Search

Background: This position paper highlights the opportunistic integral role of the pharmacist across the patient pathway utilizing cardiovascular care as an example. The paper aims to highlight the potential roles that pharmacists worldwide can have (or already have) to provide efficient patient care in the context of interprofessional collaboration., Methods: It results from a literature review and experts seeking advice to identify existing interventions and potential innovative interventions. We developed a conceptual framework highlighting seven critical phases in the patient pathway and for each of those listed some of the initiatives identified by our experts worldwide., Results: Existing pharmacists' interventions in each of these phases have been identified globally. Various examples in the area of prevention and self-management were found to exist for long; the contribution for early detection and subsequently to timely diagnosis were also quite clear; integration of care was perhaps one of the areas needing greater development, although interventions in secondary care were also quite common. Tertiary care and end of life interventions were found to often be left for other healthcare professionals., Conclusion: On the basis of the findings, we can argue that much has been done but globally consider that pharmacists are still an untapped resource potentially useful for improved patient care., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose It has been estimated that medication errors (ME) are responsible for 7000 deaths each year. Some studies show that electronic prescribing systems have achieved health benefits and patient safety, resulting in a saving of resources. Other studies suggest that they may increase adverse events. Objective The objective of this study was to compare medication errors between electronic and paper-based prescription detected during pharmacovigilance. Methods This was an observational, cross-sectional comparative study of 600 randomized medical records that were systematically reviewed by a pharmacovigilance team, with a deliberate search for ME. Each error was classified according to its severity, National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and Prevention taxonomy and high-risk medications. The number of errors was calculated per 100 prescribed medications, number of errors per record and number of records with an error as a quality indicator. Results A total of 229 ME were found with a mean per record of 0.38 (SD = 0.7), of which 155 corresponded to the paper-based method (1.04, SD = 1.67) and 74 to the electronic-based method (0.29, SD = 0.57) P = <0.001. The use of the electronic method was associated with an OR of 0.59 (95% CI 0.41-0.85) for the recording of at least one ME ( P = 0.005), but to a greater severity of ME (<0.001). Conclusion The use of the electronic system was associated with a reduction in ME, compared with the paper-based method. Despite this, it was associated with more severe ME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Despite extensive evidence on the value of patient decision support interventions ( DESIs), there is no consensus on optimal DESI formats. Assessing clinicians' perceptions about DESI formats can help facilitate their adoption. The aim of this study was to assess clinicians' perceptions of DESIs formats and potential use in practice. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with doctors from diverse practice areas (internal medicine, OB/ GYN, surgery, medical oncology, emergency medicine) and elicited perceptions toward patient DESIs formats (digital vs. paper) and timing of administration. Questions also elicited beliefs underlying attitudes, perceived social norms and self-efficacy for using DESIs and the feasibility of doing so. Data analysis was conducted using a thematic analysis approach. Results Participants identified strengths of both more comprehensive digital and shorter paper-based tools and thought they could complement each other. Participants consistently expressed the advantages of using DESIs outside the consultation to supplement clinical discussions about cancer decisions given the amount of information to discuss during these emotion-laden conversations. Participants felt that patients with older age and lower socio-economic status were more likely to use a paper-based compared with a digital DESI. Participants also noted challenges related to reliable resources such as computers and Internet in the practice setting, which would be necessary for implementing the digital DESIs on site. Conclusions Clinicians' perceptions and opinions about value of DESIs can vary widely across doctor, patient and clinic characteristics. A one-size-fits-all approach to implementation might not be feasible, suggesting that flexible approaches to providing decision support for patients are needed to drive broader adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the clinical reasoning in the age of artificial intelligence, evidence-based medicine and Covid-19. Topics include the central themes are then addressed directly in a series of papers which take up arguments, the debates that have been on-going throughout the life of the journal and are still in the process of development evidence-based medicine, and the papers in each of the preceding sections make specific reference to the challenges presented by the Covid-19.

