidarity for public health and policy.

Professional Identity and Motivation for Medical School in First-Year Medical Students: A Cross-sectional Study

Background

Professional identity formation (PIF) is a life-long process, starting even before professional education. High levels of motivation for medical school are essential for effective learning and academic success. Both are key factors in future physicians' professional and personal development, and according to self-determination theory, professional identity (PI) and students' levels of motivation could be closely linked. Therefore, we sought to investigate whether PI and strength of motivation for medical school are associated in new medical students.

Methods

In a cross-sectional survey, all new medical students in Munich, Germany, were asked to complete the Macleod Clark Professional Identity Scale (MCPIS-9) and the Strength of Motivation for Medical School-Revised questionnaire (SMMS-R) as well as to provide information about age, gender, and waiting time before starting medical school.

Results

Eight hundred eleven out of 918 new medical students participated in the survey. A positive correlation between the MCPIS-9 and the SMMS-R (p < 0.001) was found. Female students showed higher scores in the SMMS-R (p < 0.05) and the SMMS-R-subscale Readiness to Start (p < 0.001). The amount of waiting semesters showed a positive correlation with the total SMMS-R score (p < 0.01) as well as with the subscales Readiness to Start and Persistence (both p < 0.001).

Discussion

We found an association between PI and strength of motivation for medical school in a large cohort of new medical students. Female gender and more waiting semesters were associated with higher levels of self-perceived motivation and higher scores on the SMMS-R-subscale Readiness to Start. More research is needed to better understand this topic to further improve medical education.

The social and socio-political embeddedness of COVID-19 vaccination decision-making: A five-country qualitative interview study from Europe

The uptake ofCOVID-19 vaccines has varied considerably across European countries. This study investigates people's decision-making process regarding vaccination by analyzing qualitative interviews (n = 214) with residents from five European countries: Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Switzerland. We identify three factors that shape vaccination decision-making: individual experiences and pre-existing attitudes towards vaccination, social environment, and socio-political context. Based on this analysis, we present a typology of decision-making regarding COVID-19 vaccines, where some types present stable stances towards vaccines and others change over time. Trust in government and relevant stakeholders, broader social factors, and people's direct social environment were particularly relevant to these dynamics. We conclude that vaccination campaigns should be considered long-term projects (also outside of pandemics) in need of regular adjustment, communication and fine-tuning to ensure public trust. This is particularly pertinent for booster vaccinations, such as COVID-19 or influenza.

Newspaper coverage on solidarity and personal responsibility in the COVID-19 pandemic: A content analysis from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland

Solidarity and personal responsibility have been repeatedly called upon during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study quantifies and contextualizes the use of these terms in newspaper coverage in Germany and German-speaking Switzerland based on n = 640 articles from six functionally equivalent newspapers. The term solidarity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was mentioned in 541/640 articles (84.5%) and was primarily used during phases with high death rates and comparatively stringent policies in place, supporting the idea that solidarity was used to explain restrictive measures to the population and motivate people to comply with these measures. German newspapers published more articles on solidarity than Swiss-German newspapers, consistent with more stringent COVID-19 policies in Germany. Personal responsibility was mentioned in 133/640 articles (20.8%), meaning that the term was less frequently discussed than solidarity. Articles covering personal responsibility included more negative evaluations during phases of high infection rates as compared to phases of low infection rates. Findings indicate that the two terms were, at least to some extent, used in newspaper reporting to contextualize and justify COVID-19 policy during phases of high infection rates. Moreover, the term solidarity was used in a high variety of different contexts and the inherent limits of solidarity were rarely mentioned. Policymakers and journalists need to take this into account for future crises to not jeopardize the positive effects of solidarity.

Ethical layering in AI-driven polygenic risk scores-New complexities, new challenges

Researchers aim to develop polygenic risk scores as a tool to prevent and more effectively treat serious diseases, disorders and conditions such as breast cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease. Recently, machine learning techniques, in particular deep neural networks, have been increasingly developed to create polygenic risk scores using electronic health records as well as genomic and other health data. While the use of artificial intelligence for polygenic risk scores may enable greater accuracy, performance and prediction, it also presents a range of increasingly complex ethical challenges. The ethical and social issues of many polygenic risk score applications in medicine have been widely discussed. However, in the literature and in practice, the ethical implications of their confluence with the use of artificial intelligence have not yet been sufficiently considered. Based on a comprehensive review of the existing literature, we argue that this stands in need of urgent consideration for research and subsequent translation into the clinical setting. Considering the many ethical layers involved, we will first give a brief overview of the development of artificial intelligence-driven polygenic risk scores, associated ethical and social implications, challenges in artificial intelligence ethics, and finally, explore potential complexities of polygenic risk scores driven by artificial intelligence. We point out emerging complexity regarding fairness, challenges in building trust, explaining and understanding artificial intelligence and polygenic risk scores as well as regulatory uncertainties and further challenges. We strongly advocate taking a proactive approach to embedding ethics in research and implementation processes for polygenic risk scores driven by artificial intelligence.

Democratic research: Setting up a research commons for a qualitative, comparative, longitudinal interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic

The sudden and dramatic advent of the COVID-19 pandemic led to urgent demands for timely, relevant, yet rigorous research. This paper discusses the origin, design, and execution of the SolPan research commons, a large-scale, international, comparative, qualitative research project that sought to respond to the need for knowledge among researchers and policymakers in times of crisis. The form of organization as a research commons is characterized by an underlying solidaristic attitude of its members and its intrinsic organizational features in which research data and knowledge in the study is shared and jointly owned. As such, the project is peer-governed, rooted in (idealist) social values of academia, and aims at providing tools and benefits for its members. In this paper, we discuss challenges and solutions for qualitative studies that seek to operate as research commons.

Diversity in German-speaking medical ethics and humanities

BACKGROUND

Bioethics can play an important role in addressing diversity both in and outside of academia, setting precedents for meaningful contributions to public discourse, research, teaching, training, and policy development. However, in order to do so, these conversations also need to reflect on the issue of diversity within the field of bioethics across the globe. This study aims to examine current gender representation and diversity at medical ethics and humanities institutes in Germany, the German-speaking areas of Switzerland, and Austria.

