Health Care Analysis最新文献

Developing an instrument with the capability approach can be challenging, since the capability concept of Sen is ambiguous concerning the burdens that people experience whilst achieving their capabilities. A solution is to develop instruments with a comprehensive concept of capability, such as the concept of 'option-freedom'. This study aims to develop a theoretical framework for instrument development with the concept of option-freedom. A best-fit framework synthesis was conducted with seven qualitative papers by one researcher. Two researchers supported the synthesis by discussing interim results during the synthesis. A priori concepts of option-freedom were used to deductively code against. Themes and subthemes were developed inductively when data did not match a priori themes. Seven paper were identified that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Four themes emerged from the synthesis. (1) Option Wellbeing represents a range of options that need to be satisfied for individuals to experience wellbeing. (2) Self-Realization represents that there are experiences in an individual's life that have value beyond realizing options. (3) Perceived Access to Options represents the perceived ability of individuals to realize freedoms. (4) Perceived Control represents the experience of having control. Developing an instrument with the proposed framework has two benefits. First, it acknowledges the importance of assessing impediments in realizing capabilities for wellbeing assessment. Secondly, the themes form a broad informational base by including themes related to subjective wellbeing. Future research should study the feasibility of implementing the framework for instrument development.

Health technologies such as apps for digital contract tracing [DCT] played a crucial role in containing and combating infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their primary function was to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by consistently generating and disseminating information related to various events such as encounters, vaccinations or infections. While the functionality of DCT has been well researched, the necessity of transparency in the use of DCT and the consent to share sensitive information such as users' health, vaccination and location status remains unclear. On one hand, DCT enabled the continuous monitoring of various risk factors, including data-based calculations of infection probabilities. On the other hand, digital monitoring of health risks was closely associated with various uncertainties, such as the ambiguous storage of personal data and its potential future misuse, e.g., by tech companies or health authorities. Our contribution aims to retrospectively analyze the COVID-19 pandemic from a post-pandemic perspective and utilize it as a case study for the implementation of new technological measures. We argue that under the condition of voluntary use of DCT, transparency plays a key role in convincing individuals to install health technologies on their mobile devices, keep them activated and consent to the sharing of sensitive data. We support our argument with qualitative data from an expert survey conducted between 2020 and 2021 and analyzed according to the principles of Grounded Theory.

The inherent normativity of HTA can be conceptualized as a result of normative commitments, a concept that we further specify to encompass moral, epistemological and ontological commitments at play in the practice of HTA. Based on examples from literature, and an analysis of the example of assessing Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), we will show that inevitable normative decisions in conducting an assessment commits the HTA practitioner to moral (regarding what makes a health technology desirable), ontological (regarding which effects of health technology are conceivable), and epistemological (regarding how to obtain reliable information about health technology) norms. This highlights and supports the need for integrating normative analysis and stakeholder participation, providing guidance to HTA practitioners when making normative choices. This will foster a shared understanding between those who conduct, use, or are impacted by assessments regarding what are conceivable and desirable outcomes of using health technology, and how to collect reliable information to assess whether these outcomes are (going to be) realized. It also provides more insight into the implications of different normative choices.

The practical goal of preventing premature death seems uncontroversial. But the term 'premature death' is vague with several, sometimes conflicting definitions. This ambiguity results in several conceptions with which not all will agree. Moreover, the normative rationale behind the goal of preventing premature deaths is masked by the operational definition of existing measures. In this article, we argue that 'premature death' should be recognized as a normative concept. We propose that normative theories should be used to justify measures of premature death to provide them with normative validity and public legitimacy.

In this paper we aim to discuss a theoretical explanation for the positive relationship between patients' knowledge and their trust in healthcare personnel. Our approach is based on John Dewey's notion of continuity. This notion entails that the individual's experiences are interpreted as interrelated to each other, and that knowledge is related to future experience, not merely a record of the past. Furthermore, we apply Niklas Luhmann's theory on trust as a way of reducing complexity and enabling action. Anthony Giddens' description and analysis of the high modern society provides a frame for discussing the preconditions for patient-healthcare personnel interaction. High modernity is dominated by expert systems and demands trust in these. We conclude that patient knowledge and trust in healthcare personnel is related because both knowledge and trust are future- and action-oriented concepts. The traits of high modernity provides opportunities and challenges as the personnel can and must perform discretion. This discretion must be made in a context where knowledge is considered uncertain and preliminary.

