Ethics, Medicine and Public Health最新文献

{"title":"Health equity checklist for research","authors":"Nipher Malika ,&nbsp;Stacie Salsbury ,&nbsp;Ian Coulter ,&nbsp;Kieran Cooley ,&nbsp;Margaret Chesney ,&nbsp;Marcia Prenguber ,&nbsp;Kim Tippens ,&nbsp;Michele Maiers","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101064","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101064","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Health equity is the principle of ensuring that all individuals have optimal opportunities to attain the best health possible, addressing disparities in access, outcomes, costs, quality, and appropriateness of care. This focus on health equity is important in healthcare research, driven by the need to investigate systemic injustices and foster fair health outcomes for all, regardless of background or circumstances. Researchers have an ethical imperative to focus on issues relevant to populations bearing the highest burdens of illness and inequities. To address the gap in structured guidance for incorporating health equity principles in health-related research, this study aims to introduce a comprehensive health equity checklist developed by the RAND Research Across Complementary and Integrative Health Institutions (REACH) Center. The checklist is designed to ensure that every stage of the research process integrates health equity considerations. RAND, in collaboration with complementary and integrative health academic institutions across the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, developed a health equity checklist. They combed through literature to assess existing guidance and developed the checklist based on gaps in literature and the specific needs identified through consultations with community partners and stakeholders. This checklist emphasizes creating a health equity research culture, involving community partners, designing inclusive research/interventions, securing equitable funding, and engaging diverse participants. It also advocates for equitable intervention delivery, data collection, analysis, and effective dissemination and sustainability of research findings. The health equity checklist provides a practical guide for researchers, community partners, and participants to reflect on inclusivity, cultural relevance, and social justice in health research. By implementing this checklist, researchers can ensure that their studies are both inclusive and impactful in advancing health equity across all areas of health-related research. Achieving health equity in research requires a comprehensive approach and significant investment in building sustainable partnerships. The RAND REACH Center's recommendations provide a guide to ensure research advances scientific understanding while actively contributing to health equity. This paradigm shift necessitates support from funding agencies and a long-term commitment to creating equitable health outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101064"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143429536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Uncertain future: How the USAID freeze endangers global health","authors":"S.G. Bashir,&nbsp;Y.H. Abdi,&nbsp;Y.B. Abdullahi,&nbsp;M.S. Abdi","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101067","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101067","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101067"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143444791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Artificial reproductive technologies (ART), a reproductive physician’s standpoint","authors":"J-F. Guérin","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101062","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101062","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>History.- Inseminations with donor sperm have represented the first medically assisted reproduction (MAR) technique. In France, sperm banks gathered rapidly and constituted the “Federation of CECOS”. Three fundamental principles were defined relating to sperm donation: volunteering, gratuity, and anonymity. The rapid development of in vitro fertilization and embryo cryopreservation encouraged the French government to publish in 1994 the first bioethical law, that was supposed to be revised every 5 years.</div><div>New modalities of MAR introduced by the law of 2 August 2021.- MAR that were initially reserved to heterosexual couples, are now open to female couples and unmarried women, thus clarifying a situation that already existed in practice. Literature indicates that there are no major difficulties in children raised by female couples, however there are more concerns about single women. From a practical point of view, this extension of MAR leads to a significant influx of requests, with longer waiting times. Lifting the anonymity of gamete donation raises some problems as destruction of old sperm straws and possible solicitation of former donors who wanted to remain anonymous. Finally, from a medical standpoint, it must be stressed that self-preservation of oocytes will not constitute a guarantee for women to have a child later.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101062"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143348888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The hMPV infection in Asia: a call to action in LMICs","authors":"Z.K. Othman,&nbsp;S.S. Musa,&nbsp;M.M. Ahmed,&nbsp;O.A. Saeed Alhammadi,&nbsp;O.J. Okesanya,&nbsp;A.M. Ibrahim,&nbsp;Don E. Lucero-Prisno III","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101052","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101052","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101052"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143098975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An examination of the dynamics of caregivers' race/ethnicity and trusted information sources and Covid-19 vaccine acceptance for children in Alabama","authors":"J. Rahim ,&nbsp;B. Sen ,&nbsp;P. Ghosh ,&nbsp;E. Lee ,&nbsp;A.E. Brisendine","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101055","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101055","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Covid-19 pandemic underscored the importance of vaccination for all ages, but vaccine hesitancy among parents/guardians is a barrier to pediatric vaccine uptake. Understanding factors influencing caregivers’ vaccine hesitancy, including trust in information sources, is crucial to improving pediatric vaccination uptake and helping promote health equity.