Is risk stratification ever the same as 'profiling'?

Precision prevention in occupational health: a conceptual analysis and development of a unified understanding and an integrative framework

Introduction

Precision prevention implements highly precise, tailored health interventions for individuals by directly addressing personal and environmental determinants of health. However, precision prevention does not yet appear to be fully established in occupational health. There are numerous understandings and conceptual approaches, but these have not yet been systematically presented or synthesized. Therefore, this conceptual analysis aims to propose a unified understanding and develop an integrative conceptual framework for precision prevention in occupational health.

Methods

Firstly, to systematically present definitions and frameworks of precision prevention in occupational health, six international databases were searched for studies published between January 2010 and January 2024 that used the term precision prevention or its synonyms in the context of occupational health. Secondly, a qualitative content analysis was conducted to analyze the existing definitions and propose a unified understanding. Thirdly, based on the identified frameworks, a multi-stage exploratory development process was applied to develop and propose an integrative conceptual framework for precision prevention in occupational health.

Results

After screening 3,681 articles, 154 publications were reviewed, wherein 29 definitions of precision prevention and 64 different frameworks were found, which can be summarized in eight higher-order categories. The qualitative content analysis revealed seven themes and illustrated many different wordings. The proposed unified understanding of precision prevention in occupational health takes up the identified themes. It includes, among other things, a contrast to a "one-size-fits-all approach" with a risk- and resource-oriented data collection and innovative data analytics with profiling to provide and improve tailored interventions. The developed and proposed integrative conceptual framework comprises three overarching stages: (1) data generation, (2) data management lifecycle and (3) interventions (development, implementation and adaptation).

Discussion

Although there are already numerous studies on precision prevention in occupational health, this conceptual analysis offers, for the first time, a proposal for a unified understanding and an integrative conceptual framework. However, the proposed unified understanding and the developed integrative conceptual framework should only be seen as an initial proposal that should be critically discussed and further developed to expand and strengthen both research on precision prevention in occupational health and its practical application in the workplace.

The Ethics of Cancer Screening Based on Race and Ethnicity

Racial and ethnic disparities in incidence and mortality are well documented for many types of cancer. As a result, there is understandable policy and clinical interest in race- and ethnicity-based clinical screening guidelines to address cancer health disparities. Despite the theoretical benefits, such proposals do not typically address associated ethical considerations. Using the examples of gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma, which have demonstrated disparities according to race and ethnicity, this article examines relevant ethical arguments in considering screening based on race and ethnicity.

Race- and ethnicity-based clinical preventive care services have the potential to improve the balance of harms and benefits of screening. As a result, programs focused on high-risk racial or ethnic groups could offer a practical alternative to screening the general population, in which the screening yield may be too low to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness. However, designing screening according to socially based categorizations such as race or ethnicity is controversial and has the potential for intersectional stigma related to social identity or other structurally mediated environmental factors. Other ethical considerations include miscategorization, unintended negative effects on health disparities, disregard for underlying risk factors, and the psychological costs of being assigned higher risk.

Given the ethical considerations, the practical application of race and ethnicity in cancer screening is most relevant in multicultural countries if and only if alternative proxies are not available. Even in those instances, policymakers and clinicians should carefully address the ethical considerations within the historical and cultural context of the intended population. Further research on alternative proxies, such as social determinants of health and culturally based characteristics, could provide more adequate factors for risk stratification.

Challenges and Legal Gaps of Genetic Profiling in the Era of Big Data

Profiling of individuals based on inborn, acquired, and assigned characteristics is central for decision making in health care. In the era of omics and big smart data, it becomes urgent to differentiate between different data governance affordances for different profiling activities. Typically, diagnostic profiling is in the focus of researchers and physicians, and other types are regarded as undesired side-effects; for example, in the connection of health care insurance risk calculations. Profiling in a legal sense is addressed, for example, by the EU data protection law. It is defined in the General Data Protection Regulation as automated decision making. This term does not correspond fully with profiling in biomedical research and healthcare, and the impact on privacy has hardly ever been examined. But profiling is also an issue concerning the fundamental right of non-discrimination, whenever profiles are used in a way that has a discriminatory effect on individuals. Here, we will focus on genetic profiling, define related notions as legal and subject-matter definitions frequently differ, and discuss the ethical and legal challenges.

