AJOB Empirical Bioethics最新文献

Background: Institutional review board (IRB) expertise is necessarily limited by maintaining a manageable board size. IRBs are therefore permitted by regulation to rely on outside experts for review. However, little is known about whether, when, why, and how IRBs use outside experts.

Methods: We conducted a national survey of U.S. IRBs to characterize utilization of outside experts. Our study uses a descriptive, cross-sectional design to understand how IRBs engage with such experts and to identify areas where outside expertise is most frequently requested.

Results: The survey response rate was 18.4%, with 55.4% of respondents reporting their institution's IRB uses outside experts. Nearly all respondents who reported using outside experts indicated they do so less than once a month, but occasionally each year (95%). The most common method of identifying an outside expert was securing a previously known subject matter expert (83.3%). Most frequently, respondents sought consultation for scientific expertise not held by current members (69.6%). Almost all respondents whose IRBs had used outside experts reported an overall positive impact on the IRB review process (91.5%).

Conclusions: Just over half of the IRBs in our sample report use of outside experts; among them, outside experts were described as helpful, but their use was infrequent overall. Many IRBs report not relying on outside experts at all. This raises important questions about what type of engagement with outside experts should be viewed as optimal to promote the highest quality review. For example, few respondents sought assistance from a Community Advisory Board, which could address expertise gaps in community perspectives. Further exploration is needed to understand how to optimize IRB use of outside experts, including how to recognize when expertise is lacking, what barriers IRBs face in using outside experts, and perspectives on how outside expert review impacts IRB decision-making and review quality.

Background: Diversity in Institutional Review Board (IRB) membership is important for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons, including fairness, promoting trust, improving decision quality, and responding to systemic racism. Yet U.S. IRBs remain racially and ethnically homogeneous, even as gender diversity has improved. Little is known about IRB chairpersons' perspectives on membership diversity and barriers to increasing it, as well as current institutional efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within IRB membership.

Methods: We surveyed IRB chairpersons leading U.S. boards registered with the Office for Human Research Protections. Here, we focus exclusively on responses from a subset of 388 chairpersons of IRBs at universities and academic medical centers (AMCs).

Results: Board chairs were predominantly white and evenly split between men and women. Only about half reported that their boards had at least one member who is Black or African American (51%), Asian (56%), or Hispanic (48%), with 85% of university/AMC boards comprised entirely (15%) or mostly (70%) of white members. Most IRB chairpersons (64%) reported satisfaction with the current diversity of their membership. Participants largely agreed that considering diversity in the selection of IRB members is important (91%), including to improve the quality of IRB deliberation (80%), with an emphasis on racial/ethnic (85%) and gender diversity (74%). Most participants (80%) reported some type of active DEI effort regarding board membership at their university/AMC and just over half (57%) expressed satisfaction with these efforts.

Conclusions: Our national survey found that although university/AMC IRB chairpersons report valuing diversity in board membership, it may be lacking in key areas. Going forward, it will be important to specify clear reasons for diversity in the IRB context, as well to establish targets for acceptable levels of board diversity and to match DEI efforts to those targets.

Background: When anti-cancer treatments have been given market authorization, but are not (yet) reimbursed within a healthcare system, physicians are confronted with ethical dilemmas. Arranging access through other channels, e.g., hospital budgets or out-of-pocket payments by patients, may benefit patients, but leads to unequal access. Until now, little is known about the perspectives of physicians on access to non-reimbursed treatments. This interview study maps the experiences and moral views of Dutch oncologists and hematologists.

Methods: A diverse sample of oncologists and hematologists (n = 22) were interviewed. Interviews were analyzed thematically using Nvivo 12 qualitative data software.

Results: This study reveals stark differences between physicians' experiences and moral views on access to anti-cancer treatments that are not (yet) reimbursed: some physicians try to arrange other ways of access and some physicians do not. Some physicians inform patients about anti-cancer treatments that are not yet reimbursed, while others wait for reimbursement. Some physicians have principled moral objections to out-of-pocket payment, while others do not.

Conclusion: Oncologists and hematologists in the Netherlands differ greatly in their perspectives on access to expensive anti-cancer treatments that are not (yet) reimbursed. As a result, they may act differently when confronted with dilemmas in the consultation room. Physicians working in different healthcare systems may face similar dilemmas.

Background: Moral distress is prevalent within the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and can negatively affect clinicians. Studies have evaluated the causes of moral distress and interventions to mitigate its harmful effects. However, the effects of participating in moral distress studies have not been evaluated.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of participation in a longitudinal, non-intervention research project on moral distress in the NICU.