Aims and Objectives: The overall aim of this paper is to provide practical insight into the way that professionals caring for a person with motor neurone disease (MND) can recognise, respect and respond to that person's temporality; that is, the person that they have been, that they are now and that they will be in the future. Background: MND is an umbrella term for a group of four rare, devastating neurodegenerative terminal diseases of middle/later life. Previously, we have acknowledged the importance of different time periods in the trajectory of MND as an illness, for example, during the diagnosis stage through to end of life and decision‐making at that time. Living with MND can cause anxiety at all stages of the disease trajectory especially as it can be difficult for people living with MND to communicate their desires and concerns to professionals and carers. It is important that professionals continue to provide holistic care throughout the illness trajectory and the aim of this paper is to explore past research about caring for someone with MND in relation to the concept of person‐centred care. Method: The paper is based on the concatenated exploration of the findings of a hermeneutic phenomenological project. Thus, this discursive paper links elements/studies which have been published previously to develop a model of person‐centred care for people with MND which recognises and respects their temporality. Conclusions: We suggest MND has a significant impact on a person's lifeworld. The proposed person‐centred care model focuses on understanding (interpreting) a person in a wider temporal frame and beyond the context of their illness. The expected collaborative outcomes are that: a person is acknowledged as more than a 'patient with MND' and that a professional is providing person‐centred care based on individuality of the person, through a temporal lens. This requires a collaborative approach between the person, others and professionals. Such person‐centred care, focused on individuality, may prevent a person experiencing life in crisis and suffering towards the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Understanding the impact of health information technology on doctor-patient interaction is vital to designing better electronic health records ( EHRs). This article quantitatively examines and compares clinically experienced physicians' interactions with patients using paper or EHRs in ambulatory primary care settings. Methods Clinical encounters using paper or EHRs were recorded with high-resolution video cameras to capture physicians' interactions with the health records and patients. All videos were coded using quantified video coding methodology to understand how physicians interacted with EHRs and patients through measuring eye gaze durations. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the results of the paper and EHR visits. Results Eight experienced family medicine physicians and 80 patients participated in the study. A total of 80 visits, 40 with paper and 40 with EHRs were recorded. The proportion of time physicians spent gazing at medical records during EHR visits was significantly more than in paper chart visits (35.2 versus 22.1%, P = 0.001). A significantly smaller proportion of physician time was spent gazing at the patient when using an EHR compared with when using a paper chart (52.6 versus 45.6%, P = 0.041). Conclusions For this group of family medicine physicians, more time was spent looking at the EHR screen than paper records and a little less time looking at the patient. These findings may negatively affect the patient perception of the visit with the physician and have implications for the design of future EHRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusion The COVID‐19 pandemic has not only tested the resilience of public health systems but also underscored the criticality of allocative choices on health resources. These choices, however, are not confined to health emergencies but are integral to public health decisions, which inherently grapple with limited resources. In this context, physicians play a pivotal role as the architects of clinical actions in various scenarios. Therefore, doctors are called upon to make their decisions by considering not only the criteria of clinical appropriateness but also the ethical aspects linked, in particular, to the principle of justice. Indeed, the assessment of the effectiveness of a treatment for a particular patient must be balanced against criteria of equity and justice for the whole. To be fully applied, the principle of justice presupposes the use of economic evaluation techniques designed to drive the organisation decisions by effectiveness and efficiency.The present paper aims to empirically analyse whether and to what extent economic evaluation is known and used by doctors in healthcare decision‐making and, therefore, what the most widespread approaches are used in such processes.In particular, this paper intends to present the results of an empirical study on a sample of doctors registered with the Order of Physicians in Lombardy (Italy), one of the areas most affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic.The research reveals a particular awareness of the criticality of allocation issues accompanied by a lack of knowledge of the economic evaluation techniques or, more broadly, by an almost total disuse of financial criteria. The main reasons are doctors’ need for more knowledge of these tools and insufficient availability of economic information at the country system level.In the conclusion, we propose some suggestions to facilitate the transition to more current decision‐making models consistent with the characteristics of more advanced national healthcare contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To identify the influence of teamwork, communication skills, and structural empowerment on providing patient‐centered care among nurses in Eswatini. Design: A quantitative, cross‐sectional survey was used. Methods: This survey conducted in Eswatini selected registered nurses working as full‐time nurses with more than 3 months of working experience using convenience sampling. Different measures were adopted and used to collect data among 130 eligible nurses from February to March 2022. Data were analyzed using Statistical Program for Social Sciences version 26.0. Results: A total of 123 nurses responded in the study and the mean age was 31.05 years with a standard deviation of 5.49. The overall response rate was 94.6% in this study. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that teamwork (β = 0.236, p < 0.05) and communication skills (β = 0.328, p < 0.05) were significant predictors of the provision of patient‐centered care among nurses. Conclusion: Team‐building exercises and management interventions to empower nurses should be established to improve the provision of patient‐centered care among nurses. Nurses should be empowered to provide patient‐centered care in health facilities by encouraging them to provide their input in management procedures and planning programs. Impact: Clinical practice requires nurses to use effective communication skills and work as a team. Nursing care established on teamwork, respect, empathy, and communication skills allows patients to express their concerns and views in health facilities as they feel involved in care. Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution in this paper. This study only involved registered nurses as health professionals. Summary Statement: What is already known? : Patient‐centered care gives patients the chance to participate actively in discussions and consultations.Patient‐centered care requires nurses to work as a team, use effective communication skills, and feel empowered during the execution of their work.Nurses who are empowered are less likely to make medical errors, and collaborative nurses provide better patient‐centered care. What does this paper add? : Highlights that teamwork and communication skills influence nurses' ability to provide patient‐centered care.Add to the growing evidence‐based support that there is a need for teamwork and communication education programs for registered nurses in the workplace.Empowering nurses to participate in management processes and program planning will enable them to deliver patient‐centered care in healthcare facilities. Implications for practice/policy : Education programs focusing on teamwork and communication skills should be provided to nurses working in the clinical setting to enhance the quality of patient care and improve collaboration.All hospitals should adopt a tailored intervention designed to enhance the delivery of patient‐centered care to raise the standard of care.It is imperative that nurses prioritize the development of their teamwork, respect, empathy, and communication skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Aims and Objectives Method Results and Conclusion The Joint Commission emphasizes the importance of cultural competence and effective communication in quality medical care, particularly during end‐of‐life (EOL), when decisions are influenced by diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. For Orthodox Jewish patients, the philosophical framework used for EOL decision‐making may conflict with that used in traditional Western medical ethics. In this paper, we explore the complexities of EOL decision‐making for devout Jewish patients and highlight how approaches may differ from a Western ethical framework.This paper aims to familiarize clinicians with EOL preferences of Orthodox Jewish patients, organized into an ethical framework called ‘casuistic deontology’. Leading with an open‐minded approach emphasizing cultural humility, we explore ways in which integrating this perspective can allow for culturally appropriate and compassionate EOL care.Using a case study methodology, we focus on a 79‐year‐old Orthodox Jewish male hospitalized with severe injuries. The patient's medical course is analyzed, highlighting how the decisions made by his family in consultation with their Rabbi may differ from the decisions made with a philosophy of a Western ethical framework.This case illustrates the ethical tensions that may arise when Western medical practices intersect with Orthodox Jewish beliefs, particularly regarding brain death, resuscitation, and artificial nutrition. We underscore the need for cultural sensitivity when approaching EOL decision‐making, allowing for compassionate and comprehensive care that respects religious perspectives. This paper helps provide a structure for clinicians to navigate the complex EOL care needs for the devout Jewish patient in a manner consistent with their cultural and religious identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence‐based practice is the principle governing a range of healthcare practices and beyond. However, it has suffered from a lack of philosophical rigour. This paper sets out to analyse the epistemological basis of evidence‐based practice. Method: The paper uses a conceptual analysis. First, it describes the implicit epistemology at work in evidence‐based practice. Second, it evaluates the implicit epistemological basis. Results: The analysis indicates that evidence‐based practice lacks an explicit epistemological basis. It shows, moreover, that the implicit epistemological basis is untenable. Conclusion: There is a need to re‐think the epistemological basis for evidence‐based practice. Evidence‐based practice is out of touch with developments within philosophy of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous studies have demonstrated that our healthcare systems and medical education programs are fundamentally flawed. In North America and Europe, most systems were built upon values and structures that have historically benefitted middle and upper class males of European descent in the global north. As a result, there continue to be systemic biases that are pervasive throughout our healthcare systems and medical education programs. This has led to inequities in health outcomes and clinical reasoning practices which marginalize several communities. These biases are perpetuated as we continue to lead medical education