A decision-aid tool for ICU admission triage is associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate intensive care unit admissions

PURPOSE

Intensive care unit (ICU) admission triage occurs frequently and often involves highly subjective decisions that may lead to potentially inappropriate ICU admissions. In this study, we evaluated the effect of implementing a decision-aid tool for ICU triage on ICU admission decisions.

METHODS

This was a prospective, before-after study. Urgent ICU referrals to ten ICUs in a tertiary hospital in Brazil were assessed before and after the implementation of the decision-aid tool. Our primary outcome was the proportion of potentially inappropriate ICU referrals (defined as priority 4B or 5 referrals, accordingly to the Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines of 1999 and 2016, respectively) admitted to the ICU within 48 h. We conducted multivariate analyses to adjust for potential confounders and evaluated the interaction between phase and triage priority.

RESULTS

Of the 2201 patients analyzed, 1184 (53.8%) patients were admitted to the ICU. After adjustment for confounders, implementation of the decision-aid tool was associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate ICU admissions using either the 1999 [adjOR (95% CI) = 0.36 (0.13-0.97)] or 2016 [adjOR (95%CI) = 0.35 (0.13-0.96)] definitions.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a decision-aid tool for ICU triage was associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate ICU admissions.

"I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as an ethical framework for decision-making in cancer care. According to SDM, patients make decisions in light of their values and based on the available evidence. However, SDM is difficult to implement in cancer care. A lack of applicability in practice is often reported. This empirical-ethical study explores factors potentially relevant to current difficulties in translating the concept of SDM into clinical practice.

METHODS

This study was conducted with nonparticipant observation of the decision-making process in patients with gastrointestinal cancers for whom the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was uncertain according to clinical guidelines. Triangulation of qualitative data analysis was conducted by means of semistructured interviews subsequent to the observation. Observation notes and interview transcripts were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Deviating from the concept of SDM, oncologists initiated a process of eliciting values and medical information prior to conveying information. The purpose of this approach was to select and individualize information relevant to the treatment decision. In doing so, the oncologists observed used two strategies: "biographical communication" and a "metacommunicative approach." Both strategies could be shown to be effective or to fail depending on patients' characteristics such as their view of the physicians' role and the relevance of value-related information for medical decision-making.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to the conceptual account of SDM, oncologists are in need of patient-related information prior to conveying information. Both strategies observed to elicit such information are in principle justifiable but need to be adapted in accordance with patient preferences and decision-making styles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study showed that knowledge of patients' values and preferences is very important to properly adapt the giving of medical information and to further the process of shared decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) trainings should consider different strategies of talking about values. The right strategy depends largely on the patient's preferences in communication. To be aware of the role of values in SDM and to be able to switch communicative strategies might prove to be of particular value. A more systematic evaluation of the patient's decision-making preferences as part of routine procedures in hospitals might help to reduce value-related barriers in communication.

Perceptions of Risk Stratification Workflows in Primary Care

Risk stratification (RS) in primary care is frequently used by policy-makers, payers, and health systems; the process requires risk assessment for adverse health outcomes across a population to assign patients into risk tiers and allow care management (CM) resources to be targeted effectively. Our objective was to understand the approach to and perception of RS in primary care practices. An online survey was developed, tested, and administered to 148 representatives of 37 primary care practices engaged in RS varying in size, location and ownership. The survey assessed practices’ approach to, perception of, and confidence in RS, and its effect on subsequent CM activities. We examined psychometric properties of the survey to determine validity and conducted chi-square analyses to determine the association between practice characteristics and confidence and agreement with risk scores. The survey yielded a 68% response rate (100 respondents). Overall, participants felt moderately confident in their risk scores (range 41–53.8%), and moderately to highly confident in their subsequent CM workflows (range 46–68%). Respondents from small and independent practices were more likely to have higher confidence and agreement with their RS approaches and scores (p < 0.01). Confidence levels were highest, however, when practices incorporated human review into their RS processes (p < 0.05). This trend was not affected by respondents’ professional roles. Additional work from a broad mixed-methods effort will add to our understanding of RS implementation processes and outcomes.