Public Health Ethics最新文献

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.