Justifying Clinical Nudges

Why we should not "help bad choosers:" screening, nudging, and epistemic risk

One prominent line of support for nudging in screening programs is the claim that nudging can help 'bad choosers' - that is, it can help some patients make choices more in line with their own values and preferences. In this article, I argue that due to the presence of epistemic risk in many screening programs, the argument that nudging can help 'bad choosers' should be revised or rejected. Expanding on the work of Biddle, J. B. 2020. Epistemic risks in cancer screening: Implications for ethics and policy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 79: 101200.), I argue that epistemic risk undermines the argument that nudging can help to promote patient autonomy in the context of screening. Specifically, I argue that epistemic risk results in the inclusion of non-patient values and preferences in the screening process, which challenges the claim that nudging can help patients make choices more in line with their own values and preferences. I present four reasons to think epistemic risk undermines the argument in this way: (1) conflicting values; (2) lack of transparency; (3) limited autonomy in opting out; (4) unjustified manipulation. The presence of epistemic risk in screening programs means that nudging may not always be an effective means of promoting patient autonomy and informed consent. As such, epistemic risk poses significant challenges to at least one ethical justification of nudging in screening programs, and raises further questions about the role of nudging in promoting patient decision-making.

Individualized clinical decisions within standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: Implications for consent

Pragmatic clinical trials of standard-of-care interventions compare the relative merits of medical treatments already in use. Traditional research informed consent processes pose significant obstacles to these trials, raising the question of whether they may be conducted with alteration or waiver of informed consent. However, to even be eligible, such a trial in the United States must have no more than minimal research risk. We argue that standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials can be designed to ensure that they are minimal research risk if the random assignment of an intervention in a pragmatic clinical trial can accommodate individualized, clinically motivated decision-making for each participant. Such a design will ensure that the patient-participants are not exposed to any risks beyond the clinical risks of the interventions, and thus, the trial will have minimal research risk. We explain the logic of this view by comparing three scenarios of standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: one with informed consent, one without informed consent, and one recently proposed design called Decision Architecture Randomization Trial. We then conclude by briefly showing that our proposal suggests a natural way to determine when to use an alteration versus a waiver of informed consent.

Empowering the next generation: integrating adolescents into the Reproductive Justice movement

This article explores the ethical implications of mandatory parental consent requirements for adolescents seeking sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS). Using a Reproductive Justice framework, which identifies systemic barriers to accessing healthcare services, we examine ageism as a potential factor restricting adolescents' access to SRHS. While the Reproductive Justice framework has addressed systemic issues like racism and ableism in healthcare, ageism involving adolescents has been less explored. The article challenges the pertinence of mandatory parental consent requirements-as a potential barrier-for adolescents' access to SRHS. We argue that in the specific context of SRHS (contraceptives, abortion, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections), adolescents' autonomy (self-determination) should be respected if they request to access those services independently. From a global health perspective, adolescents have a low prevalence and uneven access to SRHS. To address the issue, we propose the integration of adolescence into the Reproductive Justice movement to empower them through education on how to access the SRHS they need.

Ethical considerations in the management of infants with severe intraventricular hemorrhage

Intrinsic and extrinsic factors unique to neonatal care can complicate predictions of neurological outcomes for infants who suffer from severe intraventricular hemorrhage. While care decisions are driven by the same bioethical principles used in other domains, neurological prognostication can challenge concepts of futility, require careful examination of parental values, uncover biases and/or potentially compromise the best interests of the future child. In the following chapter we will review bioethical principles and relevant concepts, explore challenges to decision-making surrounding diagnoses of severe intraventricular hemorrhage and conclude with a brief review of practical approaches for counseling parents about neurodevelopmental impairment given the constraints of prognostic uncertainty and assumptions related to quality of life. We will argue that neurological findings alone, even in the setting of severe intraventricular hemorrhage, often do not constitute enough evidence for redirection of care but can be permissible when the entire neonatal condition is considered.

Public health nudges: weighing individual liberty and population health benefits

Libertarian paternalism describes the idea of nudging-that is, steering individual decision-making while preserving freedom of choice. In medicine, libertarian paternalism has gained widespread attention, specifically with respect to interventions designed to promote healthy behaviours. Some scholars argue that nudges appropriately balance autonomy and paternalistic beneficence, while others argue that nudges inherently exploit cognitive weaknesses. This paper further explores the ethics of libertarian paternalism in public health. The use of nudges may infringe on an individual's voluntary choice, autonomy and informed consent, but they are ethically justified when there is a clear public health benefit to the manipulation of choice.