research and practice with traditional values and views of evidence. To address these issues, we proposed a 'flipped' conference in which three interdisciplinary writing teams, comprised of both junior and senior academics, clinicians, and researchers, were invited to rethink the foundations of clinical reasoning. In the months leading up to the conference, each writing team explored a specific topic related to clinical reasoning and racial equity. The papers, presented during the virtual conference are now available in this issue of the Journal for the Evaluation of Clinical Practice. In addition, 6 more publications were added to this special topic to showcase new evidence and theory that builds on the recommendations in the three core papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses an ontological question about the nature of health and challenges some underpinning assumptions in western healthcare. In its analysis, health in its various statuses, is framed as a naturally occurring complex adaptive system made up of dynamically interacting subsystems that include the physiological, psychological, and social realms. Furthermore, openness in complex systems such as health, is necessary for the exchange of energy, information, and resources. Yet, within healthcare much effort is invested in constraining systems' behaviours, whether they be systems of knowledge, health, healthcare, and more. This paper draws on the complexity sciences and Levinasian philosophy to explicate the essential role of system openness in individual, population, and systemic viability. It highlights holism to be "not whole‐ism", and system openness to be, not just a reality, but a critical feature of viability. Hence requisite openness is advocated as essential to efficacious and ethical healthcare practice and strategy, and vital for health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives: The COVID‐19 pandemic has impacted every facet of society, including medical research. This paper is the second part of a series of articles that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In the first part of this series, we demonstrated that, in the context of COVID‐19, the scientific community has been faced with numerous challenges with respect to (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency. Methods: During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer‐reviewed journals, pre‐print servers and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID‐19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges. Results: This second paper demonstrates that a lack of research prioritization and methodological rigour resulted in the generation of fleeting and inconsistent evidence that complicated the development of public health guidelines. The reporting of scientific findings to the scientific community and general public highlighted the difficulty of finding a balance between accuracy and speed. Conclusions: The COVID‐19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence‐based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community. This second paper demonstrates that the four challenges outlined in the first and second papers have often compounded each other and have contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large number of illnesses that lack physical visibility are characterised by troubled clinical encounters. Endometriosis is one such condition with very real and often debilitating symptoms that remain invisible to the clinician's eye, but are experienced and lived by the patient. Method: This paper probes into two first person accounts of endometriosis to find out how endometriosis patients experience health care. The Tiger and the Cage: A Memoir of a Body in Crisis (2022) by Emma Bolden and Vagina Problems: Endometriosis, Painful Sex, and Other Taboo Topics (2020) by Lara Parker are both memoirs that details on the trivialisation and delegitimization of the women's accounts of their own lived reality by a health care system that often privileges medical evidence over lived experiences of the patients. After giving a brief introduction on the condition, the paper goes on to detail on the method and conceptual frameworks chosen for analysis. This is followed by an in‐depth analysis into the two texts using thematic analysis proposed by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke to identify shared patterns of meanings in the texts. Discussion: The identified themes take the form of emotions repeatedly narrated by the women. The findings indicate instances of disrespect, epistemic invalidation and compromised autonomy, due to which six shared categories of negative emotions are experienced by the patients: self‐doubt, shame, fear, powerlessness, self‐blame and anger. Conclusion: The paper concludes by indicating the urgency of improved medical training, that better educates and facilitates health care professionals in dealing with conditions with complicated aetiology, difficult diagnosis and no cure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A significant proportion of somatic symptoms remain, at present, medically unexplained. These symptoms are common, can affect any part of the body, and can result in a wide range of outcomes—from a minor, transient inconvenience to severe, chronic disability—but medical testing reveals no observable pathology. This paper explores two first‐person accounts of so‐called 'medically unexplained' illness: one that is published in a memoir, and the other produced during a semi‐structured interview. Both texts are revelatory for their expression of shame in the context of encountering disrespect from healthcare professionals. The first section of my paper, clinical encounters, explores disrespect which, I argue, takes three interconnecting forms in these texts: disrespect for pain when it is seen as 'medically unexplained', disrespect for the patient's account of her own pain, and disrespect for the patient herself. The second section elucidates the shame that occurs as an affective and embodied consequence of encountering such disrespect. I claim that