The term 'environment' is not uniformly defined in the public health sciences, which causes crucial inconsistencies in research, health policy, and practice. As we shall indicate, this is somewhat entangled with diverging pathogenic and salutogenic perspectives (research and policy priorities) concerning environmental health. We emphasise two distinct concepts of environment in use by the World Health Organisation. One significant way these concepts differ concerns whether the social environment is included. Divergence on this matter has profound consequences for the understanding of health and disease, for measures derived from that understanding targeting health promotion and disease prevention, and consequently, for epistemic structures and concept development in scientific practice. We hope to improve the given situation in public health by uncovering these differences and by developing a fruitful way of thinking about environment. Firstly, we side with the salutogenic conception of environment as a health resource (as well as a source of health risks). Secondly, we subdivide the concept of environment into four health-oriented environmental categories (viz., natural, built-material, socio-cultural, and psychosocial) and we link these with other theoretical notions proposed in the health sciences literature. Thirdly, we propose that in public health 'environment' should be understood as consisting of all extrinsic factors that influence or are influenced by the health, well-being, and development of an individual. Consequently, none of the four categories should be excluded from the concept of environment. We point out the practical relevance and fruitfulness of the conception of environment as a health source and frame this in causal terms, representing individual health environments as causal networks. Throughout, we side with the view that for the design of human health-promoting settings, increased attention and consideration of environmental resources of salutogenic potential is particularly pressing.

Moral distress is a common phenomenon among nurses and is related to the complicated work environments and complex nature of ethical situations in day-to-day nursing practice. Moral distress impacts nurses as well as patient care and the health care system. Few strategies have been identified for instructors to effectively engage with learners when communicating about moral distress. We discuss two key curricular and pedagogical strategies that should be utilized when learning about moral distress: difficult knowledge' and 'terror management theory'. Whether it is with new nursing students or experienced nurses, there is necessary learning that needs to occur on moral distress. Difficult knowledge' and 'terror management theory', when implemented, can provide a starting point for both the learner and the instructor to discuss the emotionally difficult and complex topic of moral distress. Knowledge about moral distress has the potential to mitigate its negative effects, therefore it is vital to consider educational strategies to teach nurses about this complex phenomenon.

Population policy has taken two divergent trajectories. In the developing part of the world, controlling population growth has been a major tune of the debate more than a half-century ago. In the more developed part of the world, an inverse pattern results in the discussion over the facilitation of population growth. The ethical debates on population policy have primarily focused on the former and ignored the latter. This paper proposes a more comprehensive account that justifies states' population policy interventions. We first consider the reasons that support pro-natalist policies to enhance fertility rates and argue that these policies are ethically problematic. We then establish an ethics of population policy grounded on account of self-sustaining the body politic, which consists of four criteria: survival, replacement, accountability, and solidarity. We discuss the implications of this account regarding birth-control and pro-natalist policies, as well as non-procreative policies such as immigration, adoption, and unintended baby-saving strategies.

Nudges are means to influence the will formation of people to make specific choices more likely. My focus is on nudges that are supposed to improve the health condition of individuals and populations over and above the direct prevention of disease. I point out epistemic and moral problems with these types of nudges, which lead to my conclusion that health-enhancing nudges fail. They fail because we cannot know which choices enhance individual health-properly understood in a holistic way-and because health-enhancing nudges are often themselves bad for our health. They can be bad for our health because they assume inferior agency in their targets and accordingly regularly lead to appropriate resentment and anger-strong emotions which go along with an increased risk of health impairments. Briefly, health-enhancing nudges fail because they are based on persistent ignorance and on a presumptuous attitude.