METHODS

A total of forty-nine medical ethics and humanities institutes from Germany (n=42), the German-speaking areas of Switzerland (n=5), and Austria (n=2) were included in the study. Institutes websites were reviewed in the first week of March 2021 and the details of each staff member listed on the website recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 964 staff members were identified at the forty-nine German-speaking medical ethics and humanities institutes. Just over half (530/964; 55%) of all staff were female. There were significant differences between gender in some staff positions: 64.6 per cent (31/48) of directors were male (χ²₍₁₎=4.1, P=.04); 62.7 per cent (84/134) of student assistants were female (χ²₍₁₎=8.6, P=.003); and 83.7 per cent (77/92) of administrative staff were female (χ²₍₁₎=41.8, P<.001). There were no significant differences between staff gender for researchers and lecturers, or associated researchers. In addition, 65.5 per cent (19/29) of researchers and lecturers who had a professor title were male, but the difference between genders was not found to be significant. However, significantly more of the researchers and lecturers who had completed a habilitation were male (75.8% (25/33); χ²₍₁₎=8.8, P=.003). When comparing the institute director's gender presentation with staff gender presentation, it was found that male-led institutes had 53.4 per cent (286/536) female staff overall but had 52.7 per cent (136/258) male researchers and lecturers. However, the difference between genders were not found to be significant. On the other hand, female-led institutes had significantly more female staff overall (59.9% (223/372); χ²₍₁₎=14.7, P<.001) and also significantly more female researchers and lecturers (58.9% (119/202; χ²₍₁₎=6.4, P=.01).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a significant push to address gender diversity in German-speaking academia, and this study finds overall good gender parity in medical ethics and humanities institutes. However, there has not been a similar openness to discussing issues of systemic racism or how other forms of inequality affect academic diversity. Taking diversity seriously requires opening up conversations around intersectionality, including difficult conversations around race and cultural background that have long been taboo in German-speaking countries.

Solidaristic behavior and its limits: A qualitative study about German and Swiss residents' behaviors towards public health measures during COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020

Politicians, policymakers, and mass media alike have emphasized the importance of solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic, calling for the need of social cohesion in society to protect risk groups and national healthcare systems. In this study, which is part of an international Consortium, we analyzed 77 qualitative interviews with members of the general public in Germany and German-speaking areas of Switzerland on solidaristic behavior and its limits during the first COVID-19 related lockdown in April 2020. We found interdependencies between the interpersonal, group, and state tiers of solidarity that offer insights into what promotes solidaristic practice and what does not. We argue that because solidarity does not have a necessary and sufficient normative value in itself, those wanting to promote solidarity need to consider these interdependencies to effectively implement policy measures. Our study shows that inter-societal solidarity was based on individual voluntary agency and promoted through recognizing a shared goal, shared values, or other communalities including group effort. It also shows that individuals held state authorities accountable for the same values and expect inter-societal reciprocity from the contractual level. Tensions between those complying or willing to follow recommendations voluntarily and those perceived as not promoting the shared goal, posed challenges for solidarity. Another challenge for solidaristic behavior was when acting in solidarity with others was in direct conflict with the needs of close ones. Our study provides a clearer picture of promoting and limiting factors concerning solidarity which is relevant when communicating health policy measures to individuals and groups.

Motivations and Limits for COVID-19 Policy Compliance in Germany and Switzerland

BACKGROUND

In contrast to neighboring countries, German and Swiss authorities refrained from general curfews during the first pandemic wave in spring 2020, calling for solidarity and personal responsibility instead. Using a qualitative methodology, this study aims to explore why people in Germany and Switzerland were motivated to comply with policy measures during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and what factors hindered or limited their motivation. While quantitative surveys can measure the level of compliance, or broadly ask what motives people had for compliance, we here strive to explain why and how these motives lead to compliance.

METHODS

This publication has been made possible by the joint work of the members of the "Solidarity in times of pandemics" (SolPan) research commons. Seventy-seven semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with members of the general public in Germany (n = 46) and the German-speaking part of Switzerland (n = 31) in April 2020. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified that summarize factors contributing to compliant or noncompliant behavior. (1) Social cohesion was, on the one hand, an important motivator for compliance, but at the same time related to conflicting needs, illustrating the limits of compliance. (2) Consequences were considered on both the individual level (eg, consequences of individual infection) and societal level (eg, the societal and economic consequences of restrictions). (3) While for some participants following the rules was perceived as a matter of principle, others stressed the importance of making their own risk assessment, which was often associated with with a need for evidence on the effectiveness and reasons behind measures.

CONCLUSION

A variety of motives contribute to COVID-19 related compliance. Authorities should seek to address these multi-faceted aspects to support motivation for compliance in a large proportion of the population.

You Can't Have AI Both Ways: Balancing Health Data Privacy and Access Fairly

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare promises to make healthcare safer, more accurate, and more cost-effective. Public and private actors have been investing significant amounts of resources into the field. However, to benefit from data-intensive medicine, particularly from AI technologies, one must first and foremost have access to data. It has been previously argued that the conventionally used “consent or anonymize approach” undermines data-intensive medicine, and worse, may ultimately harm patients. Yet, this is still a dominant approach in European countries and framed as an either-or choice. In this paper, we contrast the different data governance approaches in the EU and their advantages and disadvantages in the context of healthcare AI. We detail the ethical trade-offs inherent to data-intensive medicine, particularly the balancing of data privacy and data access, and the subsequent prioritization between AI and other effective health interventions. If countries wish to allocate resources to AI, they also need to make corresponding efforts to improve (secure) data access. We conclude that it is unethical to invest significant amounts of public funds into AI development whilst at the same time limiting data access through strict privacy measures, as this constitutes a waste of public resources. The “AI revolution” in healthcare can only realise its full potential if a fair, inclusive engagement process spells out the values underlying (trans) national data governance policies and their impact on AI development, and priorities are set accordingly.

Clinical Priority Setting and Decision-Making in Sweden: A Cross-sectional Survey Among Physicians

BACKGROUND

Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians' views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW).

METHODS

An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology.

RESULTS

Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than 'at least once per month,' whilst 60% felt less than 'well-prepared' to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform 'well' and 'very well' and 64% NBHW's national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHW's national guidelines.

CONCLUSION

There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHW's national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform.

Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility

Background

Whether there is sufficient capacity and capability for the successful conduct and delivery of a clinical trial should be assessed by several stakeholders according to transparent and evidence-based criteria during trial planning. For this openly shared, user-tested, and validated tools are necessary. Therefore, we systematically examined the public availability and content of checklists which assess the study-level feasibility in the planning phase of clinical trials.

Methods

In our scoping review we systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Google (last search, June 2021). We included all publicly available checklists or tools that assessed study level feasibility of clinical trials, examined their content, and checked whether they were user-tested or validated in any form. Data was analysed and synthesised using conventional content analysis.

Results

A total of 10 publicly available checklists from five countries were identified. The checklists included 48 distinct items that were classified according to the following seven different domains of clinical trial feasibility: regulation, review and oversight; participant recruitment; space, material and equipment; financial resources; trial team resources; trial management; and pilot or feasibility studies. None of the available checklists appeared to be user-tested or validated.