Beyond the Do-not-resuscitate Order: An Expanded Approach to Decision-making Regarding Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Older Surgical Patients

American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines recommend that anesthesiologists revisit do-not-resuscitate orders preoperatively and revise them if necessary based on patient preferences. In patients without do-not-resuscitate orders or other directives limiting treatment however, "full code" is the default option irrespective of clinical circumstances and patient preferences. It is time to revisit this approach based on (1) increasing understanding of the power of default options in healthcare settings, (2) changing demographics and growing evidence suggesting that an expanding subset of patients is vulnerable to poor outcomes after perioperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and (3) recommendations from multiple societies promoting risk assessment and goal-concordant care in older surgical patients. The authors reconsider current guidelines in the context of these developments and advocate for an expanded approach to decision-making regarding CPR, which involves identifying high-risk elderly patients and eliciting their preferences regarding CPR irrespective of existing or presumed code status.

Dilemmas of nudging in public health: an ethical analysis of a Danish pamphlet

Nudging has been discussed in the context of public health, and ethical issues raised by nudging in public health contexts have been highlighted. In this article, we first identify types of nudging approaches and techniques that have been used in screening programmes, and ethical issues that have been associated with nudging: paternalism, limited autonomy and manipulation. We then identify nudging techniques used in a pamphlet developed for the Danish National Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer. These include framing, default nudge, use of hassle bias, authority nudge and priming. The pamphlet and the very offering of a screening programme can in themselves be considered nudges. Whether nudging strategies are ethically problematic depend on whether they are categorized as educative- or non-educative nudges. Educative nudges seek to affect people's choice making by engaging their reflective capabilities. Non-educative nudges work by circumventing people's reflective capabilities. Information materials are, on the face of it, meant to engage citizens' reflective capacities. Recipients are likely to receive information materials with this expectation, and thus not expect to be affected in other ways. Non-educative nudges may therefore be particularly problematic in the context of information on screening, also as participating in screening does not always benefit the individual.

Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the Intensive Care Unit Trial Protocol

Expert recommendations to discuss prognosis and offer palliative options for critically ill patients at high risk of death are variably heeded by intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. How to best promote such communication to avoid potentially unwanted aggressive care is unknown. The PONDER-ICU (Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the ICU) study is a 33-month pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of two electronic health record (EHR) interventions designed to increase ICU clinicians' engagement of critically ill patients at high risk of death and their caregivers in discussions about all treatment options, including care focused on comfort. We hypothesize that the quality of care and patient-centered outcomes can be improved by requiring ICU clinicians to document a functional prognostic estimate (intervention A) and/or to provide justification if they have not offered patients the option of comfort-focused care (intervention B). The trial enrolls all adult patients admitted to 17 ICUs in 10 hospitals in North Carolina with a preexisting life-limiting illness and acute respiratory failure requiring continuous mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. Eligibility is determined using a validated algorithm in the EHR. The sequence in which hospitals transition from usual care (control), to intervention A or B and then to combined interventions A + B, is randomly assigned. The primary outcome is hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes include other clinical outcomes, palliative care process measures, and nurse-assessed quality of dying and death.Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03139838).

Informal coercion during childbirth: risk factors and prevalence estimates from a nationwide survey of women in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

In many countries, the increase in facility births is accompanied by a high rate of obstetric interventions. Lower birthrates or elevated risk factors such as women's higher age at childbirth and an increased need for control and security cannot entirely explain this rise in obstetric interventions. Another possible factor is that women are coerced to agree to interventions, but the prevalence of coercive interventions in Switzerland is unknown.

METHODS

In a nationwide cross-sectional online survey, we assessed the prevalence of informal coercion during childbirth, women's satisfaction with childbirth, and the prevalence of women at risk of postpartum depression. Women aged 18 years or older who had given birth in Switzerland within the previous 12 months were recruited online through Facebook ads or through various offline channels. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the risk ratios associated with multiple individual and contextual factors.

RESULTS

In total, 6054 women completed the questionnaire (a dropout rate of 16.2%). An estimated 26.7% of women experienced some form of informal coercion during childbirth. As compared to vaginal delivery, cesarean section (CS) and instrumental vaginal birth were associated with an increased risk of informal coercion (planned CS risk ratio [RR]: 1.52, 95% confidence interval [1.18,1.96]; unplanned CS RR: 1.92 [1.61,2.28]; emergency CS RR: 2.10 [1.71,2.58]; instrumental vaginal birth RR: 2.17 [1.85,2.55]). Additionally, migrant women (RR: 1.45 [1.26,1.66]) and women for whom a self-determined vaginal birth was more important (RR: 1.15 [1.06,1.24]) more often reported informal coercion. Emergency cesarean section (RR: 1.32 [1.08,1.62]), being transferred to hospital (RR: 1.33 [1.11,1.60]), and experiencing informal coercion (RR: 1.35 [1.19,1.54]) were all associated with a higher risk of postpartum depression. Finally, women who had a non-instrumental vaginal birth reported higher satisfaction with childbirth while women who experienced informal coercion reported lower satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

