When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices <it>seem </it>like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and <it>should</it>, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.</p

Health system guidance appraisal-concept evaluation and usability testing

Health system guidance (HSG) provides recommendations aimed to address health system challenges. However, there is a paucity of methods to direct, appraise, and report HSG. Earlier research identified 30 candidate criteria (concepts) that can be used to evaluate the quality of HSG and guide development and reporting requirements. The objective of this paper was to describe two studies aimed at evaluating the importance of these 30 criteria, design a draft HSG appraisal tool, and test its usability.; This study involved a two-step survey process. In step 1, respondents rated the 30 concepts for appropriateness to, relevance to, and priority for health system decisions and HSG. This led to a draft tool. In step 2, respondents reviewed HSG documents, appraised them using the tool, and answered a series of questions. Descriptive analyses were computed.; Fifty participants were invited in step 1, and we had a response rate of 82 %. The mean response rates for each concept within each survey question were universally favorable. There was also an overall agreement about the need for a high-quality tool to systematically direct the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG. Qualitative feedback and a consensus process by the team led to refinements to some of the concepts and the creation of a beta (draft) version of the HSG tool. In step 2, 35 participants were invited and we had a response rate of 74 %. Exploratory analyses showed that the quality of the HSGs reviewed varied as a function of the HSG item and the specific document assessed. A favorable consensus was reached with participants agreeing that the HSG items were easy to understand and easy to apply. Moreover, the overall agreement was high for the usability of the tool to systematically direct the development (85 %), appraisal (92 %), and reporting (81 %) of HSG. From this process, version 1.0 of the HSG appraisal tool was generated complete with 32 items (and their descriptions) and 4 domains.; The final tool, named the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems (AGREE-HS) (version 1), defines expectations of HSG and facilitates informed decisions among policymakers on health system delivery, financial, and governance arrangements

A reallocation of rights in industries with reproductive health hazards

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United Automobile Workers versus Johnson Controls prohibits hiring policies that exclude fertile women from industries posing reproductive health risks to workers and fetuses. Many toxic substances that threaten the developing fetus also pose risks to adult male and female workers. Exclusionary employment policies are socially undesirable for the following reasons: they may lead to worse reproductive outcomes if the indirect effects of lower wages and less adequate health insurance in the alternative available jobs are considered. Second, the effect of such policies could damage the individual woman's overall well-being through its economic impact and her potential loss in autonomy. Third, occupational segregation into less hazardous but lower-paying jobs reinforces gender stereotypes that are restrictive to women. The Supreme Court ruling in the Johnson Controls case reaffirms the importance of the Civil Rights Act as both a shield against unfair treatment for individual women and a commitment to eradicate sexist attitudes and economic inequality throughout society

Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study

OBJECTIVE: To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine. DESIGN: Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory. SETTING: Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: The two committees and their 26 members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings. RESULTS: Six interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions. CONCLUSION: These domains constitute a model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made

Implementation

A mixed methods approach to understand variation in lung cancer practice and the role of guideline

A mixed methods approach to understand variation in lung cancer practice and the role of guidelines

Abstract Introduction Practice pattern data demonstrate regional variation and lower than expected rates of adherence to practice guideline (PG) recommendations for the treatment of stage II/IIIA resected and stage IIIA/IIIB unresected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Ontario, Canada. This study sought to understand how clinical decisions are made for the treatment of these patients and the role of PGs. Methods Surveys and key informant interviews were undertaken with clinicians and administrators. Results Participants reported favorable ratings for PGs and the evidentiary bases underpinning them. The majority of participants agreed more patients should have received treatment and that regional variation is problematic. Participants estimated that up to 30% of patients are not good candidates for treatment and up to 20% of patients refuse treatment. The most common barrier to implementing PGs was the lack of organizational support by clinical administrative leadership. There was concern that the trial results underpinning the PG recommendations were not generalizable to the typical patients seen in clinic. The qualitative analysis yielded five themes related to physicians’ decision making: the unique patient, the unique physician, the family, the clinical team, and the clinical evidence. A dynamic interplay between these factors exists. Conclusion Our study demonstrates the challenges inherent in (i) the complexity of clinical decision making; (ii) how quality of care problems are perceived and operationalized; and (iii) the clinical appropriateness and utility of PG recommendations. We argue that systematic and rigorous methodologies to help decision makers mitigate or negotiate these challenges are warranted