Clinical Ethics in Gabon: The Spectrum of Clinical Ethical Issues Based on Findings from In-Depth Interviews at Three Public Hospitals

Introduction Unlike issues in biomedical research ethics, ethical challenges arising in daily clinical care in Sub-Saharan African countries have not yet been studied in a systematic manner. However this has to be seen as a distinct entity as we argue in this paper. Our aim was to give an overview of the spectrum of clinical ethical issues and to understand what influences clinical ethics in the Sub-Saharan country of Gabon. Materials and Methods In-depth interviews with 18 health care professionals were conducted at three hospital sites in Gabon. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach (open and axial coding),giving a qualitative spectrum of categories for clinical ethical issues. Validity was checked at a meeting with study participants and other health care experts in Gabon after analysis of the data. Results Twelve main categories (with 28 further-specified subcategories) for clinical ethical issues were identified and grouped under three core categories: A) micro level: "confidentiality and information","interpersonal, relational and behavioral issues","psychological strain of individuals",and "scarce resources";B) meso level: "structural issues of medical institutions","issues with private clinics","challenges connected to the family",and "issues of education, training and competence";and C) macro level: "influence of society, culture, religion and superstition","applicability of western medicine","structural issues on the political level",and "legal issues". Discussion Interviewees reported a broad spectrum of clinical ethical issues that go beyond challenges related to scarce financial and human resources. Specific socio-cultural, historical and educational backgrounds also played an important role. In fact these influences are central to an understanding of clinical ethics in the studied local context. Further research in the region is necessary to put our study into perspective. As many participants reported a lack of awareness of ethical issues amongst other health care professionals in daily clinical practice, we suggest that international organizations and national medical schools should consider infrastructure and tools to improve context-sensitive capacity building in clinical ethics for Sub-Saharan African countries like Gabon

The representation of patient experience and satisfaction in physician rating sites. A criteria-based analysis of English- and German-language sites

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Information on patient experience and satisfaction with individual physicians could play an important role for performance measures, improved health care and health literacy. Physician rating sites (PRSs) bear the potential to be a widely available source for this kind of information. However, patient experience and satisfaction are complex constructs operationalized by multiple dimensions. The way in which PRSs allow users to express and rate patient experience and satisfaction could likely influence the image of doctors in society and the self-understanding of both doctors and patients. This study examines the extent to which PRSs currently represent the constructs of patient experience and satisfaction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>First, a systematic review of research instruments for measuring patient experience and satisfaction was conducted. The content of these instruments was analyzed qualitatively to create a comprehensive set of dimensions for patient experience and patient satisfaction. Second, PRSs were searched for systematically in English-language and German-language search engines of Google and Yahoo. Finally, we classified every structured question asked by the different PRS using the set of dimensions of patient experience and satisfaction.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The qualitative content analysis of the measurement instruments produced 13 dimensions of patient experience and satisfaction. We identified a total of 21 PRSs. No PRSs represented all 13 dimensions of patient satisfaction and experience with its structured questions. The 3 most trafficked English-language PRS represent between 5 and 6 dimensions and the 3 most trafficked German language PRSs between 8 and 11 dimensions The dimensions for patient experience and satisfaction most frequently represented in PRSs included diversely operationalized ones such as <it>professional competence </it>and <it>doctor-patient relationship/support</it>. However, other less complex but nevertheless important dimensions such as <it>communication skills </it>and <it>information/advice </it>were rarely represented, especially in English-language PRSs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Concerning the potential impact of PRSs on health systems, further research is needed to show which of the current operationalizations of patient experience and satisfaction presented in our study are establishing themselves in PRSs. Independently of this factual development, the question also arises whether and to what extent health policy can and should influence the operationalization of patient experience and satisfaction in PRSs. Here, the challenge would be to produce a set of dimensions capable of consensus from among the wide range of operationalizations found by this study.</p

How old are you? Newborn gestational age discriminates neonatal resuscitation practices in the Italian debate

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Multidisciplinary study groups have produced documents in an attempt to support decisions regarding whether to resuscitate "at risk" newborns or not. Moreover, there has been an increasingly insistent request for juridical regulation of neonatal resuscitation practices as well as for clarification of the role of parents in decisions regarding this kind of assistance. The crux of the matter is whether strict guidelines, reference standards based on the parameter of gestational age and authority rules are necessary.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The Italian scenario reflects the current animated debate, illustrating the difficulty intrinsic in rigid guidelines on the subject, especially when gestational age is taken as a reference parameter for the medical decision.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Concerning the decision to interrupt or not to initiate resuscitation procedures on low gestational age newborns, physicians do not need rigid rules based on inflexible gestational age and birth weight guidelines. Guidance in addressing the difficult and trying issues associated with infants born at the margins of viability with a realistic assessment of the infant's clinical condition must be based on the infant's best interests, with clinicians and parents entering into what has been described as a "partnership of care".</p

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyse

Routinely collected data for randomized trials: promises, barriers, and implications

This work was supported by Stiftung Institut für klinische Epidemiologie. The Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University is funded by a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The funders had no role in design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript or its submission for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

Background: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decisionmaking. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peerreviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. Copyright:Methods and Findings: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2594.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2598.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6- 2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%.Conclusions: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased

Does the perception of fairness and standard of care in the health system depend on the field of study? Results of an empirical analysis

Background: The main challenge in the context of health care reforms and priority setting is the establishment and/or maintenance of fairness and standard of care. For the political process and interdisciplinary discussion, the subjective perception of the health care system might even be as important as potential objective criteria. Of special interest are the perceptions of academic disciplines, whose representatives act as decision makers in the health care sector. The aim of this study is to explore and compare the subjective perception of fairness and standard of care in the German health care system among students of medicine, law, economics, philosophy, and religion. Methods: Between October 2011 and January 2012, we asked freshmen and advanced students of the fields mentioned above to participate in a paper and pencil survey. Prior to this, we formulated hypotheses. The data were analysed by micro econometric regression techniques. Results: Data from 1,088 students were included in the study. Medical students, freshmen, and advanced students perceive the standard of care significantly as being better than non-medical students. Differences in the perception of fairness are not significant between the freshmen of the academic disciplines; however, they increase with the number of study terms. Besides the field of study, further variables such as gender and health status have a significant impact on perceptions. Conclusions: Our results show that there are differences in the perception of fairness and standard of care between academic disciplines, which might influence the interdisciplinary discussion on health care reforms and priority setting.Leibniz University Hannover/Wege in die Forschung I