One in four women experience informal coercion during childbirth, and this experience is associated with a higher risk of postpartum depression and lower satisfaction with childbirth. To prevent traumatic after-effects, health care professionals should make every effort to prevent informal coercion and to ensure sensitive aftercare for all new mothers.

When do nudges undermine voluntary consent?

The permissibility of nudging in public policy is often assessed in terms of the conditions of transparency, rationality, and easy resistibility. This debate has produced important resources for any ethical inquiry into nudging, but it has also failed to focus sufficiently on a different yet very important question, namely: when do nudges undermine a patient's voluntary consent to a medical procedure? In this paper, I take on this further question and, more precisely, I ask to which extent the three conditions of transparency, rationality, and easy resistibility can be applied to the assessment of voluntary consent too. After presenting two examples, designed to put pressure on these three conditions, I show that, suitably modified, the three conditions can remain significant in the assessment of voluntary consent as well. However, the needed modifications are very substantial and result in a rather complicated view. To propose a tidier solution, I argue that nudging undermines voluntary consent if and only if it cannot be 'interpersonally justified' to the patient. I use the three modified conditions to motivate the idea of interpersonal justification and also to further specify the principles it involves. My resulting view is especially attractive because it builds on already existing insights from the debate on nudging, updates those insights with an eye to medical consent, and finally unites them in an elegant and simple framework.

Best Interest Standard in School Health: A Concept Analysis

The bioethical concept of best interest standard is cited in courts across America and considered to be an effective method of managing pediatric health care decision-making. Although the best interest standard is referred to in an abundance of nursing, medical, legal, and bioethical literature, refinement and a clear definition of the concept are lacking in the context of school health. An exhaustive and methodical search was conducted across six databases revealing 41 articles from the past decade. The Wilsonian methodology was used to analyze, refine, and clarify the concept of best interest standard by presenting original case vignettes (model, contrary, related, and borderline) and an innovative conceptual model as it applies to school nursing. This concept analysis provides school nurses with a deeper understanding of the best interest standard to navigate the complex nature of making school health care decisions.

Choice architecture in physician-patient communication: a mixed-methods assessments of physicians' competency

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' use of choice architecture, or how they present options, systematically influences the choices made by patients and their surrogate decision makers. However, clinicians may incompletely understand this influence.

OBJECTIVE

To assess physicians' abilities to predict how common choice frames influence people's choices.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective mixed-methods study using a scenario-based competency questionnaire and semistructured interviews. Participants were senior resident physicians from a large health system. Of 160 eligible participants, 93 (58.1%) completed the scenario-based questionnaire and 15 completed the semistructured interview. The primary outcome was choice architecture competency, defined as the number of correct answers on the eight-item scenario-based choice architecture competency questionnaire. We generated the scenarios based on existing decision science literature and validated them using an online sample of lay participants. We then assessed senior resident physicians' choice architecture competency using the questionnaire. We interviewed a subset of participating physicians to explore how they approached the scenario-based questions and their views on choice architecture in clinical medicine and medical education.

RESULTS

Physicians' mean correct score was 4.85 (95% CI 4.59 to 5.11) out of 8 scenario-based questions. Regression models identified no associations between choice architecture competency and measured physician characteristics. Physicians found choice architecture highly relevant to clinical practice. They viewed the intentional use of choice architecture as acceptable and ethical, but felt they lacked sufficient training in the principles to do so.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians assume the role of choice architect whether they realise it or not. Our results suggest that the majority of physicians have inadequate choice architecture competency. The uninformed use of choice architecture by clinicians may influence patients and family members in ways clinicians may not anticipate nor intend.

Nudge strategies to improve healthcare providers' implementation of evidence-based guidelines, policies and practices: a systematic review of trials included within Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Nudge interventions are those that seek to modify the social and physical environment to enhance capacity for subconscious behaviours that align with the intrinsic values of an individual, without actively restricting options. This study sought to describe the application and effects of nudge strategies on clinician implementation of health-related guidelines, policies and practices within studies included in relevant Cochrane systematic reviews.

