Mapping, framing, shaping: a framework for empirical bioethics research projects

Building a Logic Model to Foster Engagement and Learning Using the Case of a Province-Wide Multispecies Antimicrobial Use Monitoring System

Successfully designing and implementing a program is complex; it requires a reflexive balance between the available resources and the priorities of various stakeholders, both of which change over time. Logic models are theory-based evaluation approaches used to identify and address key challenges of a program. This article describes the process of building a logic model on advanced theories in complexity studies. The models aim to support a province-wide multispecies monitoring system of antimicrobial use (AMU), designed in collaboration with the animal health sector in Quebec (Canada). Based on a rigorous theoretical foundation, the logic model is built in three steps: (1) mapping, a narrative review of literature on similar programs in other jurisdictions; (2) framing, iterative consultations with project members to elaborate the logic model; (3) shaping, hypotheses based on the logic model. The model emerges from the reflexive balancing of current scientific knowledge and empirical insights to gather relevant information about stakeholders from interdisciplinary experts that led a 3-year consensus-building process within the community. Recognizing the challenge of unpacking theories for practical use, we illustrate how the process of an "open" logic model building could enable governance coordination in complex processes. Logic models are useful for evaluating public, private, and academic partnerships in One Health programs that characterize an adaptive governance process.

The Vagueness of Integrating the Empirical and the Normative: Researchers' Views on Doing Empirical Bioethics

The integration of normative analysis with empirical data often remains unclear despite the availability of many empirical bioethics methodologies. This paper sought bioethics scholars' experiences and reflections of doing empirical bioethics research to feed these practical insights into the debate on methods. We interviewed twenty-six participants who revealed their process of integrating the normative and the empirical. From the analysis of the data, we first used the themes to identify the methodological content. That is, we show participants' use of familiar methods explained as "back-and-forth" methods (reflective equilibrium), followed by dialogical methods where collaboration was seen as a better way of doing integration. Thereafter, we highlight methods that were deemed as inherent integration approaches, where the normative and the empirical were intertwined from the start of the research project. Second, we used the themes to express not only how we interpreted what was said but also how things were said. In this, we describe an air of uncertainty and overall vagueness that surrounded the above methods. We conclude that the indeterminacy of integration methods is a double-edged sword. It allows for flexibility but also risks obscuring a lack of understanding of the theoretical-methodological underpinnings of empirical bioethics research methods.

An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification

BACKGROUND

As the UK's main healthcare priority-setter, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has good reason to want to demonstrate that its decisions are morally justified. In doing so, it has tended to rely on the moral plausibility of its principle of cost-effectiveness and the assertion that it has adopted a fair procedure. But neither approach provides wholly satisfactory grounds for morally defending NICE's decisions. In this study we adopt a complementary approach, based on the proposition that a priority-setter's claim to moral justification can be assessed, in part, based on the coherence of its approach and that the reliability of any such claim is undermined by the presence of dissonance within its moral system. This study is the first to empirically assess the coherence of NICE's formal approach and in doing so to generate evidence-based conclusions about the extent to which this approach is morally justified.

METHODS

The study is grounded in the theory, methods and standards of empirical bioethics. Twenty NICE policy documents were coded to identify and classify the normative commitments contained within NICE technology appraisal policy as of 31 December 2021. Coherence was systematically assessed by attempting to bring these commitments into narrow reflective equilibrium (NRE) and by identifying sources of dissonance.

FINDINGS

Much of NICE policy rests on coherent values that provide a strong foundation for morally justified decision-making. However, NICE's formal approach also contains several instances of dissonance which undermine coherence and prevent NRE from being fully established. Dissonance arises primarily from four sources: i) NICE's specification of the principle of cost-effectiveness; ii) its approach to prioritising the needs of particular groups; iii) its conception of reasonableness in the context of uncertainty, and iv) its concern for innovation as an independent value.

CONCLUSION

At the time of analysis, the level of coherence across NICE policy provides reason to question the extent to which its formal approach to technology appraisal is morally justified. Some thoughts are offered on why, given these findings, NICE has been able to maintain its legitimacy as a healthcare priority-setter and on what could be done to enhance coherence.