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>A survey was administered at Children’s of Alabama Hospital emergency department from December 2021 to May 2022, targeting caregivers of children aged 5–17 years. Caregivers were given a tablet to complete the online survey, which was built using the Qualtrics online platform.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Non-Hispanic Black caregivers were more likely to vaccinate their children with the Covid-19 vaccine compared to non-Hispanic White parents. Vaccine acceptance was also higher among caregivers with older children, 14–17 years, and vaccinated parents. White caregivers had statistically significantly lower levels of trust in state leaders, local leaders, and social media. Caregivers expressing some trust in authorities like federal leaders, state leaders, local leaders, and doctors were significantly more likely to vaccinate kids than parents lacking such trust.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Despite facing barriers like systemic racism, non-Hispanic Black caregivers of children expressed greater Covid-19 vaccine acceptance. Parental trust in physicians, community and government leaders, and public health officials significantly predicted vaccine acceptance, highlighting the critical role of trust-building with caregivers in addressing vaccine hesitancy not only for novel vaccines but also for routine and seasonal vaccinations in children.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101055"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143099343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The judgment formation of agitation: Anthropological insights from a clinical situation in a French Psychiatric Hospital","authors":"S. Lézé","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101045","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101045","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Coercion is no longer a valuable practice to convey good care in French psychiatry. However, the paradoxical consequence of this new consensus is to lock psychiatric practice into a double bind: psychiatric coercion is judged as an “abuse of power” and for its “permissiveness”.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>To analyze this moral anomaly by describing the concrete practice of coercion and its justifications in psychiatry as a solution to the clinical problem of agitation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>From a medical anthropology perspective on coercion practices in psychiatric hospitals, describe and compare what psychiatrists do and why.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A brief description of a case shows the concrete problem of psychomotor agitation, and its clinical judgment leads to a typology of customary ways of justifying coercion.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The category of violence blurs the clinical meaning of psychomotor agitation as much as it does the practice of physical restraint in psychiatry.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101045"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143099344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The conditional decriminalisation of euthanasia, a remarkable feature of Belgian law","authors":"G. Genicot","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101054","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101054","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context</h3><div>Belgium is one of the first countries in the world to have legalised euthanasia. It is, more appropriately, a decriminalisation under conditions, which are both substantive and procedural, and which are briefly summarised here. The European Court of Human Rights has recently confirmed that nor the Belgian euthanasia law, nor the way in which it is implemented in practice, are contrary to the right of life and the right to respect for private and family life.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>The way in which the law understands reality differs from that of other disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences. For this subject, reality is studied through the development of rules (issues, content, spirit), but also through their practical application, especially in the case of litigation, through the study of court decisions that may be handed down. This method is used here in relation to euthanasia.</div></div><div><h3>Results/discussion</h3><div>The availability of euthanasia goes beyond the (obvious) obligation to refrain from providing care or administering treatment that lacks any therapeutic benefit; it proceeds from a different logic, which fully integrates individual autonomy. By allowing persons who are suffering from unbearable (terminal) illness control over the way in which they will end their lives, rather than having to wait for death to seize them, Belgian law introduces a scheme where <em>the patient initiates the action</em> that will free him/her – an action that is consistent with the therapeutic role of doctors, when no other possibility remains – and which is to be distinguished from the situation where the patient <em>consents</em> to the care offered.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion/outlook</h3><div>End-of-life situations should be examined <em>primarily in terms of the patient's self-determination</em>, and not the physician's duties. This would meet a real social need – that debate, which is emerging everywhere, and should be promptly solved, cannot be steered in a direction opposite to that adopted about the general rights of patients, who are recognised as having control over their bodies and their destiny (<em>empowerment</em>). Since the quality of life is quintessentially subjective, it seems that there is hardly any other conceivable solution than to <em>open up to the will of the person</em> who is no longer able to cope with the situation in which they find themselves.