METHODS

As there is varied terminology used to describe nudge, this study examined studies within relevant systematic reviews. A two-stage screening process was undertaken where, firstly, all systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library between 2016 and 2018 were screened to identify reviews that included quantitative studies to improve implementation of guidelines among healthcare providers. Secondly, individual studies within relevant systematic reviews were included if they were (i) randomised controlled trials (RCTs), (ii) included a nudge strategy in at least one intervention arm, and (iii) explicitly aimed to improve clinician implementation behaviour. We categorised nudge strategies into priming, salience and affect, default, incentives, commitment and ego, and norms and messenger based on the Mindspace framework.

SYNTHESIS

The number and percentage of trials using each nudge strategy was calculated. Due to substantial heterogeneity, we did not undertake a meta-analysis. Instead, we calculated within-study point estimates and 95% confidence intervals, and used a vote-counting approach to explore effects.

RESULTS

Seven reviews including 42 trials reporting on 57 outcomes were included. The most common nudge strategy was priming (69%), then norms and messenger (40%). Of the 57 outcomes, 86% had an effect on clinician behaviour in the hypothesised direction, and 53% of those were statistically significant. For continuous outcomes, the median effect size was 0.39 (0.22, 0.45), while for dichotomous outcomes the median Odds Ratio was 1.62 (1.13, 2.76).

CONCLUSIONS

This review of 42 RCTs included in Cochrane systematic reviews found that the impact of nudge strategies on clinician behaviour was at least comparable to other interventions targeting implementation of evidence-based guidelines. While uncertainty remains, the review provides justification for ongoing investigation of the evaluation and application of nudge interventions to support provider behaviour change.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This review was not prospectively registered.

A systematic review of nudge theories and strategies used to influence adult health behaviour and outcome in diabetes management

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is a chronic disease associated with a variety of complications, and nudging may be a potential solution to improve diabetes control. Since nudging is a new concept, no review of literature on nudging diabetic patients into improving their health behaviour has been done. Therefore, we aim to collate a list of nudge intervention and determine the context in which nudging is successful.

METHODS

We adopted a two-arm search strategy comprising the search of literature databases and snowballing using relevant search terms. We summarized patient characteristics, the nudge intervention, according to nudging strategies, delivery mode and their outcomes. The conditions present in effective nudge interventions were assessed and reported.

RESULTS

We retrieved 11,494 studies from our searches and included 33. An additional five studies were added through snowballing. Studies included utilized framing (n=5), reminders (n=10), gamification (n=2), social modelling (n=5) and social influence (n=16). Studies on reminders and gamification were more likely to have a statistically significant outcome. The targeted health behaviours identified were medication adherence, physical activity, diet, blood glucose monitoring, foot care, self-efficacy, HbA1c and quality of life. Of these, studies with adherence to medication, foot care practice and quality of life as targeted health behaviours were more likely to show a statistically significant outcome.

CONCLUSION

Nudging has shown potential in changing health behaviour of patients with diabetes in specific context. We identified two possible factors (delivery mode and patient characteristics) that may affect the effectiveness of nudge intervention.

Authenticity, Best Interest, and Clinical Nudging

In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Moti Gorin, Steven Joffe, Neal Dickert, and Scott Halpern offer a comprehensive defense of the use of nudging techniques in the clinical context, with the aim of promoting the best interests of patients. Their argument is built on three important claims: Nudging is ubiquitous and inescapable in clinical choice situations, and there is no neutral way of informing patients about their treatment choices; many patients do not have authentic (preexisting) preferences concerning their treatment choices, and those that do can easily resist nudging; and, finally, since many people lack authentic preferences and those that do can still act on their preferences, nudging in the patients' best interest is justified. I agree with the authors that if these three claims stand up to scrutiny, then they will provide a justification for many types of clinical nudging. I am, however, skeptical as to whether the claims can be sustained, despite the valiant efforts of Gorin and colleagues.

Discussing Out-of-Pocket Costs With Patients: Shared Decision Making for Sacubitril-Valsartan in Heart Failure