Ethics of access to newly approved expensive medical treatments: multi-stakeholder dialogues in a publicly funded healthcare system

Background: Due to rising healthcare expenditures, countries with publicly funded healthcare systems face challenges when providing newly approved expensive anti-cancer treatments to all eligible patients. In the Netherlands in 2015, the so-called Coverage Lock (CL), was introduced to help safeguard the sustainability of the healthcare system. Since then, newly approved treatments are no longer automatically reimbursed. Previous work has shown that as policies for access to CL treatments are lacking, patient access to non-reimbursed treatments is limited and variable, which raises ethical issues. The ethics of access were discussed in a series of multi-stakeholder dialogues in the Netherlands. Methods: Three dialogues were held in early 2023 and included physicians, health insurers, hospital executives, policymakers, patients, citizens, and representatives of pharmaceutical companies, patient and professional organizations. In advance, participants had received an 'argument scheme' featuring three models: 1) access based on third-party payment (e.g., by pharmaceutical companies, health insurers or hospitals) 2) access based on out-of-pocket payments by patients 3) no access to CL treatments. During the dialogues, participants were asked to discuss the merits of the ethical arguments for and against these models together, and ultimately to weigh them. The discussions were audio-taped, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Generally, most stakeholders were in favour of allowing access-at least when treatments are clearly beneficial-to treatments in the CL. When discussing third-party payment, stakeholders favoured payment by pharmaceutical companies over payment by health insurers or hospitals, not wanting to usurp collective funds while cost-effectiveness assessments are still pending. Largely, stakeholders were not in favour of out-of-pocket payments, emphasizing solidarity and equal access as important pillars of the Dutch healthcare system. Recurrent themes included the conflict between individual and collective interests, shifting attitudes, withholding access as a means to put pressure on the system, and the importance of transparency about access to CL-treatments. Conclusion: Policies for access to non-reimbursed treatments should address stakeholders' concerns regarding transparency, equal access and solidarity, and loss of potential health benefits for patients. Multi-stakeholder dialogues are an important tool to help inform policy-making on access to newly approved (too) expensive treatments in countries facing challenges to the sustainability of healthcare systems.

Evaluating a clinical ethics committee (CEC) implementation process in an oncological research hospital: protocol for a process evaluation study using normalisation process theory (EvaCEC)

INTRODUCTION

A Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) is a multi-professional service whose aim is to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organisations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice.Although CEC are quite common worldwide, their successful implementation in a hospital setting presents many challenges.EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC) will evaluate the implementation of a CEC in a comprehensive cancer centre in Northern Italy 16 months after its establishment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

EvaCEC is a mixed-method study with a retrospective quantitative analysis and a prospective qualitative evaluation by a range of data collection tools to enable the triangulation of data sources and analysis. Quantitative data related to the amount of CEC activities will be collected using the CEC's internal databases. Data on the level of knowledge, use and perception of the CEC will be collected through a survey with closed-ended questions disseminated among all the HPs employed at the healthcare centre. Data will be analysed with descriptive statistics.The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) will be used for the qualitative evaluation to determine whether and how the CEC can be successfully integrated into clinical practice. We will perform one-to-one semistructured interviews and a second online survey with different groups of stakeholders who had different roles in the implementation process of the CEC. Based on NPT concepts, the interviews and the survey will assess the acceptability of the CEC within the local context and needs and expectations to further develop the service.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol has been approved by the local ethics committee. The project is co-chaired by a PhD candidate and by a healthcare researcher with a doctorate in bioethics and expertise in research. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05466292.

Acceptable objectives of empirical research in bioethics: a qualitative exploration of researchers' views

BACKGROUND

This is the first qualitative study to investigate how researchers, who do empirical work in bioethics, relate to objectives of empirical research in bioethics (ERiB). We explore reasons that make some objectives more acceptable, while others are deemed less acceptable.

METHODS

Using qualitative exploratory study design, we interviewed bioethics researchers, who were selected to represent different types of scholars working in the field. The interview data of 25 participants were analyzed in this paper using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

From the eight objectives presented to the study participants, understanding the context of a bioethical issue and identifying ethical issues in practice received unanimous agreement. Participants also supported other objectives of ERiB but with varying degrees of agreement. The most contested objectives were striving to draw normative recommendations and developing and justifying moral principles. The is-ought gap was not considered an obstacle to ERiB, but rather a warning sign to critically reflect on the normative implications of empirical results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the most contested objectives are also the more ambitious ones, whereas the least contested ones focus on producing empirical results. The potential of empirical research to be useful for bioethics was mostly based on the reasoning pattern that empirical data can provide a testing ground for elements of normative theory. Even though empirical research can inform many parts of bioethical inquiry, normative expertise is recommended to guide ERiB. The acceptability of ambitious objectives for ERiB boils down to finding firm ground for the integration of empirical facts in normative inquiry.