Design: Clinicians who previously participated in an 18-month longitudinal research study on moral distress at two NICUs were invited to complete a questionnaire on the impact of participation. The original study required regular completion of surveys that sought predictions of death, disability and the intensity/nature of moral distress experienced by clinicians caring for extremely preterm babies. Individual and unit-wide effects were explored. Free-text responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

Results: A total of 249/463 (53%) eligible clinicians participated. Participation in the original 18-month study was perceived as having a positive impact by 58% of respondents. Clinicians found articulating their views therapeutic (76%) and useful in clarifying personal opinions about the babies (85%). Free-text responses revealed the research stimulated increased reflection, validated feelings and increased dialogue amongst clinicians. Respondents generally did not find participation distressing (70%). However, a small number of physicians felt the focus of discussion shifted from the baby to the clinicians. Intensity and prevalence of moral distress did not significantly change over the 18-month period.

Conclusions: Participating in moral distress research prompted regular reflection regarding attitudes toward fragile patients, improving ethical awareness. This is useful in clarifying personal views that may influence patient care. Participation also enhanced communication around difficult clinical scenarios and improved provider satisfaction. These factors are insufficient to significantly reduce moral distress in isolation.

Background: The allocation of scarce deceased donor kidneys is a complex process. Transplant providers are increasingly relying on constructs such as frailty and cognitive function to guide kidney transplant (KT) candidate selection. Patient views of the ethical issues surrounding the use of such constructs are unclear. We sought to assess KT candidates' attitudes and beliefs about the use of frailty and cognitive function to guide waitlist selection.

Methods: KT candidates were randomly recruited from an ongoing single-center cohort study of frailty and cognitive function. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis was performed. Inductively derived themes were mapped onto bioethics principles.

Results: Twenty interviews were conducted (65% contact rate, 100% participation rate) (60% male; 70% White). With respect to the use of frailty and cognitive function in waitlisting decisions, four themes emerged in which participants: (1) valued maximizing a scarce resource (utility); (2) prioritized equal access to all patients (equity); (3) appreciated a proportional approach to the use of equity and utility (precautionary utility); and (4) sought to weigh utility- and equity-based concerns regarding social support. While some participants believed frailty and cognitive function were useful constructs to maximize utility, others believed their use would jeopardize equity. Patients were uncomfortable with using single factors such as frailty or cognitive impairment to deny someone access to transplantation; participants instead encouraged using the constructs to identify opportunities for intervention to improve frailty and cognitive function prior to KT.

Conclusions: KT candidates' values mirrored the current allocation strategy, seeking to balance equity and utility in a just manner, albeit with conflicting viewpoints on the appropriate use of frailty and cognitive impairment in waitlisting decisions.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed several ethical challenges worldwide. Understanding care providers' experiences during health emergencies is key to develop comprehensive ethical guidelines for emergency and disaster circumstances.Objectives: To identify and synthetize available empirical data on ethical challenges experienced by health care workers (HCWs) providing direct patient care in health emergencies and disaster scenarios that occurred prior to COVID-19, considering there might be a significant body of evidence yet to be reported on the current pandemic.Methods: A rapid review of qualitative studies and thematic synthesis was conducted. Medline and Embase were searched from inception to December 2020 using "public health emergency" and "ethical challenges" related keywords. Empirical studies examining ethical challenges experienced by frontline HCWs during health emergencies or disasters were included. We considered that ethical challenges were present when participants and/or authors were uncertain regarding how one should behave, or when different values or ethical principles are compromised when making decisions.Outcome: After deduplication 10,160 titles/abstracts and 224 full texts were screened. Twenty-two articles were included, which were conducted in 15 countries and explored eight health emergency or disaster events. Overall, a total of 452 HCWs participants were included. Data were organized into five major themes with subthemes: HCWs' vulnerability, Duty to care, Quality of care, Management of healthcare system, and Sociocultural factors.Conclusion: HCWs experienced a great variety of clinical ethical challenges in health emergencies and disaster scenarios. Core themes identified provide evidence-base to inform the development of more comprehensive and supportive ethical guidelines and training programmes for future events, that are grounded on actual experiences of those providing care during emergency and disasters.

Background: Pediatric oncology patients are increasingly being offered germline testing to diagnose underlying cancer predispositions. Meanwhile, as understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, planned reanalysis of genomic results has been suggested. Little is known regarding the types of genomic information that parents and their adolescent children with cancer prefer to receive at the time of testing or their expectations around the future return of genomic results.

Methods: Parents and adolescent children with cancer eligible for genomic testing for cancer predisposition were surveyed regarding their attitudes and expectations for receiving current and future germline results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02530658).