Conclusions

Although a number of publicly available checklists to assess the feasibility of clinical trials exist, their reliability and usefulness remain unclear. Openly shared, user-tested, and validated feasibility assessment tools for a better planning of clinical trials are lacking.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01617-6.

The COVID-19 Vaccine: Trust, doubt, and hope for a future beyond the pandemic in Germany

Public perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines are critical in reaching protective levels of herd immunity. Vaccine skepticism has always been relatively high in Germany, and surveys suggest that over the course of the pandemic, enthusiasm for the COVID-19 vaccine has dropped. Looking at the period just prior to the approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in Germany in the latter half of 2020, this paper aims to assess the reasons for and against COVID-19 vaccine uptake among residents of Germany, and to provide in-depth qualitative data to better understand and address concerns surrounding the safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine. Our findings indicate that there is widespread trust in German institutions and health experts to provide a safe vaccine for those who need it most. However, interviewees also point to the need for more information and the centrality of support from trusted medical authorities in making individual vaccination decisions. We also present the complexity of individual positions on vaccination, and suggest that vaccine hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 needs to be understood as a nuanced, and socially malleable, territory. This indicates that the goal of a vaccination campaign is not only achieving ‘herd immunity,’ but also a social endorsement of the collaborative effort that is required for a vaccine to be successful.

Practices and attitudes of Bavarian stakeholders regarding the secondary-use of health data for research purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study (Preprint)

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic is a threat to global health and requires collaborative health research efforts across organizations and countries to address it. Although routinely collected digital health data are a valuable source of information for researchers, benefiting from these data requires accessing and sharing the data. Health care organizations focusing on individual risk minimization threaten to undermine COVID-19 research efforts, and it has been argued that there is an ethical obligation to use the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) scientific research exemption during the COVID-19 pandemic to support collaborative health research.

Objective

This study aims to explore the practices and attitudes of stakeholders in the German federal state of Bavaria regarding the secondary use of health data for research purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on the GDPR scientific research exemption.

Methods

Individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 with a purposive sample of 17 stakeholders from 3 different groups in Bavaria: researchers involved in COVID-19 research (n=5, 29%), data protection officers (n=6, 35%), and research ethics committee representatives (n=6, 35%). The transcripts were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

Results

Participants identified systemic challenges in conducting collaborative secondary-use health data research in Bavaria; secondary health data research generally only happens when patient consent has been obtained, or the data have been fully anonymized. The GDPR research exemption has not played a significant role during the pandemic and is currently seldom and restrictively used. Participants identified 3 key groups of barriers that led to difficulties: the wider ecosystem at many Bavarian health care organizations, legal uncertainty that leads to risk-adverse approaches, and ethical positions that patient consent ought to be obtained whenever possible to respect patient autonomy. To improve health data research in Bavaria and across Germany, participants wanted greater legal certainty regarding the use of pseudonymized data for research purposes without the patient’s consent.

Conclusions

The current balance between enabling the positive goals of health data research and avoiding associated data protection risks is heavily skewed toward avoiding risks; so much so that it makes reaching the goals of health data research extremely difficult. This is important, as it is widely recognized that there is an ethical imperative to use health data to improve care. The current approach also creates a problematic conflict with the ambitions of Germany, and the federal state of Bavaria, to be a leader in artificial intelligence. A recent development in the field of German public administration known as norm screening (Normenscreening) could potentially provide a systematic approach to minimize legal barriers. This approach would likely be beneficial to other countries.

Investigational medicinal products, related costs and hospital pharmacy services for investigator-initiated trials: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Conducting high quality investigator-initiated trials (IITs) is challenging and costly. The costs of investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in IITs and the role of hospital pharmacies in the planning of IITs are unclear. We conducted a mixed-methods study to compare planned and actual costs of IMPs in Swiss IITs, to examine potential reasons for differences, and to gather stakeholder views about hospital services for IITs.

METHODS

We included all IITs with IMP services from the Basel hospital pharmacy invoiced between January 2014 and June 2020 (n = 24). We documented trial and IMP characteristics including planned and actual IMP costs. Our working definition for a substantial cost difference was that the actual IMP costs were more than 10% higher than the planned IMP costs in a trial. We conducted semi-structured interviews with investigators, clinical trials unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and qualitatively analyzed transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

For 13 IITs we observed no differences between planned and actual costs of IMPs (median, 11'000 US$; interquartile range [IQR], 8'882-16'302 US$), but for 11 IITs we found cost increases from a median of 11'000 US$ (IQR, 8'922-36'166 US$) to a median over 28'000 US$ (IQR, 13'004-49'777 US$). All multicenter trials and 10 of 11 IITs with patients experienced substantial cost differences. From the interviews we identified four main themes: 1) Patient recruitment and organizational problems were identified as main reasons for cost differences, 2) higher actual IMP costs were bearable for most investigators, 3) IMP services for IITs were not a priority for the hospital pharmacy, and 4) closer collaboration between clinical trial unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and sufficient staff for IITs at the hospital pharmacy could improve IMP services.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicenter IITs enrolling patients are particularly at risk for higher IMP costs than planned. These trials are more difficult to plan and logistically challenging, which leads to delays and expiring IMP shelf-lives. IMP services of hospital pharmacies are important for IITs in Switzerland, but need to be further developed.

[Ethical, legal and social implications in the use of artificial intelligence-based technologies in surgery : Principles, implementation and importance for the user]

Ethical, legal and social aspects are gaining increasingly more attention in the development and during the initial clinical application of medical devices. The introduction of elements of artificial intelligence (AI) and systems which are using AI makes this already complex topic even more challenging. The introduction of so-called dynamic AI or dynamic machine learning (ML) algorithms in this respect represents a turning point. Unlike conventional medical devices, the development of systems using dynamic AI is not yet complete at the beginning of the clinical application. The aim of a dynamic AI system is to continuously improve through practical use and by the processing of usage data. This continuous evolution, along with the lack of transparency regarding internal work processes, could make it difficult to understand the underlying rationale for the assessments made by the algorithms. This aspect affects the acceptance of the technology both by clinicians and patients and furthermore questions the autonomy of patients and clinicians in the course of the treatment process. A way out of this ethical and regulatory dilemma must urgently be found and will require extreme efforts from all stakeholders. At present, no consensual solution is apparent. What is quite certain, however, is that users, i.e. in concrete terms surgeons, must play a much more active role than they have done in the past when dealing with AI-based medical devices and should prepare themselves to actively accompany the software life cycle of AI technologies.