Research, education, ethics consultation: evaluating a Bioethics Unit in an Oncological Research Hospital

BACKGROUND

This study aims to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the activities of a Bioethics Unit (BU) 5 years since its implementation (2016-2020). The BU is a research unit providing empirical research on ethical issues related to clinical practice, clinical ethics consultation, and ethical education for health care professionals (HPS).

METHODS

We performed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method, observational study, using the subsequent qualitative data to explain the initial quantitative findings. Quantitative data were collected from an internal database and analyzed by descriptive analysis. Qualitative evaluation was performed by semi-structured interviews with 18 HPs who were differently involved in the BU's activities and analyzed by framework analysis.

RESULTS

Quantitative results showed an extensive increment of the number of BU research projects over the years and the number of work collaborations with other units and wards. Qualitative findings revealed four main themes, concerning: 1. the reasons for contacting the BU and the type of collaboration; 2. the role of the bioethicist; 3. the impact of BU activities on HPs, in terms of developing deeper and more mature thinking; 4. the need to extend ethics support to other settings. Overall, our results showed that performing both empirical bioethics research and more traditional clinical ethics activities at the same unit would produce an impetus to increase collaboration and spread an 'ethical culture' among local HPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature on the models of clinical ethics support services and the role of empirical research in bioethics internationally. They also prepare the ground for the implementation of a multidisciplinary Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) that aims to support the BU's ethics consultation service within the local context.

Challenges of anticipation of future decisions in dementia and dementia research

Anticipation of future decisions can be important for individuals at risk for diseases to maintain autonomy over time. For future treatment and care decisions, advance care planning is accepted as a useful anticipation tool. As research with persons with dementia seems imperative to develop disease-modifying interventions, and with changing regulations regarding research participation in Germany, advance research directives (ARDs) are considered a solution to include persons with dementia in research in an ethically sound manner. However, little is known about what affected people deem anticipatable.This contribution provides a critical reflection of the literature on anticipation and of a qualitative study on the assessment of ARDs with persons with cognitive impairment in Germany. It combines theoretical and empirical reflections to inform the ethical-legal discourse.Anticipation involves the conceptual separation of the past, the present, and the future. Including dimensions such as preparedness, injunction, and optimization helps in establishing a framework for anticipatory decision-making. While dementia may offer a window of time to consider future decisions, individual beliefs about dementia including fears about stigma, loss of personhood, and solitude strongly impact anticipating sentiments. Concepts of anticipation can be useful for the examination of uncertainty, changing values, needs, and preferences interconnected with the dementia trajectory and can serve as a means to make an uncertain future more concrete. However, fears of losing one's autonomy in the process of dementia also apply to possibilities of anticipation as these require cognitive assessment and reassessment of an imagined future with dementia.

Exploring physician approaches to conflict resolution in end-of-life decisions in the adult intensive care unit: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative research

INTRODUCTION

Conflict is unfortunately well-documented in the adult intensive care unit (AICU). In the context of end-of-life (EOL) decision-making (ie, the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment), conflict commonly occurs when a consensus cannot be reached between the healthcare team and the patient's family on the 'best interests' of the critically ill, incapacitated patient. While existing literature has identified potential methods for conflict resolution, it is less clear how these approaches are perceived and used by stakeholders in the EOL decision-making process. We aim to explore this by systematically reviewing and synthesising the published evidence, which addresses the following research question: what does existing qualitative research reveal about physician approaches to addressing conflict arising in EOL decisions in the AICU?

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Peer-reviewed qualitative studies (retrieved from MEDLINE, Project Muse, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and LILACS) examining conflict and dispute resolution in the context of EOL decisions in the AICU setting will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen either all or a randomly selected sample of studies, with a third reviewer independently screening studies of uncertain eligibility. The 'thematic synthesis' approach will be employed to analyse the resulting data. The quality of included papers will be assessed using the 2018 Mixed-Methods Assessment Tool. The 'Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research' approach will be used to assess our confidence in the findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this review, as only published data will be included. We anticipate that the findings will be of interest to healthcare professionals working in AICUs and individuals working in bioethics, given the ethically contentious nature of EOL decisions. The findings will be disseminated at academic conferences and through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021193769.

