scholarly journals State of Ethical Issues in Published Literatures: A Non-Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ethical Issues

Identifying stakeholder opinion regarding access to “high-cost medicines”: A systematic review of the literature

Open Medicine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Wahlster ◽  
Shane Scahill ◽  
Sanjay Garg ◽  
Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
System Level ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Moral Issues ◽  
The Public ◽  
Patient Groups

AbstractObjective: To identify the viewpoints and perceptions of different stakeholders regarding high cost medicines (HCMs). Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify original research articles. Using predefined categories, data related to the viewpoints of different stakeholders was systematically extracted and analyzed. Results: Thirty seven original research articles matched the criteria. The main stakeholders identified include physicians, patients, public and health funding authorities. The influence of media and other economic and ethical issues were also identified in the literature. A large number of stakeholders were concerned about lack of access to HCMs. Physicians have difficulty balancing the the rational use of expensive drugs while at the same time acting as “patients’ advocate”. Patients would like to know about all treatment options, even if they may not be able to afford them. The process and criteria for reimbursement should be transparent and access has to be equitable across patient groups. Conclusion: Access to HCMs could be improved through transparency and involvement of all stakeholders, especially patients and the public. Moral issues and the “rule of rescue” could influence decision-making process significantly. At system level, objectivity is important to ensure that the system is equitable and transparent.

scholarly journals Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Crico ◽  
Virginia Sanchini ◽  
Paolo Giovanni Casali ◽  
Gabriella Pravettoni
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Consultation ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Policy Formation ◽  
Patient Treatment ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Clinical Ethics Committees

AbstractClinical Ethics Committees (CECs), as distinct from Research Ethics Committees, were originally established with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in managing controversial clinical ethical issues. However, it is still unclear whether they manage to accomplish this task and what is their impact on clinical practice. This systematic review aims to collect available assessments of CECs’ performance as reported in literature, in order to evaluate CECs’ effectiveness. We retrieved all literature published up to November 2019 in six databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Philosopher’s Index, Embase and Web of Science), following PRISMA guidelines. We included only articles specifically addressing CECs and providing any form of CECs performance assessment. Twenty-nine articles were included. Ethics consultation was the most evaluated of CECs’ functions. We did not find standardized tools for measuring CECs’ efficacy, but 33% of studies considered “user satisfaction” as an indicator, with 94% of them reporting an average positive perception of CECs’ impact. Changes in patient treatment and a decrease of moral distress in health personnel were reported as additional outcomes of ethics consultation. The highly diverse ways by which CECs carry out their activities make CECs’ evaluation difficult. The adoption of shared criteria would be desirable to provide a reliable answer to the question about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, in general both users and providers consider CECs as helpful, relevant to their work, able to improve the quality of care. Their main function is ethics consultation, while less attention seems to be devoted to bioethics education and policy formation.

A Systematic Review of the Use of Social Media as a Recruitment Tool on the Social Ethical and Privacy Context

2020 ◽  
pp. 226-255
Author(s):  
Ghadah Althawwad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
The Social ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
Impact Of Technology ◽  
Recruitment Tool ◽  
The Impact

The influence of social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter plays an increasingly influential role in the daily lives of people. Despite the rise of interest in this topic, the research discussing the ethical concerns of using social media for recruitment purposes remains in exploratory stages. This chapter provides a systematic review of recent research that was published from 2012 to 2018 and focused on ethical issues related to the use of social media for recruitment purposes. The techno-ethical lens, which studies the impact of technology on ethics, was used to explore the social and ethical aspects of how recruiters use social media for recruitment purposes.

scholarly journals Efficacy of nicotine administration on obsessions and compulsions in OCD: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daria Piacentino ◽  
Annalisa Maraone ◽  
Valentina Roselli ◽  
Isabella Berardelli ◽  
Massimo Biondi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Symptom Improvement ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Nicotine Administration