Embedded ethics: a proposal for integrating ethics into the development of medical AI

The emergence of ethical concerns surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) has led to an explosion of high-level ethical principles being published by a wide range of public and private organizations. However, there is a need to consider how AI developers can be practically assisted to anticipate, identify and address ethical issues regarding AI technologies. This is particularly important in the development of AI intended for healthcare settings, where applications will often interact directly with patients in various states of vulnerability. In this paper, we propose that an ‘embedded ethics’ approach, in which ethicists and developers together address ethical issues via an iterative and continuous process from the outset of development, could be an effective means of integrating robust ethical considerations into the practical development of medical AI.

The second pandemic: Examining structural inequality through reverberations of COVID-19 in Europe

While everyone has been impacted directly or indirectly by the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures to contain it, not everyone has been impacted in the same way and certainly not to the same degree. Media coverage in early 2020 emphasized the “unprecedented” nature of the pandemic, and some even predicted that the virus could be a global “equalizer.” Ensuing debates over how the pandemic should be handled have often hinged on oppositions between protecting health and healthcare systems versus saving livelihoods and the economy, a dichotomy that we argue is false. Drawing on 482 interviews conducted in Germany, Italy, Ireland, Austria, German-speaking Switzerland and the UK over two points in a 6-month period as part of the ‘Solidarity in times of Pandemics Research Consortium’ (SolPan), we illustrate the ways that oppositions posed between saving lives or saving livelihoods fail to capture the entangled, long-standing nature of structural inequalities that have been revealed through the pandemic. Health- and wealth-related inequalities intersect to produce the “second pandemic,” a term used by a research participant to explain the other forms of devastation that run in parallel with virus. Our findings thus complicate such dichotomies through a qualitative understanding of the pandemic as a lived experience. The pandemic emerges as a critical juncture which, in exacerbating these existing structural inequalities, also poses an opportunity to work to better resolve them.

Exploring reasons for recruitment failure in clinical trials: a qualitative study with clinical trial stakeholders in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada

BACKGROUND

Poor participant recruitment is the most frequent reason for premature discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), particularly if they are investigator-initiated. The aims of this qualitative study were to investigate (1) the views of clinical trial stakeholders from three different countries regarding reasons for recruitment failure in RCTs and (2) how these compare and contrast with the causes identified in a previous systematic review of RCT publications.

METHODS

From August 2015 to November 2016, we conducted 49 semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of clinical trial stakeholders. This included investigators based in Germany (n = 9), Switzerland (n = 6) and Canada (n = 1) with personal experience of a discontinued RCT and 33 other stakeholders (e.g., representatives of ethics committees, clinical trial units, pharmaceutical industry) in Switzerland. Individual semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees identified a total of 29 different reasons for recruitment failure. Overoptimistic recruitment estimates, too narrow eligibility criteria, lack of engagement of recruiters/trial team, lack of competence/training/experience of recruiters, insufficient initial funding, and high burden for trial participants were mentioned most frequently. The interview findings largely confirm the previous systematic review on published reasons for recruitment failure. However, eight new reasons for recruitment failure were identified in the interviews, which led to the checklist of reasons for recruitment failure being revised and a new category describing research environment-related factors being added.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the diversity of often interlinked reasons for recruitment failure in RCTs. Integrating the findings of this interview study with a previous systematic review of RCT publications led to a comprehensive, structured checklist of empirically-informed reasons for recruitment failure. The checklist may be useful to guide further research on interventions to improve participant recruitment in RCTs and helpful for trial investigators, research ethics committees, and funding agencies when assessing trial feasibility with respect to recruitment.

Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Conducting Systematic Evidence Assessments in Academic Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

A systematic assessment of existing research should justify the conduct and inform the design of new clinical research but is often lacking. There is little research on the barriers to and factors facilitating systematic evidence assessments.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this qualitative study, individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between February and August 2020 with 48 Swiss stakeholder groups (27 primary investigators, 9 funders and sponsors, 6 clinical trial support organizations, and 6 ethics committee members) and between January and March 2021 with 9 international funders of clinical trials from North America and Europe with a reputation for requiring systematic evidence synthesis in applications for academic clinical trials.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 57 participants, 40 (70.2%) were male. Participants universally acknowledged that a comprehensive understanding of the previous evidence is important but reported wide variation regarding how this should be achieved. Participants reported that the conduct of formal systematic reviews was currently not expected before most clinical trials, but most international funders reported expecting a systematic search for the existing evidence. Whereas time and resources were reported by all participants as barriers to conducting systematic reviews, the Swiss research ecosystem was reported not to be as supportive of a systematic approach compared with international settings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, Swiss stakeholders and international funders generally agreed that new clinical trials should be justified by a systematic evidence assessment but that barriers on individual, organizational, and political levels kept them from implementing it. More explicit requirements from funders appear to be needed to clarify the required level of comprehensiveness in summarizing existing evidence for different types of clinical trials.

The discussion of risk in German surgical clinical practice guidelines: a qualitative review

Objectives

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have a potentially important role regarding the assessment and communication of the risks of perioperative complications. This study aimed to (1) examine the content of German surgical CPGs in relation to surgical risks and (2) provide baseline results for future research in order to assess the development of surgical CPGs in Germany in relation to this issue.

Methods

In November 2015, all German surgical CPGs that provide guidance regarding illnesses that can be treated with a surgical procedure were collected from the websites of the German umbrella organisation of medical professional associations and the German Association for Cardiology.

Results

Data collection retrieved 230 CPGs of which 214 were included in the final analysis. The analysis identified four different groups: 1) 5% (10/214) of guidelines did not discuss “risks” or “complications” at all; 2) 21% (44/214) of guidelines discussed general risks that are not related to surgical complications; 3) 35% (76/214) of guidelines discussed surgical complications and often discussed their likelihood in terms of “high risk” or “low risk”, but did not provide numeric estimates and 4) 39% (84/214) of guidelines discussed specific surgical risks and also provided numerical risk estimates. Guidelines with higher methodological quality more frequently included numerical risk estimates.

Conclusions

It is positive that the vast majority of German surgical CPGs address the issue of risks. However, it would be helpful if more German surgical CPGs provide explicit and evidence-based estimates and recommendations relating to the surgical risk to support surgeons in providing high-quality care and to meet their ethical obligations to patients.

Impact of COVID-19 on patient health and self-care practices: a mixed-methods survey with German patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine German patients': (1) self-estimation of the impact of the pandemic on their health and healthcare; and (2) use of digital self-care practices during the pandemic.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional mixed-methods survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

General practice patients from four physicians' offices located in urban and rural areas of Bavaria, Germany, between 21 July 2020 and 17 October 2020. A total of 254 patients participated (55% response rate); 57% (262 of 459) identified as female and participants had an average age of 39.3 years. Patients were eligible to participate if they were 18 years or older and spoke German, and had access to the internet.

