21 research outputs found

    Reasonable expectations of privacy in non-disclosure of familial genetic risk: What is it reasonable to expect?

    Get PDF
    Where there is conflict between a patient's interests in non-disclosure of their genetic information to relatives and the relative's interest in knowing the information because it indicates their genetic risk, clinicians have customarily been able to protect themselves against legal action by maintaining confidence even if, professionally, they did not consider this to be the right thing to do. In ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ([2017] EWCA Civ 336) the healthcare team recorded their concern about the wisdom of the patient's decision to withhold genetic risk information from his relative, but chose to respect what they considered to be an unwise choice. Even though professional guidance considers that clinicians have the discretion to breach confidence where they believe this to be justified, (Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Pathologists and the British Society of Human Genetics, 2006; GMC, 2017) clinicians find it difficult to exercise this discretion in line with their convictions against the backdrop of the legal prioritisation of the duty to maintain confidence. Thus, the professional discretion is not being freely exercised because of doubts about the legal protection available in the event of disclosure. The reliance on consent as the legal basis for setting aside the duty of confidence often vetoes sharing information with relatives. This paper argues that an objective approach based on privacy, rather than a subjective consent-based approach, would give greater freedom to clinicians to exercise the discretion which their professional guidance affords

    Surgical cognitive simulation improves real-world surgical performance: randomized study

    Get PDF
    Background Despite the acknowledgement of human factors, application of psychological methods by surgeons to improve surgical performance is sparse. This may reflect the paucity of evidence that would help surgeons to use psychological techniques effectively. There is a need for novel approaches to see how cognitive training might be used to address these challenges. Methods Surgical trainees were divided into intervention and control groups. The intervention group received training in surgical cognitive simulation (SCS) and was asked to apply the techniques while working in operating theatres. Both groups underwent procedure-based assessment based on the UK and Ireland Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme (ISCP) before the training and 4 months afterwards. Subjective evaluations of SCS application were obtained from the intervention group participants. Results Among 21 participants in the study, there was a statistically significant improvement in 11 of 16 procedure-based assessment domains (P < 0.050) as well as a statistically significant mean reduction in time to complete the procedure in the intervention group (–15.98 versus –1.14 min; P = 0.024). Subjectively, the intervention group experienced various benefits with SCS, especially in preoperative preparedness, intraoperative focus, and overall performance. Conclusion SCS training has a statistically significant impact in improving surgical performance. Subjective feedback suggests that surgeons are able to apply it in practice. SCS may prove a vital adjunct for skill acquisition in surgical training

    Born in Bradford's Better Start: an experimental birth cohort study to evaluate the impact of early life interventions.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Early interventions are recognised as key to improving life chances for children and reducing inequalities in health and well-being, however there is a paucity of high quality research into the effectiveness of interventions to address childhood health and development outcomes. Planning and implementing standalone RCTs for multiple, individual interventions would be slow, cumbersome and expensive. This paper describes the protocol for an innovative experimental birth cohort: Born in Bradford's Better Start (BiBBS) that will simultaneously evaluate the impact of multiple early life interventions using efficient study designs. Better Start Bradford (BSB) has been allocated £49 million from the Big Lottery Fund to implement 22 interventions to improve outcomes for children aged 0-3 in three key areas: social and emotional development; communication and language development; and nutrition and obesity. The interventions will be implemented in three deprived and ethnically diverse inner city areas of Bradford. METHOD: The BiBBS study aims to recruit 5000 babies, their mothers and their mothers' partners over 5 years from January 2016-December 2020. Demographic and socioeconomic information, physical and mental health, lifestyle factors and biological samples will be collected during pregnancy. Parents and children will be linked to their routine health and local authority (including education) data throughout the children's lives. Their participation in BSB interventions will also be tracked. BiBBS will test interventions using the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) approach and other quasi-experimental designs where TwiCs are neither feasible nor ethical, to evaluate these early life interventions. The effects of single interventions, and the cumulative effects of stacked (multiple) interventions on health and social outcomes during the critical early years will be measured. DISCUSSION: The focus of the BiBBS cohort is on intervention impact rather than observation. As far as we are aware BiBBS is the world's first such experimental birth cohort study. While some risk factors for adverse health and social outcomes are increasingly well described, the solutions to tackling them remain elusive. The novel design of BiBBS can contribute much needed evidence to inform policy makers and practitioners about effective approaches to improve health and well-being for future generations