Abstract Background Preliminary studies have tested nicotine as a novel treatment for OCD patients who respond partially/incompletely or not at all to first and second-line treatment strategies, with the former represented by SSRIs or clomipramine, and the latter by switching to another SSRI, or augmentation with atypical antipsychotics, and/or combination with/switching to cognitive–behavioural therapy. Some studies found nicotine-induced reduction of obsessive thoughts and/or compulsive behaviour in OCD patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nicotine administration in OCD patients. Methods We searched the PubMed, ScienceDirect Scopus, CINHAL, Cochrane, PsycINFO/PsycARTICLES, and EMBASE databases from inception to the present for relevant papers. The ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses’ (PRISMA) standards were used. We included all studies focusing on the effects of nicotine administration on OCD patients’ obsessions or compulsions. Studies could be open-label, cross-sectional, randomized controlled trials, case series or case reports. Results A total of five studies could be included. Nicotine administration may ameliorate behavioural features and recurrent thoughts of severe, treatment-resistant OCD patients; however, in one study it was not associated with OC symptom improvement or cognitive enhancement across various executive function subdomains. Conclusions Although encouraging, the initial positive response from the use of nicotine in OCD needs testing in large controlled studies. This, however, raises ethical issues related to nicotine administration, due to its addiction potential, which were not addressed in the limited literature we examined. As an alternative, novel treatments with drugs able to mimic only the positive effects of nicotine could be implemented.

scholarly journals Non-pharmacological approaches to procedural anxiety reduction for patients undergoing radiotherapy for cancer: systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e035155
Author(s):  
Erin Forbes ◽  
Amanda L Baker ◽  
Ben Britton ◽  
Kerrie Clover ◽  
Eliza Skelton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Affective State ◽  
Anxiety Reduction ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Medical Procedure ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions

IntroductionProcedural anxiety relates to an affective state of anxiety or fear in relation to a medical procedure. Various treatment-related factors may elicit anxiety among oncology patients, including fear of diagnostic imaging (such as MRI scans) and impending treatment and medical procedures (such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy). It is common in oncology settings to manage acute anxiety relating to medical procedures with anxiolytic medication. However, pharmacological approaches are not suitable for many patients. Despite this, non-pharmacological interventions are infrequently used. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether non-pharmacological interventions delivered prior to, or during, radiotherapy are effective in reducing procedural anxiety.Methods and analysisData sources will include the bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (from inception onward). Eligible studies will include adult patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy treatment. Included studies will be those which employ a non-pharmacological intervention, delivered within existing radiotherapy appointments, with the aim of reducing procedural anxiety related to radiotherapy. All research designs with a control or other comparison group will be included. The primary outcome will be change in levels of self-reported procedural anxiety. Secondary outcomes will be changes in scores on physiological measures of anxiety and/or changes in treatment completion and/or changes in treatment duration and/or changes in psychological distress. Two investigators will independently complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. If appropriate, a meta-analyses will be performed. Any important amendments to this protocol will be updated in the PROSPERO registration and documented in the resulting review publication.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are anticipated from this review. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and at conferences by presentation.Systematic review registrationCRD42019112941.

Passive data collection and use in healthcare: A systematic review of ethical issues

2019 ◽  
Vol 129 ◽  
pp. 242-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole A. Maher ◽  
Joeky T. Senders ◽  
Alexander F.C. Hulsbergen ◽  
Nayan Lamba ◽  
Michael Parker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Passive Data

scholarly journals Real-world ethics in palliative care: A systematic review of the ethical challenges reported by specialist palliative care practitioners in their clinical practice

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921632097427
Author(s):  
Guy Schofield ◽  
Mariana Dittborn ◽  
Richard Huxtable ◽  
Emer Brangan ◽  
Lucy Ellen Selman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Ethical Practice