RESULTS

(1) Healthcare for patients was affected by the pandemic, and the mental health of a small group of respondents was particularly affected. The risk of depression and anxiety disorder was significantly increased in patients with quarantine experience. (2) Self-care practices have increased; more than one-third (39%) of participants indicated that they started a new or additional self-care practice during the pandemic, and about a quarter (23%) of patients who were not previously engaged in self-care practices started new self-care activities for the first time; however, such practices were not necessarily digital.

CONCLUSIONS

Further investigation is required to understand the relationship between digital self-care and public health events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and to develop strategies to alleviate the burden of the quarantine experience for patients.

The full spectrum of ethical issues in pediatric genome-wide sequencing: a systematic qualitative review

Background

The use of genome-wide sequencing in pediatric medicine and research is growing exponentially. While this has many potential benefits, the normative and empirical literature has highlighted various ethical issues. There have not been, however, any systematic reviews of these issues. The aim of this systematic review is to determine systematically the spectrum of ethical issues that is raised for stakeholders in in pediatric genome-wide sequencing.

Methods

A systematic review in PubMed and Google Books (publications in English or German between 2004 and 2021) was conducted. Further references were identified via reference screening. Data were analyzed and synthesized using qualitative content analysis. Ethical issues were defined as arising when a relevant normative principle is not adequately considered or when two principles come into conflict.

Results

Our literature search retrieved 3175 publications of which 143 were included in the analysis. Together these mentioned 106 ethical issues in pediatric genome-wide sequencing, categorized into five themes along the pediatric genome-wide sequencing lifecycle. Most ethical issues identified in relation to genome-wide sequencing typically reflect ethical issues that arise in general genetic testing, but they are often amplified by the increased quantity of data obtained, and associated uncertainties. The most frequently discussed ethical aspects concern the issue of unsolicited findings.

Conclusion

Concentration of the debate on unsolicited findings risks overlooking other ethical challenges. An overarching difficulty presents the terminological confusion: both with regard to both the test procedure/ the scope of analysis, as well as with the topic of unsolicited findings. It is important that the genetics and ethics communities together with other medical professions involved work jointly on specific case related guidelines to grant the maximum benefit for the care of the children, while preventing patient harm and disproportionate overload of clinicians and the healthcare system by the wealth of available options and economic incentives to increase testing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-021-02830-w.

One Decade of Online Patient Feedback: Longitudinal Analysis of Data From a German Physician Rating Website

Background

Feedback from patients is an essential element of a patient-oriented health care system. Physician rating websites (PRWs) are a key way patients can provide feedback online. This study analyzes an entire decade of online ratings for all medical specialties on a German PRW.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine how ratings posted on a German PRW have developed over the past decade. In particular, it aimed to explore (1) the distribution of ratings according to time-related aspects (year, month, day of the week, and hour of the day) between 2010 and 2019, (2) the number of physicians with ratings, (3) the average number of ratings per physician, (4) the average rating, (5) whether differences exist between medical specialties, and (6) the characteristics of the patients rating physicians.

Methods

All scaled-survey online ratings that were posted on the German PRW jameda between 2010 and 2019 were obtained.

Results

In total, 1,906,146 ratings were posted on jameda between 2010 and 2019 for 127,921 physicians. The number of rated physicians increased constantly from 19,305 in 2010 to 82,511 in 2018. The average number of ratings per rated physicians increased from 1.65 (SD 1.56) in 2010 to 3.19 (SD 4.69) in 2019. Overall, 75.2% (1,432,624/1,906,146) of all ratings were in the best rating category of “very good,” and 5.7% (107,912/1,906,146) of the ratings were in the lowest category of “insufficient.” However, the mean of all ratings was 1.76 (SD 1.53) on the German school grade 6-point rating scale (1 being the best) with a relatively constant distribution over time. General practitioners, internists, and gynecologists received the highest number of ratings (343,242, 266,899, and 232,914, respectively). Male patients, those of higher age, and those covered by private health insurance gave significantly (P<.001) more favorable evaluations compared to their counterparts. Physicians with a lower number of ratings tended to receive ratings across the rating scale, while physicians with a higher number of ratings tended to have better ratings. Physicians with between 21 and 50 online ratings received the lowest ratings (mean 1.95, SD 0.84), while physicians with >100 ratings received the best ratings (mean 1.34, SD 0.47).

Conclusions

This study is one of the most comprehensive analyses of PRW ratings to date. More than half of all German physicians have been rated on jameda each year since 2016, and the overall average number of ratings per rated physicians nearly doubled over the decade. Nevertheless, we could also observe a decline in the number of ratings over the last 2 years. Future studies should investigate the most recent development in the number of ratings on both other German and international PRWs as well as reasons for the heterogeneity in online ratings by medical specialty.

Practices and Attitudes of Swiss Stakeholders Regarding Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial Funding Acquisition and Cost Management

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are an essential method of evaluating health care interventions and a cornerstone for evidence-based health care. However, RCTs have become increasingly complex and costly, which is particularly challenging for independent investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs). IICTs have an essential role in clinical research, and it is important that efforts are made to ensure IICTs are adequately funded and are conducted cost-effectively.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this qualitative study, interviews were conducted in Switzerland between February and August 2020. The purposive sample comprised 48 stakeholders from 4 different groups: primary investigators (n = 27), funders and sponsors (n = 9), clinical trial support organizations (n = 6), and ethics committee members (n = 6).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Practices and attitudes of stakeholders regarding IICT funding acquisition and cost management were assessed using individual semistructured qualitative interviews. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

After interviews with 48 IICT stakeholders (75% male presenting), these participants identified a systemic problem of IICTs being underfunded, which can lead to compromises being made regarding the quality and conduct of IICTs. Participants identified 2 overarching and interconnected groups of reasons why IICTs in Switzerland are regularly underfunded. First, it was reported that IICT budget estimations are often inaccurate because of poor planning and preparation, unforeseeable events, investigators intentionally underestimating budgets, and limited budget assessment and oversight. Second, with the exception of a specific IICT funding program by the Swiss National Science Foundation, it was reported that limited funding sources and unrealistic expectation of funders led to underlying challenges in getting IICTs fully funded. A number of measures that could help reduce the underfunding of IICTs were identified, including improving the support of investigators and IICTs, strengthening networking and guidance, harmonizing and simplifying bureaucracy, and increasing public funding of IICTs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study highlights the inadequate expertise of Swiss stakeholders to correctly, systematically, and reproducibly calculate RCT budgets and the need for transparency on trial costs as well as training in budgeting practices. Limited financial resources for academic clinical research and issues regarding the professional planning and conduct of IICTs are persistent issues that many other countries also face.