Background "Financial toxicity" is a concern for patients, but little is known about how patients consider out-of-pocket cost in decisions. Sacubitril-valsartan provides a contemporary scenario to understand financial toxicity. It is guideline recommended for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet out-of-pocket costs can be considerable. Methods and Results Structured interviews were conducted with 49 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at heart failure clinics and inpatient services. Patient opinions of the drug and its value were solicited after description of benefits using graphical displays. Descriptive quantitative analysis of closed-ended responses was conducted, and qualitative descriptive analysis of text data was performed. Of participants, 92% (45/49) said that they would definitely or probably switch to sacubitril-valsartan if their physician recommended it and out-of-pocket cost was $5 more per month than their current medication. Only 43% (21/49) would do so if out-of-pocket cost was $100 more per month ( P<0.001). At least 40% across all income categories would be unlikely to take sacubitril-valsartan at $100 more per month. Participants exhibited heterogeneous approaches to cost in decision making and varied on their use and interpretation of probabilistic information. Few (20%) participants stated physicians had initiated a conversation about cost in the past year. Conclusions Out-of-pocket cost variation reflective of contemporary cost sharing substantially influenced stated willingness to take sacubitril-valsartan, a guideline-recommended therapy with mortality benefit. These findings suggest a need for cost transparency to promote shared decision making. They also demonstrate the complexity of cost discussion and need to study how to incorporate out-of-pocket cost into clinical decisions.

Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

Background

Health-care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision-making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; this is particularly the case for older people with complex needs.

Objectives

To provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs and how they might be applied to integrated care models.

Design

Realist synthesis following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards.

Participants

Twenty-four stakeholders took part in interviews.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Lateral searches were also carried out. All types of evidence were included.

Review methods

Iterative stakeholder-driven, three-stage approach, involving (1) scoping of the literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, (2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories and (3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11).

Results

We included 88 papers, of which 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four theories (context–mechanism–outcome configurations) that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care; organising systems to support and prioritise SDM; supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM; and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that create trust between those involved, allow service users to feel that they are respected and understood, and engender confidence to engage in SDM.

Limitations

There is a lack of evidence on interventions to promote SDM in older people with complex needs or on interprofessional approaches to SDM.

Conclusions

Models of SDM for older people with complex health and care needs should be conceptualised as a series of conversations that patients, and their family carers, may have with a variety of different health and care professionals. To embed SDM in practice requires a shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers are likely to need support, both in terms of the way services are organised and delivered and in terms of their own continuing professional development. Older people with complex needs may need support to engage in SDM. How this support is best provided needs further exploration, although face-to-face interactions and ongoing patient–professional relationships are key.

Future work

There is a need for further work to establish how organisational structures can be better aligned to meet the requirements of older people with complex needs. This includes a need to define and evaluate the contribution that different members of health and care teams can make to SDM for older people with complex health and care needs.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039013.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; particularly for older people with complex needs. The aim of this review was to provide a context relevant understanding of how interventions to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied in integrated care models.

METHODS

Iterative, stakeholder driven, realist synthesis following RAMESES publication standards. It involved: 1) scoping literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, 2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories, and 3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11). We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and undertook lateral searches. All types of evidence were included.

RESULTS

We included 88 papers; 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four context-mechanism-outcome configurations that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs. This includes: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care, organising systems to support and prioritise SDM, supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that allow older people to feel that they are respected and understood, and that engender confidence to engage in SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

To embed SDM in practice requires a radical shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers will need support to change their professional behaviour and to better organise and deliver services. Face to face interactions, permission and space to discuss options, and continuity of patient-professional relationships are key in supporting older people with complex needs to engage in SDM. Future research needs to focus on inter-professional approaches to SDM and how families and carers are involved.

The patient perspective in health care networks

BACKGROUND

Health care organization is entering a new age. Focus is increasingly shifting from individual health care institutions to interorganizational collaboration and health care networks. Much hope is set on such networks which have been argued to improve economic efficiency and quality of care. However, this does not automatically mean they are always ethically justified. A relevant question that remains is what ethical obligations or duties one can ascribe to these networks especially because networks involve many risks. Due to their often amorphous and complex structure, collective responsibility and accountability may increase while individual responsibility goes down.

MAIN BODY

We argue that a business ethics approach to ethical obligations for health care networks, is problematic and we propose to opt for a patient perspective. Using the classic four principles of biomedical ethics (justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence and autonomy) it is possible to identify specific ethical duties. Based on the principle of justice, health care networks have an ethical duty to provide just and fair access for all patients and to be transparent to patients about how access is regulated. The principle of nonmaleficence implies an obligation to guarantee patient safety, whereas the principle of beneficence implies an obligation for health care networks to guarantee continuity of care in all its dimensions. Finally, the principle of autonomy is translated into a specific obligation to promote and respect patient choice. Networks that fail to meet any of these conditions are suspect and cannot be justified ethically.

CONCLUSIONS

Faced with daunting challenges, the health care system is changing rapidly. Currently many hopes ride on integrated care and broad health care networks. Such networks are the topic of empirical debate, but more attention should be given to the ethical aspects. Health care networks raise new and pressing ethical issues and we are in need of a framework for assessing how and when such networks are justified.