Background: Ethical issues arise daily in the delivery of palliative care. Despite much (largely theoretical) literature, evidence from specialist palliative care practitioners about day-to-day ethical challenges has not previously been synthesised. This evidence is crucial to inform education and adequately support staff. Aim: To synthesise the evidence regarding the ethical challenges which specialist palliative care practitioners encounter during clinical practice. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO registration CRD42018105365). Quality was dual-assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Tabulation, textural description, concept mapping and thematic synthesis were used to develop and present the narrative. Data sources: Seven databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched from inception to December 2019 without language limits. Eligible papers reported original research using inductive methods to describe practitioner-reported ethical challenges. Results: A total of 8074 records were screened. Thirteen studies from nine countries were included. Challenges were organised into six themes: application of ethical principles; delivering clinical care; working with families; engaging with institutional structures and values; navigating societal values and expectations; philosophy of palliative care. Challenges related to specific scenarios/contexts rather than the application of general ethical principles, and occurred at all levels (bedside, institution, society, policy). Conclusion: Palliative care practitioners encounter a broad range of contextual ethical challenges, many of which are not represented in palliative care ethics training resources, for example, navigating institutional policies, resource allocation and inter-professional conflict. Findings have implications for supporting ethical practice and training practitioners. The lack of low- and middle- income country data needs addressing.

scholarly journals Applications of qualitative grounded theory methodology to investigate hearing loss: protocol for a qualitative systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e033537
Author(s):  
Yasmin H K Ali ◽  
Nicola Wright ◽  
David Charnock ◽  
Helen Henshaw ◽  
Derek Hoare
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Qualitative Methodology ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research

IntroductionHearing loss is a chronic condition affecting 12 million individuals in the UK. People with hearing loss regularly experience difficulties interacting in everyday conversations. These difficulties in communication can result in a person with hearing loss withdrawing from social situations and becoming isolated. While hearing loss research has largely deployed quantitative methods to investigate various aspects of the condition, qualitative research is becoming more widespread. Grounded theory is a specific qualitative methodology that has been used to establish novel theories on the experiences of living with hearing loss.Method and analysisThe aim of this systematic review is to establish how grounded theory has been applied to investigate the psychosocial aspects of hearing loss. Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. Studies included in this review will have applied grounded theory as an overarching methodology or have grounded theory embedded among other methodologies. Studies included will have adult participants (≥18 years) who are either people with an acquired hearing loss, their family and friends (communication partners), or healthcare practitioners including audiologists, general practitioners, ear, nose and throat specialists and hearing therapists. The quality of application of grounded theory in each study will be assessed using the Guideline for Reporting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Research Studies.Ethics and disseminationAs only secondary data will be used in this systematic review, ethical approval is not required. No other ethical issues are foreseen. This review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and at relevant academic conferences. Findings may also be published in relevant professional and third sector newsletters and magazines as appropriate. Data will inform future research and guideline development.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134197.

scholarly journals Association between quantitative sensory testing and pain or disability in paediatric chronic pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031861 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Eric Schoth ◽  
Markus Blankenburg ◽  
Julia Wager ◽  
Philippa Broadbent ◽  
Jin Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Quantitative Sensory Testing ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Anatomical Site ◽  
Thermal Stimulus ◽  
Sensory Testing ◽  
Pain Mechanisms

IntroductionThis protocol describes the objective and methods of a systematic review of the association between quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures and pain intensity or disability in paediatric chronic pain (PCP). The review will also assess whether the relationship strength is moderated by variables related to the QST method and pain condition; the use of QST in PCP (modalities, outcome measures and anatomical test sites as well as differentiating between pain mechanisms (eg, neuropathic vs nociceptive) and in selecting analgesics); the reliability of QST across the paediatric age range; the ability of QST to differentiate patients with chronic pain from healthy controls; and differences between anatomical test sites.Methods and analysisMedline, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and OpenGrey will be searched. English language studies will be eligible if they recruit a sample aged 6–24 (inclusive) with chronic pain, including primary and secondary pain; apply at least one of the following QST modalities: chemical, electrical, mechanical (subgroups include pressure, punctate/brush and vibratory) or thermal stimulus to measure perception of noxious or innocuous stimuli applied to skin, muscle or joint; use a testing protocol to control for stimulus properties: modality, anatomical site, intensity, duration and sequence. Following title and abstract screening, the full texts of relevant records will be independently assessed by two reviewers. For eligible studies, one reviewer will extract study characteristics and data, and another will check for accuracy. Both will undertake independent quality assessments using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. A qualitative synthesis will be presented with discussion centred around different QST modalities. Where eligible data permit, meta-analyses will be performed separately for different QST modalities using comprehensive meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationReview findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The study raises no ethical issues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134069.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document