COVID-19 contact tracing apps: UK public perceptions

In order to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers around the globe have increasingly invested in digital health technologies to support the ‘test, track and trace’ approach of containing the spread of the novel coronavirus. These technologies include mobile ‘contact tracing’ applications (apps), which can trace individuals likely to have come into contact with those who have reported symptoms or tested positive for the virus and request that they self-isolate. This paper takes a critical public health perspective that advocates for ‘genuine participation’ in public health interventions and emphasises the need to take citizen’s knowledge into account during public health decision-making. In doing so, it presents and discusses the findings of a UK interview study that explored public views on the possibility of using a COVID-19 contact-tracing app public health intervention at the time the United Kingdom (UK) Government announced their decision to develop such a technology. Findings illustrated interviewees’ range and degree of understandings, misconceptions, and concerns about the possibility of using an app. In particular, concerns about privacy and surveillance predominated. Interviewees associated these concerns much more broadly than health by identifying with pre-existent British national narratives associated with individual liberty and autonomy. In extending and contributing to ongoing sociological research with public health, we argue that understanding and responding to these matters is vital, and that our findings demonstrate the need for a forward-looking, anticipatory strategy for public engagement as part of the responsible innovation of the COVID-19 contact-tracing app in the UK.

Early Perceptions of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps in German-Speaking Countries: Comparative Mixed Methods Study

Background

The main German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) have implemented digital contact tracing apps to assist the authorities with COVID-19 containment strategies. Low user rates for these apps can affect contact tracing and, thus, its usefulness in controlling the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the early perceptions of people living in the German-speaking countries and compare them with the frames portrayed in the newspapers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews with 159 participants of the SolPan project. Of those, 110 participants discussed contact tracing apps and were included in this study. We analyzed articles regarding contact tracing apps from 12 newspapers in the German-speaking countries.

Results

Study participants perceived and newspaper coverage in all German-speaking countries framed contact tracing apps as governmental surveillance tools and embedded them in a broader context of technological surveillance. Participants identified trust in authorities, respect of individual privacy, voluntariness, and temporary use of contact tracing apps as prerequisites for democratic compatibility. Newspapers commonly referenced the use of such apps in Asian countries, emphasizing the differences in privacy regulation among these countries.

Conclusions

The uptake of digital contact tracing apps in German-speaking countries may be undermined due to privacy risks that are not compensated by potential benefits and are rooted in a deeper skepticism towards digital tools. When authorities plan to implement new digital tools and practices in the future, they should be very transparent and proactive in communicating their objectives and the role of the technology—and how it differs from other, possibly similar, tools. It is also important to publicly address ethical, legal, and social issues related to such technologies prior to their launch.

Uncertainties about the need for ethics approval in Switzerland: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

To ensure ethical oversight, researchers wanting to conduct &ldquo;research&rdquo; involving human beings are typically required to obtain prior approval from an independent ethics committee. However, it can sometimes be unclear if a project needs to be submitted for ethics approval. Swiss researchers can contact research ethics committees via a &ldquo;jurisdictional inquiry&rdquo; for clarification whether a project needs to be submitted for ethics approval.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

(1) To examine the characteristics of Swiss jurisdictional inquiries, and (2) to identify possible uncertainties regarding the correct interpretation of existing legislation in Switzerland.

METHODS

All jurisdictional inquiries submitted to Swiss research ethics committees between July and December 2017 were reviewed using qualitative content analysis. We then conducted an online survey between June 2018 and July 2018 with all researchers who had submitted a jurisdictional inquiry including a descriptive quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

The review included 271 jurisdictional inquiries. Analysis identified three groups of jurisdictional inquiries: 80.4% (218/271) sought clarification whether the project had to be submitted for ethical approval; 18.5% (50/271) requested a &ldquo;declaration of no objection&rdquo;; and 1.1% (3/271) asked for a clarification about which of the two ordinances was applicable to the project. Analysis identified eight distinct legal issues that appeared to be the main cause for a number of jurisdictional inquiries, with the two most frequently identified issues being whether the project will produce generalisable knowledge, and whether the project uses fully anonymised data. Overall, research ethics committees decided that 78.6% (213/271) of the jurisdictional inquiries were outside their jurisdiction and did not require ethical approval, and that 15.6% required submission for ethical approval. The online survey achieved a 56.8% response rate. The majority of respondents (94/166; 56.6%) reported that all the questions they were asked during the submission of the jurisdictional inquiry were easy to understand. Respondents reported that 88% (147/166) of all projects were started or planned to start. The vast majority (154/166; 93%) of respondents also agreed with the decisions made by the research ethics committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Jurisdictional inquiries are an important means for researchers to clarify whether their project requires ethical oversight. However, this mixed-methods study has identified some difficulties in the interpretation of legal terms, which often reflect persistent structural issues that many other countries also face. More detailed guidance may be helpful to reduce the researchers&rsquo; uncertainties and ethics committees&rsquo; workloads in relation to jurisdictional inquiries.

Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings

Background

Previous research internationally has only analyzed publicly available feedback on physician rating websites (PRWs). However, it appears that many PRWs are not publishing all the feedback they receive. Analysis of this rejected feedback could provide a better understanding of the types of feedback that are currently not published and whether this is appropriate.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine (1) the number of patient feedback rejected from the Swiss PRW Medicosearch, (2) the evaluation tendencies of the rejected patient feedback, and (3) the types of issues raised in the rejected narrative comments.

Methods

The Swiss PRW Medicosearch provided all the feedback that had been rejected between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017. The feedback were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues.

Results

Between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017, Medicosearch rejected a total of 2352 patient feedback. The majority of feedback rejected (1754/2352, 74.6%) had narrative comments in the German language. However, 11.9% (279/2352) of the rejected feedback only provided a quantitative rating with no narrative comment. Overall, 25% (588/2352) of the rejected feedback were positive, 18.7% (440/2352) were neutral, and 56% (1316/2352) were negative. The average rating of the rejected feedback was 2.8 (SD 1.4). In total, 44 subcategories addressing the physician (n=20), staff (n=9), and practice (n=15) were identified. In total, 3804 distinct issues were identified within the 44 subcategories of the categorization framework; 75% (2854/3804) of the issues were related to the physician, 6.4% (242/3804) were related to the staff, and 18.6% (708/3804) were related to the practice. Frequently mentioned issues identified from the rejected feedback included (1) satisfaction with treatment (533/1903, 28%); (2) the overall assessment of the physician (392/1903, 20.6%); (3) recommending the physician (345/1903, 18.1%); (4) the physician’s communication (261/1903, 13.7%); (5) the physician’s caring attitude (220/1903, 11.6%); and (6) the physician’s friendliness (203/1903, 10.6%).

