Public Health Ethics最新文献

Mobile health (mHealth) apps for self-monitoring increasingly gain relevance for public health. As a mobile technology, they promote individual participation in health monitoring with the aim of disease prevention and the mitigation of health risks. In this paper, I argue that users of mHealth apps must engage in value trade-offs concerning their fundamental dimensions of well-being when using mobile health apps for the self-monitoring of health parameters. I particularly focus on trade-offs regarding the user's self-determination as well as their capacity to form personal attachments. Depending on the user's level of advantage or disadvantage, value trade-offs can pose a threat to the users' sufficient fulfillment of the dimensions of well-being. As such, value trade-offs can entrench existing structural injustices and prevent disadvantaged users to benefit from this technology. I argue that value trade-offs are, to some, a type of injustice that can drive disadvantaged users away from a sufficiency threshold of well-being, risk users to fall below the threshold, or have an accumulative effect on different dimensions of the user's well-being.

Hawe et al. raise concerns about Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) taking a risk-averse and litigation-sensitive approach to ethical review of research proposals. HRECs are tasked with reviewing proposals for compliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for the purpose of promoting the welfare of participants. While these guidelines intentionally include a significant degree of discretion in HREC decision making, there is also evidence that HRECs sometimes request changes that go beyond the guidance provided by the National Statement. When HRECs request changes outside their remit, inconsistencies between individual HRECs become more common, contributing to delays in ethical review and reducing the quality of HREC decision making. Improvements to the HREC regulatory system are needed to promote transparency and accountability.

Emerging parallel to long-standing, academic and policy inquiries on personal responsibility for health is the empirical assessment of lay persons' views. Yet, previous studies rarely explored personal responsibility for health among lay persons as dynamic societal values. We sought to explore lay persons' views on personal responsibility for health using the Fairness Dialogues, a method for lay persons to deliberate equity issues in health and health care through a small group dialogue using a hypothetical scenario. We conducted two 2-h Fairness Dialogues sessions (n = 15 in total) in Nova Scotia, Canada. We analyzed data using thematic analysis. Our analysis showed that personal choice played an important role in participants' thinking about health. Underlying the concept of personal choice was considerations of freedom and societal debt. In participants' minds, personal and social responsibilities co-existed and they were unwilling to determine health care priority based on personal responsibility. The Fairness Dialogues is a promising deliberative method to explore lay persons' views as dynamic values to be developed through group dialogues as opposed to static, already-formed values waiting to be elicited.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was introduced in 2018 to harmonize data privacy and security laws across the European Union (EU). It applies to any organization collecting personal data in the EU. To date, service-level consent has been used as a proportionate approach for clinical trials, which implement low-risk, routine, service-wide interventions for which individual consent is considered inappropriate. In the context of public health research, GDPR now requires that individuals have the option to choose whether their data may be used for research, which presents a challenge when consent has been given by the clinical service and not by individual service users. We report here on development of a pragmatic opt-out solution to this consent paradox in the context of a partner notification intervention trial in sexual health clinics in the UK. Our approach supports the individual's right to withhold their data from trial analysis while routinely offering the same care to all patients.

Background: Health literacy is considered the single best predictor of health status. Organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recommended that the readability of patient education materials not exceed the sixth-grade level. Our study focuses on the readability of self-designated hernia centers websites at both academic and community organizations across the United States to determine their ability to dispense patient information at an appropriate reading level.

Methods: A search was conducted utilizing the Google search engine. The key words "Hernia Center" and "University Hernia Center" were used to identify links to surgical programs within the United States. The following readability tests were conducted via the program: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score.

Results: Of 96 websites, zero (0%) had fulfilled the recommended reading level in all four tests. The mean test scores for all non-academic centers (n = 50) were as follows: FKGL (11.14 ± 2.68), GFI (14.39 ± 3.07), CLI (9.29 ± 2.48) and SMOG (13.38 ± 2.03). The mean test scores [SK1] for all academic programs (n = 46) were as follows: FKGL (11.7 ± 2.66), GFI (15.01 ± 2.99), CLI (9.34 ± 1.91) and SMOG (13.71 ± 2.02). A one-sample t test was performed to compare the FKGL, GFI, CLI, and SMOG scores for each hernia center to a value of 6.9 (6.9 or less is considered an acceptable reading level) and a p value of 0.001 for all four tests were noted demonstrating statistical significance. The Academic and Community readability scores for both groups were compared to each other with a two-sample t test with a p value of > 0.05 for all four tests and there were no statistically significant differences.

Conclusion: Neither Academic nor Community hernia centers met the appropriate reading level of sixth-grade or less. Steps moving forward to improve patient comprehension and/or involving with their care should include appropriate reading level material, identification of a patient with a low literacy level with intervention or additional counseling when appropriate, and the addition of adjunct learning materials such as videos.

In several countries, governments have implemented so-called 'COVID passport' schemes, which restrict access to venues such as bars or sports events to those who are vaccinated against COVID-19 and/or exempt vaccinated individuals from public health measures such as curfews or quarantine requirements. These schemes have been the subject of a heated debate. Concerns about inequality have played an important role in the opposition to such schemes. This article highlights that determining how COVID passports affect equality requires a much more nuanced analysis than is typically assumed. I identify a range of broadly egalitarian considerations that could be affected by the introduction of COVID passport schemes. While these schemes could undermine certain aspects of equality, I argue that they could also be used to promote equality. The magnitude and severity of these different effects, both promoting and undermining equality, depend on how precisely these schemes are framed and the local context in which they are implemented.