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101054"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143099346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Why we must reread Aeschylus? Public policy and asylum law","authors":"Philippe Charlier","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101056","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101056","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101056"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143098535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"BYOD use and perception among hospital clinicians – A qualitative study","authors":"T.A. Wani ,&nbsp;A. Mendoza ,&nbsp;K. Gray","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101031","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101031","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The increasing trend of healthcare professionals using personal devices for work, termed Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD), is becoming prevalent in hospitals. Despite its growing importance, there is limited empirical research addressing the real-world experiences of clinicians in using BYOD.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study seeks to explore clinicians' perception and behavior with respect to BYOD use in Australian hospitals, focusing on socio-technical aspects and its impact on clinical and administrative work.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians in Australian hospitals. The framework method was applied to perform a thematic analysis, identifying key socio-technical themes related to BYOD usage.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Clinicians reported using BYOD for various tasks, with smartphones being the most preferred device over tablets or laptops. While smartphones were favored for their convenience, laptops were used for complex tasks like viewing radiological images, and tablets were rarely utilized. The multifunctionality and convergence of BYOD devices were seen as facilitators for mobility and productivity, contributing to cost and time savings. However, significant barriers were identified, including increased risks of patient information leaks, challenges in maintaining work-life balance, and concerns about hospital-acquired infections. The study also found that doctors rated BYOD highly for its efficiency across various settings, while nurses experienced more issues with distractions and boundary management. Allied health professionals' use varied by specialty.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Findings from the study provide crucial insights into the advantages and challenges of BYOD usage in hospitals. These insights can help shape policies and management strategies to support secure and effective BYOD practices in healthcare settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101031"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143098929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An anthropological study of the perception of the aesthetical, dermatological and psychological consequences of skin aging and the change of appearance","authors":"Laurel McEwen ,&nbsp;Corinne Déchelette ,&nbsp;Stéphane Fauverghe","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101040","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101040","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Each person \"experiences\" the change in appearance due to skin aging in a different way, more or less positively, negatively, passively or actively. Since the perception of skin aging has individual and cultural variables, this study aims to explore (1) the perception of changes in appearance linked to skin aging and the correspondence between real and perceived age and its link with personality; and (2) the relationship with invasive and non-invasive aesthetic procedures and the level of information regarding these dermatological and medical practices.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>A semi-structured online survey of 15 questions was conducted. 1,303 total responses were collected from respondents representing 54 countries and reflecting the 5 sociological age groups (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Baby boomers, the Silent generation) with a sex repartition of 60% women, 40% men and 3 non-binary persons.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The results indicate that the majority (55%) of participants in all age groups believe that their skin begins to age between 21 and 30 years of age and that wrinkles are the first sign of age (675/1303). A significant number of respondents in Asia (31%), South America (22%), and South-East Asia (21%) selected ages under 21 years of age as appropriate for beginning aesthetic procedures; while this proportion was lower in North America (19%) and Western Europe (13%), and significantly low in the Middle East (7%) and Eastern Europe (6%). We found a 58% correspondence between real age and perceived age of the skin for both men and women; with 33% estimating that their skin looks younger, and 85% considering that their skin reflects their personality. 48% of the respondents do not use aesthetic procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The skin is a very specific organ; due to its social role, each person must deal with their “social skin” throughout their life. The social pressure of appearance is present at all ages, even in adolescence with the additional pressure of social media. This coupled with our increasing life span, accentuates the challenge to preserve beauty capital as much as possible, using every available cosmetic and aesthetic solution, as long as it is carried out ethically by qualified professionals with respect for our personalities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101040"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143098930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}