Conclusions

It is unclear why the majority of the feedback were rejected. This is problematic and raises concerns that online patient feedback are being inappropriately manipulated. If online patient feedback is going to be collected, there needs to be clear policies and practices about how this is handled. It cannot be left to the whims of PRWs, who may have financial incentives to suppress negative feedback, to decide which feedback is or is not published online. Further research is needed to examine how many PRWs are using criteria for determining which feedback is published or not, what those criteria are, and what measures PRWs are using to address the manipulation of online patient feedback.

The ethical oversight of learning health care activities in Switzerland: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify the key issues regarding the ethical oversight of health care improvement activities in Switzerland.

DESIGN

Individual semi-structured qualitative interviews, analysed using conventional content analysis.

SETTING

Interviews were conducted in Switzerland between July 2017 and February 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposive sample of 38 key stakeholders from four different groups: health care improvement researchers and practitioners (n = 19), representatives of clinical trial units (n = 3), clinical ethicists (n = 5), quality heads of university hospitals (n = 5), and cantonal ethics committee members (n = 6).

RESULTS

There appears to be widespread uncertainty regarding when certain learning health care activities require ethical review by a research ethics committee in Switzerland. This situation is exacerbated by legislative ambiguity and limited guidance. It was reported that the lack of other oversight mechanisms for activities outside of the Human Research Act is also leading many investigators to submit projects to research ethics committees to avoid barriers to publication.

CONCLUSIONS

The continuous, integrated, and dynamic nature of learning health care poses significant challenges to the current regulatory framework. It will be important that more clarification and guidance is provided regarding which activities require ethical review, and that it is considered how the ethical oversight of activities falling outside human research legislation can be strengthened. However, the traditional model of ethical oversight is poorly suited to learning health care and may need to be replaced with new systemic oversight approaches.

COVID-19: Putting the General Data Protection Regulation to the Test

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is very much a global health issue and requires collaborative, international health research efforts to address it. A valuable source of information for researchers is the large amount of digital health data that are continuously collected by electronic health record systems at health care organizations. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be the key legal framework with regard to using and sharing European digital health data for research purposes. However, concerns persist that the GDPR has made many organizations very risk-averse in terms of data sharing, even if the regulation permits such sharing. Health care organizations focusing on individual risk minimization threaten to undermine COVID-19 research efforts. In our opinion, there is an ethical obligation to use the research exemption clause of the GDPR during the COVID-19 pandemic to support global collaborative health research efforts. Solidarity is a European value, and here is a chance to exemplify it by using the GDPR regulatory framework in a way that does not hinder but actually fosters solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regulating the Secondary Use of Data for Research: Arguments Against Genetic Exceptionalism

As accessing, collecting, and storing personal information become increasingly easier, the secondary use of data has the potential to make healthcare research more cost and time effective. The widespread reuse of data, however, raises important ethical and policy issues, especially because of the sensitive nature of genetic and health-related information. Regulation is thus crucial to determine the conditions upon which data can be reused. In this respect, the question emerges whether it is appropriate to endorse genetic exceptionalism and grant genetic data an exceptional status with respect to secondary use requirements. Using Swiss law as a case study, it is argued that genetic exceptionalism in secondary use regulation is not justified for three reasons. First, although genetic data have particular features, also other non-genetic data can be extremely sensitive. Second, having different regulatory requirements depending on the nature of data hinders the creation of comprehensible consent forms. Third, empirical evidence about public preferences concerning data reuse suggests that exceptional protection for genetic data alone is not justified. In this sense, it is claimed that regulation concerning data reuse should treat genetic data as important, but not exceptional.

The Content and Nature of Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Analysis of 849 Comments

Background

The majority of physician rating websites (PRWs) provide users the option to leave narrative comments about their physicians. Narrative comments potentially provide richer insights into patients’ experiences and feelings that cannot be fully captured in predefined quantitative rating scales and are increasingly being examined. However, the content and nature of narrative comments on Swiss PRWs has not been examined to date.

Objective

This study aimed to examine (1) the types of issues raised in narrative comments on Swiss PRWs and (2) the evaluation tendencies of the narrative comments.

Methods

A random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 3 PRWs (OkDoc, DocApp, and Medicosearch) and Google, and narrative comments were collected. Narrative comments were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues.

Results

The selected physicians had a total of 849 comments. In total, 43 subcategories addressing the physician (n=21), staff (n=8), and practice (n=14) were identified. None of the PRWs’ comments covered all 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; comments on Google covered 86% (37/43) of the subcategories, Medicosearch covered 72% (31/43), DocApp covered 60% (26/43), and OkDoc covered 56% (24/43). In total, 2441 distinct issues were identified within the 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; 83.65% (2042/2441) of the issues related to the physician, 6.63% (162/2441) related to the staff, and 9.70% (237/2441) related to the practice. Overall, 95% (41/43) of the subcategories of the categorization framework and 81.60% (1992/2441) of the distinct issues identified were concerning aspects of performance (interpersonal skills of the physician and staff, infrastructure, and organization and management of the practice) that are considered assessable by patients. Overall, 83.0% (705/849) of comments were classified as positive, 2.5% (21/849) as neutral, and 14.5% (123/849) as negative. However, there were significant differences between PRWs, regions, and specialty regarding negative comments: 90.2% (111/123) of negative comments were on Google, 74.7% (92/123) were regarding physicians in Zurich, and 73.2% (90/123) were from specialists.

Conclusions

From the narrative comments analyzed, it can be reported that interpersonal issues make up nearly half of all negative issues identified, and it is recommended that physicians should focus on improving these issues. The current suppression of negative comments by Swiss PRWs is concerning, and there is a need for a consensus-based criterion to be developed to determine which comments should be published publicly. Finally, it would be helpful if Swiss patients are made aware of the current large differences between Swiss PRWs regarding the frequency and nature of ratings to help them determine which PRW will provide them with the most useful information.

Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Frequency Analysis

Background

Physician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed as part of a wider move toward transparency around health care quality, and these allow patients to anonymously rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality on the Web. The first Swiss PRWs were established in 2008, at the same time as many international PRWs. However, there has been limited research conducted on PRWs in Switzerland to date. International research has indicated that a key shortcoming of PRWs is that they have an insufficient number of ratings.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of quantitative ratings and narrative comments on the Swiss PRWs.