Bio-Ethics and One Health: A Case Study Approach to Building Reflexive Governance

Surveillance programs supporting the management of One Health issues such as antibiotic resistance are complex systems in themselves. Designing ethical surveillance systems is thus a complex task (retroactive and iterative), yet one that is also complicated to implement and evaluate (e.g., sharing, collaboration, and governance). The governance of health surveillance requires attention to ethical concerns about data and knowledge (e.g., performance, trust, accountability, and transparency) and empowerment ethics, also referred to as a form of responsible self-governance. Ethics in reflexive governance operates as a systematic critical-thinking procedure that aims to define its value: What are the “right” criteria to justify how to govern “good” actions for a “better” future? The objective is to lay the foundations for a methodological framework in empirical bioethics, the rudiments of which have been applied to a case study to building reflexive governance in One Health. This ongoing critical thinking process involves “mapping, framing, and shaping” the dynamics of interests and perspectives that could jeopardize a “better” future. This paper proposes to hybridize methods to combine insights from collective deliberation and expert evaluation through a reflexive governance functioning as a community-based action-ethics methodology. The intention is to empower individuals and associations in a dialogue with society, which operation is carried out using a case study approach on data sharing systems. We based our reasoning on a feasibility study conducted in Québec, Canada (2018–2021), envisioning an antibiotic use surveillance program in animal health for 2023. Using the adaptive cycle and governance techniques and perspectives, we synthesize an alternative governance model rooted in the value of empowerment. The framework, depicted as a new “research and design (R&D)” practice, is linking operation and innovation by bridging the gap between Reflexive, Evaluative, and Deliberative reasonings and by intellectualizing the management of democratizing critical thinking locally (collective ethics) by recognizing its context (social ethics). Drawing on the literature in One Health and sustainable development studies, this article describes how a communitarian and pragmatic approach can broaden the vision of feasibility studies to ease collaboration through public-private-academic partnerships. The result is a process that “reassembles” the One Health paradigm under the perspective of global bioethics to create bridges between the person and the ecosystem through pragmatic ethics.

The ethical implications of verbal autopsy: responding to emotional and moral distress

Background

Verbal autopsy is a pragmatic approach for generating cause-of-death data in contexts without well-functioning civil registration and vital statistics systems. It has primarily been conducted in health and demographic surveillance systems (HDSS) in Africa and Asia. Although significant resources have been invested to develop the technical aspects of verbal autopsy, ethical issues have received little attention. We explored the benefits and burdens of verbal autopsy in HDSS settings and identified potential strategies to respond to the ethical issues identified.

Methods

This research was based on a case study approach centred on two contrasting HDSS in Kenya and followed the Mapping-Framing-Shaping Framework for empirical bioethics research. Data were collected through individual interviews, focus group discussions, document reviews and non-participant observations. 115 participants were involved, including 86 community members (HDSS residents and community representatives), and 29 research staff (HDSS managers, researchers, census field workers and verbal autopsy interviewers).

Results

The use of verbal autopsy data for research and public health was described as the most common potential benefit of verbal autopsy in HDSS. Community members mentioned the potential uses of verbal autopsy data in addressing immediate public health problems for the local population while research staff emphasized the benefits of verbal autopsy to research and the wider public. The most prominent burden associated with the verbal autopsy was emotional distress for verbal autopsy interviewers and respondents. Moral events linked to the interview, such as being unsure of the right thing to do (moral uncertainty) or knowing the right thing to do and being constrained from acting (moral constraint), emerged as key causes of emotional distress for verbal autopsy interviewers.

Conclusions

The collection of cause-of-death data through verbal autopsy in HDSS settings presents important ethical and emotional challenges for verbal autopsy interviewers and respondents. These challenges include emotional distress for respondents and moral distress for interviewers. This empirical ethics study provides detailed accounts of the distress caused by verbal autopsy and highlights ethical tensions between potential population benefits and risks to individuals. It includes recommendations for policy and practice to address emotional and moral distress in verbal autopsy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00683-7.

