Applying Digital Health in Cancer and Palliative Care in Europe : Policy Recommendations from an International Expert Workshop (MyPal Project)

Background: Digital health interventions are becoming increasingly important for adults, children, and young people with cancer and palliative care needs, but there is little research to guide policy and practice. Objectives: To identify recommendations for policy development of digital health interventions in cancer and palliative care. Design: Expert elicitation workshop. Setting: European clinical (cancer and palliative care, adult and pediatric), policy, technical, and research experts attended a one-day workshop in London, England, in October 2022, along with MyPal research consortium members. Methods: As part of the European Commission-funded MyPal project, we elicited experts' views on global, national, and institutional policies within structured facilitated groups, and conducted qualitative analysis on these discussions. Results/Implementation: Thirty-two experts from eight countries attended. Key policy drivers and levers in digital health were highlighted. Global level: global technology regulation, definitions, access to information technology, standardizing citizens' rights and data safety, digital infrastructure and implementation guidance, and incorporation of technology into existing health systems. National level: country-specific policy, compatibility of health apps, access to digital infrastructure including vulnerable groups and settings, development of guidelines, and promoting digital literacy. Institutional level: undertaking a needs assessment of service users and clinicians, identifying best practice guidelines, providing education and training for clinicians on digital health and safe digital data sharing, implementing plans to minimize barriers to accessing digital health care, minimizing bureaucracy, and providing technical support. Conclusions: Developers and regulators of digital health interventions may find the identified recommendations useful in guiding policy making and future research initiatives. MyPal child study Clinical Trial Registration NCT04381221; MyPal adult study Clinical Trial Registration NCT0437045

Linking the ‘point of care’ with the ‘point of life’:experiences from the MyPal project

Digital health interventions are a fast-developing field, with much potential, but not without their challenges, especially in palliative care. The MyPal ebook, based on a recently completed European project, is a new resource which could help you navigate their implementation, or help with planning research about them. Sheila Payne, Dunja Begovic and Yakubu Salifu, who led on disseminating the project’s results, tell us more

Twin pregnancy reduction is not an ‘all or nothing’ problem: a response to Räsänen

In his paper, ‘Twin pregnancy, fetal reduction and the ‘all or nothing problem’, Räsänen sets out to apply Horton’s ‘all or nothing’ problem to the ethics of multifetal pregnancy reduction from a twin to a singleton pregnancy (2-to-1 MFPR). Horton’s problem involves the following scenario: imagine that two children are about to be crushed by a collapsing building. An observer would have three options: do nothing, save one child by allowing their arms to be crushed, or save both by allowing their arms to be crushed. Horton offers two intuitively plausible claims: (1) it is morally permissible not to save either child and (2) it is morally impermissible to save only one of the children, which taken together lead to the problematic conclusion that (3) if an observer does not save both children, then it is better to save neither than save only one. Räsänen applies this problem to the case of 2-to-1 MFPR, arguing ultimately that, in cases where there is no medical reason to reduce, the woman ought to bring both fetuses to term. We will argue that Räsänen does not provide adequate support for the claim, crucial to his argument, that aborting only one of the fetuses in a twin pregnancy is wrong, so the ‘all or nothing’ problem does not arise in this context. Furthermore, we argue that the scenario Räsänen presents is highly unrealistic because of the clinical realities of 2-to-1 MFPR, making his argument of limited use for real-life decision making in this area