Methods

In November 2017, a random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 4 rating websites (OkDoc, DocApp, Medicosearch, and Google) between November 2017 and July 2018. It was recorded whether the physician could be identified, what the physician’s quantitative rating was, and whether the physician had received narrative comments. In addition, Alexa Internet was used to examine the number of visitors to the PRWs, compared with other websites.

Results

Overall, the portion of physicians able to be identified on the PRWs ranged from 42.4% (410/966) on OkDoc to 87.3% (843/966) on DocApp. Of the identifiable physicians, only a few of the selected physicians had been rated quantitatively (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 49.8% [273/548] on Google) or received narrative comments (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 31.2% [171/548] on Google) at least once. Rated physicians also had, on average, a low number of quantitative ratings (1.47 ratings on OkDoc to 3.74 rating on Google) and narrative comments (1.23 comment on OkDoc to 3.03 comments on Google). All 3 websites allowing ratings used the same rating scale (1-5 stars) and had a very positive average rating: DocApp (4.71), Medicosearch (4.69), and Google (4.41). There were significant differences among the PRWs (with the majority of ratings being posted on Google in past 2 years) and regions (with physicians in Zurich more likely to have been rated and have more ratings on average). Only Google (position 1) and Medicosearch (position 8358) are placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Switzerland.

Conclusions

It appears that this is the first time Google has been included in a study examining physician ratings internationally and it is noticeable how Google has had substantially more ratings than the 3 dedicated PRWs in Switzerland over the past 2 and a half years. Overall, this study indicates that Swiss PRWs are not yet a reliable source of unbiased information regarding patient experiences and satisfaction with Swiss physicians; many selected physicians were unable to be identified, only a few physicians had been rated, and the ratings posted were overwhelmingly positive.

New Zealand District Health Boards' Open Disclosure Policies: A Qualitative Review

BACKGROUND

New Zealand health and disability providers are expected to have local open disclosure policies in place, however, empirical analysis of these policies has not been undertaken.

AIM

This study aims to (1) examine the scope and content of open disclosure policies in New Zealand (2) compare open disclosure policies in New Zealand, and (3) provide baseline results for future research.

METHODS

Open disclosure policies were requested from all twenty New Zealand District Health Boards in June 2016. A total of twenty-one policies were received, with nineteen policies included in the review. The data were analysed using conventional content analysis. Areas of identified guidance were categorised categorized under the headings: 1) identification of an adverse event, 2) actions before disclosure, 3) disclosure of harm, and 4) actions after disclosure.

RESULTS

A total of forty-six distinct areas of guidance could be categorized under the different phases of the open disclosure life-cycle.

CONCLUSION

This review has identified significant unwarranted heterogeneity and important gaps in open disclosure documents in New Zealand which urgently needs to be addressed. Open disclosure policies which are both flexible and specific should enhance the likelihood that injured patients' needs will be met.

The spectrum of ethical issues in a Learning Health Care System: a systematic qualitative review

Purpose

To determine systematically the spectrum of ethical issues that is raised for stakeholders in a 'Learning Health Care System' (LHCS).

Data sources

The systematic review was conducted in PubMed and Google Books between the years 2007 and 2015.

Study selection

The literature search retrieved 1258 publications. Each publication was independently screened by two reviewers for eligibility for inclusion. Ethical issues were defined as arising when a relevant normative principle is not adequately considered or two principles come into conflict.

Data extraction

A total of 65 publications were included in the final analysis and were analysed using an adapted version of qualitative content analysis. A coding frame was developed inductively from the data, only the highest-level categories were generated deductively for a life-cycle perspective.

Results of data synthesis

A total of 67 distinct ethical issues could be categorized under different phases of the LHCS life-cycle. An overarching theme that was repeatedly raised was the conflict between the current regulatory system and learning health care.

Conclusion

The implementation of a LHCS can help realize the ethical imperative to continuously improve the quality of health care. However, the implementation of a LHCS can also raise a number of important ethical issues itself. This review highlights the importance for health care leaders and policy makers to balance the need to protect and respect individual participants involved in learning health care activities with the social value of improving health care.

Why are so few patients rating their physicians on German physician rating websites? A qualitative study

Background

Physician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment and discuss physicians’ quality online as a source of information for others searching for a physician. It is generally assumed that PRWs will only be helpful for users, and fair for the rated, if there are a high number of ratings. However, the number of ratings on PRWs remains low internationally and there is currently a lack of research examining the reasons why patients are not rating their physicians. The aim of this study is to therefore identify the spectrum of factors influencing people’s willingness to rate their physician on PRWs.

Methods

A mailed cross-sectional survey sent to a random sample from 4 North German cities between April and July 2016. Fifty participants who had previously used PRWs but not rated a physician provided reasons for why that had not rated a physician in a free text response. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 22 interested participants to explore factors influencing their willingness to rate their physician on PRWs in more detail.

Results

Participants identified a total of 21 distinct incentives and disincentives for rating physicians on PRWs, which could be further categorised under the headings: user-specific, PRW-specific and physician-specific. Two key overarching groups of factors emerged: (1) factors concerning the physician-patient relationship, and (2) factors issues regarding technical aspects of PRWs.

Conclusion

These findings will be helpful in guiding future research and health policy initiatives to increase the usefulness and fairness of PRWs.

Effect of cadexomer iodine on the microbial load and diversity of chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers complicated by biofilm in vivo

Objectives: The performance of cadexomer iodine was determined against microbial populations from chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) complicated by biofilm in vivo, using molecular, microscopy and zymography methods.

Methods: Chronic non-healing DFUs due to suspected biofilm involvement were eligible for enrolment. DNA sequencing and real-time quantitative PCR was used to determine the microbial load and diversity of tissue punch biopsies obtained pre- and post-treatment. Scanning electron microscopy and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed the presence or absence of biofilm. Zymography was used to determine levels of wound proteases.

Results: Seventeen participants were recruited over a 6 month period. Scanning electron microscopy and or fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed the presence of biofilm in all samples. Eleven participants exhibited log₁₀ reductions in microbial load after treatment (range 1–2 log₁₀) in comparison with six patients who experienced <1 log₁₀ reduction (P = 0.04). Samples were tested for levels of wound proteases pre- and post-treatment. Reductions in the microbial load correlated to reductions in wound proteases pre- and post-treatment (P = 0.03).

Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first in vivo evidence, employing a range of molecular and microscopy techniques, of the ability of cadexomer iodine to reduce the microbial load of chronic non-healing DFUs complicated by biofilm. Further analyses correlating log reductions to optimal duration of therapy and improvements in clinical parameters of wound healing in a larger cohort are required.