    Stand Out in Class: restructuring theclassroom environment to reducesedentary behaviour in 9–10-year-olds—study protocol for a pilot clusterrandomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a highly prevalent negative health behaviour, with individuals of allages exposed to environments that promote prolonged sitting. Excessive sedentary behaviour adversely affects health inchildren and adults. As sedentary behaviour tracks from childhood into adulthood, the reduction of sedentary time inyoung people is key for the prevention of chronic diseases that result from excessive sitting in later life. The sedentaryschool classroom represents an ideal setting for environmentalchange, through the provision of sit-stand desks. Whilstthe use of sit-stand desks in classrooms demonstrates positiveeffects in some key outcomes, evidence is currently limitedby small samples and/or short intervention durations, withfewstudiesadoptingrandomisedcontrolledtrial(RCT)designs. This paper describes the protocol of a pilot cluster RCT of a sit-stand desk interventioninprimaryschoolclassrooms.Methods/Design:A two-arm pilot cluster RCT will be conducted in eight primary schools (four intervention, four control)with at least 120 year 5 children (aged 9–10 years). Sit-stand desks will replace six standard desks in the interventionclassrooms. Teachers will be encouraged to ensure all pupils are exposed to the sit-stand desks for at least 1 h/dayon average using a rotation system. Schools assigned to the control arm will continue with their usual practice, noenvironmental changes will be made to their classrooms. Measurements will be taken at baseline, beforerandomisation, and at the end of the schools’academic year. In this study, the primary outcomes of interest will beschool and participant recruitment and attrition, acceptability of the intervention, and acceptability and complianceto the proposed outcome measures (including activPAL-measured school-time and school-day sitting, accelerometer-measured physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, cognitive function, academic progress, engagement, andbehaviour) for inclusion in a definitive trial. A full process evaluation and an exploratory economic evaluation willalso be conducted to further inform a definitive tria

    Targeting brains, producing responsibilities:The use of neuroscience within British social policy

    Get PDF
    AbstractConcepts and findings ‘translated’ from neuroscientific research are finding their way into UK health and social policy discourse. Critical scholars have begun to analyse how policies tend to ‘misuse’ the neurosciences and, further, how these discourses produce unwarranted and individualizing effects, rooted in middle-class values and inducing guilt and anxiety. In this article, we extend such work while simultaneously departing from the normative assumptions implied in the concept of ‘misuse’. Through a documentary analysis of UK policy reports focused on the early years, adolescence and older adults, we examine how these employ neuroscientific concepts and consequently (re)define responsibility. In the documents analysed, responsibility was produced in three different but intersecting ways: through a focus on optimisation, self-governance, and vulnerability. Our work thereby adds to social scientific examinations of neuroscience in society that show how neurobiological terms and concepts can be used to construct and support a particular imaginary of citizenship and the role of the state. Neuroscience may be leveraged by policy makers in ways that (potentially) reduce the target of their intervention to the soma, but do so in order to expand the outcome of the intervention to include the enhancement of society writ large. By attending as well to more critical engagements with neuroscience in policy documents, our analysis demonstrates the importance of being mindful of the limits to the deployment of a neurobiological idiom within policy settings. Accordingly, we contribute to increased empirical specificity concerning the impacts and translation of neuroscientific knowledge in contemporary society whilst refusing to take for granted the idea that the neurosciences necessarily have a dominant role (to play)
    corecore