Results: All parents (100%) desired to learn about results for treatable or preventable conditions, with 92.4% wanting results even when there is no treatment or prevention. Parents expressed less interest in receiving uncertain results for themselves (88.3%) than for their children (95.3%). Most parents (95.9%) and adolescents (87.9%) believed that providers have a responsibility to share new or updated germline results indefinitely or at any point during follow-up care. Fewer parents (67.5%) indicated that they would want results if their child was deceased: 10.3% would not want to be contacted, 19.3% were uncertain.

Conclusions: Expectations for return of new or updated genomic results are high among pediatric oncology families, although up to one third of parents have reservations about receiving such information in the event of their child's death. These results underscore the importance of high-quality pre-and post-test counseling, conducted by individuals trained in consenting around genomic testing to elicit family preferences and align expectations around the return of germline results.

Background: Many patients have three primary goals for how treatment decisions are made for them in the event of decisional incapacity. They want to be treated consistent with their preferences and values, they want their family to be involved in making decisions, and they want to minimize the stress on their family. The present paper investigates how patients' beliefs about surrogate decision-making influence which of these three goals they prioritize. Methods: Quantitative survey of 1,169 U.S. patients to assess their beliefs about surrogate decision-making, and how these beliefs influence patients' priorities for surrogate decision-making. Results: Most patients believed that families in general (68.8%) and their own family in particular (83.4%) frequently, almost always, or always know which treatments the patient would want in the event of incapacity. Patients with these beliefs were more likely to prioritize the goal of involving their family in treatment decision-making over the goal of minimizing family stress. Most patients (77.4%) also believed their family would experience significant stress from helping to make treatment decisions. However, patients' priorities were largely unchanged by this belief. Conclusions: Prior reports suggest that patients overestimate the extent to which their family knows which treatments they want in the event of decisional incapacity. The present analysis adds that these patients might be more likely to prioritize the goal of involving their family in treatment decision-making, even when this results in the family experiencing significant distress. This finding highlights that patients' misinformed beliefs about their family's knowledge might influence patients' priorities for surrogate decision-making, raising important questions for clinical practice, policy, and future research.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1983665.

Background: Bioethical debates about privacy, big data, and public health surveillance have not sufficiently engaged the perspectives of those being surveilled. The data justice framework suggests that big data applications have the potential to create disproportionate harm for socially marginalized groups. Using examples from our research on HIV surveillance for individuals incarcerated in jails, we analyze ethical issues in deploying big data in public health surveillance.

Methods: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 24 people living with HIV who had been previously incarcerated in county jails about their perspectives on and experiences with HIV surveillance, as part of a larger study to characterize ethical considerations in leveraging big data techniques to enhance continuity of care for incarcerated people living with HIV.

Results: Most participants expressed support for the state health department tracking HIV testing results and viral load data. Several viewed HIV surveillance as a violation of privacy, and several had actively avoided contact from state public health outreach workers. Participants were most likely to express reservations about surveillance when they viewed the state's motives as self-interested. Perspectives highlight the mistrust that structurally vulnerable people may have in the state's capacity to act as an agent of welfare. Findings suggest that adopting a nuanced, context-sensitive view on surveillance is essential.

Conclusions: Establishing trustworthiness through interpersonal interactions with public health personnel is important to reversing historical legacies of harm to racial minorities and structurally vulnerable groups. Empowering stakeholders to participate in the design and implementation of data infrastructure and governance is critical for advancing a data justice agenda, and can offset privacy concerns. The next steps in advancing the data justice framework in public health surveillance will be to innovate ways to represent the voices of structurally vulnerable groups in the design and governance of big data initiatives.

Background: Large amounts of capital are currently being invested in genomics companies across the "bench to clinic pipeline" - companies which are now shaping the future of biomedicine globally. Understanding the perspectives of people who work in such companies can contribute to shaping this industry in service of just and equitable futures of medicine.

Methods: Using in-depth interviews as the primary method, this paper analyzes perspectives on ethical and social issues in private sector genomics expressed by members of the commercial genomics industry in the US.

Results: Interviewees described a wide range of issues as pressing ethical concerns in commercial genomics. Key themes included concerns about diversity in genetic datasets, data governance and control, and pricing and profits in the industry. However, concern about diversity of datasets was not accompanied by expressions of concern about diversity in the industry workforce.

Conclusions: Most interviewees described concerns in the industry that are rather removed from their own work. But along with this "ethical distancing," moral concerns appeared to be the basis for competition amongst companies - to attract both employees and customers. Research in business ethics suggests that expanding moral analysis of one's own work helps improve day to day decision-making in the interest of justice. Opening space for people to examine ethics in their own subsector may provide a means for the private sector genomics industry to become a leader in ethics in the biosciences and a model for equity in our current moment of late capitalism.