Dialysis decisions concerning cognitively impaired adults: a scoping literature review

Background

Chronic kidney disease is a significant cause of global deaths. Those who progress to end-stage kidney disease often commence dialysis as a life-extending treatment. For cognitively impaired patients, the decision as to whether they commence dialysis will fall to someone else. This scoping review was conducted to map existing literature pertaining to how decisions about dialysis are and should be made with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity. In doing so, it forms the basis of a larger body of work that is exploring how these decisions ought to be made.

Methods

To identify relevant papers, searches were conducted on Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, PsychINFO, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were then applied, requiring that papers: report on empirical studies about how decisions about dialysis are made and/or discuss how decisions about dialysis should be made with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity; be published from 1961 onwards; and be published in English. This resulted in 27 papers eligible for inclusion.

Results

Of note, the majority of papers originated in the United States. There was wide variation across the included papers. Extracted data were grouped under the following themes: involving various parties (patient involvement, family dominance, and wider communication); objectivity about care options (including difficulties with family detachment); cultural sensitivity; medical versus non-medical factors; managing nonadherent patients; and the role and prevalence of substituted judgement. The literature shows that there is inconsistency in the principles and processes surrounding decisions made about dialysis with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity.

Conclusions

This scoping review demonstrates that there is significant variation in both the practice and theory of dialysis decision making with, for, and on behalf of cognitively impaired adult patients. Complexity arises in considering who should get a say, how influential their say should be in a decision, and what factors are most relevant to the decision. A lack of up-to-date literature exploring this issue is highlighted, with this scoping review providing a useful groundwork from which further research can be undertaken.

Protocol for a scoping review to understand what is known about how GPs make decisions with, for and on behalf of patients who lack capacity

INTRODUCTION

General Practitioners (GPs) and allied healthcare professionals working in primary care are regularly required to make decisions with, for and on behalf of patients who lack capacity. In England and Wales, these decisions are made for incapacitated adult patients under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which primarily requires that decisions are made in the patient's 'best interests'. Regarding children, decisions are also made in their best interests but are done so under the Children Act 1989, which places paramount importance on the welfare of the child. Decisions for children are usually made by parents, but a GP may become involved if he or she feels a parent is not acting in the best interests of the child. Internationally, including elsewhere in the UK, different approaches are taken. We hypothesise that, despite the legislation and professional guidelines, there are many different approaches taken by GPs and allied healthcare professionals in England and Wales when making these complex decisions with, for and on behalf of patients who lack capacity. To better understand what is known about how these decisions are made, we plan to undertake a scoping review and directed content analysis of the literature. While the majority of decisions made in primary care are made by GPs, for completeness, this review will include all allied healthcare professionals working in primary care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To ensure a wide breadth of literature is captured, a scoping review will be undertaken as described by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). A five-stage approach will be taken when conducting this review: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant papers; (3) study selection; (4) data extraction and (5) summarising and synthesis. The final stage will include a directed content analysis of the data to help establish the cross-cutting themes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The scoping review will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed publications. This scoping review is the first (mapping) phase in a proposed larger study to explore how GPs make decisions with, for and on behalf of those who lack capacity. Qualitative research with GPs, patients and their families will follow, before all the results are synthesised using an 'empirical bioethics' methodology.

Constructing authentic decisions: proxy decision making for research involving adults who lack capacity to consent

Research involving adults who lack capacity to consent relies on proxy (or surrogate) decision making. Proxy decisions about participation are ethically complex, with a disparity between normative accounts and empirical evidence. Concerns about the accuracy of proxies' decisions arise, in part, from the lack of an ethical framework which takes account of the complex and morally pluralistic world in which proxy decisions are situated. This qualitative study explored the experiences of family members who have acted as a research proxy in order to develop an understanding of the ethical concepts involved, and the interactions between those concepts. Proxies described a complex process of respecting the wishes and preferences of the person they represented, whist integrating preferences with what they viewed as being in the interests of the person. They aimed to make a decision that was 'best' for the person and protected them from harm; they also aimed to make the 'right' decision, viewed as being authentic to the person's values and life. Decisions were underpinned by the relationship between the person and their proxy, in which both trust and trustworthiness were key. Proxies' decisions, based both on respect for the person and the need to protect their interests, arose out of their dual role as both proxy and carer. The findings raise questions about accounts which rely on existing normative assumptions with a focus on accuracy and discrepancy, and which fail to take account of the requirement for proxies to make authentic decisions that arise out of their caring obligations.