patients living with so‐called 'medically unexplained' illnesses suffer a double burden. They endure both somatic and social suffering—not only their symptoms, but also disrespectful, traumatic and shame‐inducing experiences of healthcare systems. I conclude with a reflection on the urgent need for changes in clinical training that could improve the quality of life for these patients, even in the absence of an explanation, treatment or cure for their symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Challenges associated with translating evidence into practice are well recognised and calls for effective strategies to reduce the time lag and successfully embed evidence‐based practices into usual care are loud and clear. While a plethora of nonpharmacological interventions for people with dementia exist; few are based on strong evidence and there is little consideration for programme operationalisation in the complex environment of long‐term care. Aims and Objectives: This paper describes the preparation for the implementation of the Weaving Evidence into Action for Veterans with dementia project, incorporating the codesign of delivery of four evidence‐based, nonpharmacological interventions. Method: Implementation preparation for this type 2 hybrid effectiveness‐implementation project was underpinned by the Implementation Framework for Aged Care (IFAC). A sociocultural–political contextual scan was undertaken, and reflection on the IFAC question 'why change?' with key stakeholders. Delivery of the four interventions of music therapy, exercise, reminiscence therapy and sensory modulation was explored using codesign methodology. Preparation of both intervention delivery personnel and recipients was via training, establishment of a change team and promotional/awareness‐raising strategies. Results: The contextual scan revealed Australian government reforms and organisational imperatives facing long‐term care services, while reflections on 'why change' flagged best practice dementia care at the local care home level. Several codesign sessions involved veterans with dementia, family members, care home staff members and volunteers to ensure programme alignment with needs and preferences, accounting for existing activities. Training was designed and delivered before programme commencement. A change team was established and strategies to support behaviour change instigated. Implementation evaluation is reported elsewhere. Conclusion: The extended preparatory period for implementation, afforded by the COVID‐19 pandemic on programme commencement, enabled time for widespread understanding of the programme and necessary upskill of staff. Comprehensive codesign with all stakeholders of programme components identified core and flexible elements necessary for fidelity of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in the context of clinical care, but evaluation of patients' perspectives of PRO‐based applications in routine care remains limited. Aims and Objectives: This paper investigates patients' acceptability of a personalized web‐based decision report for total knee or hip replacement and identifies opportunities to refine the report. Method: This qualitative evaluation was embedded in a pragmatic cluster randomized trial of the report. We interviewed 25 patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis about their experiences using the personalized decision report in the context of a surgical consultation. The web‐based report contained current descriptive PRO scores of pain, function and general physical health; tailored predicted postoperative PRO scores (i.e., personalized likely outcomes based on actual knee or hip replacement outcomes of similar patients in a national registry); and information about alternative nonoperative treatments. Two trained researchers analysed the interview data qualitatively using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. Results: We identified three major categories for evaluation: content of report, presentation of data in report and engagement with report. Patients generally liked the report overall but specifically valued different pages of the report based on where they were in the surgical decision‐making process. Patients identified areas of confusion in data presentation related to graph orientation, terminology and interpretation of T‐scores. Patients also highlighted support needs to meaningfully engage with the information in the report. Conclusion: Our findings highlight areas of opportunity to further refine this personalized web‐based decision report and similar patient‐facing PRO applications for routine clinical care. Specific examples include additional tailoring of reports via filterable web‐based dashboards and scalable educational supports to facilitate more independent patient understanding and use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Aims and Objectives: Horizontal violence has been defined as aggressive or hostile behaviour directed at an individual or between colleagues from the same working group. Measuring the prevalence of horizontal violence requires valid measures. To date, there has not been a review of the psychometric properties of available measurement tools for horizontal violence. Method: A rapid review of the MEDLINE and BUSINESS EBSCO databases was conducted to identify studies testing the validity of any measure of horizontal violence in any workplace setting. Title and abstract and full‐text screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were completed by two researchers working independently. The COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) was used to determine the methodological quality of studies, including details of the psychometric properties of included papers. Results: Fourteen papers reporting 17 studies were included in the review. Seven measures of horizontal violence (Civility Norms Questionnaire Brief; Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised; Inventory of Violence and Psychological Harassment; Leyman Inventory Psychological Terror Mobbing of Single Cases of Harassment in Employees Relations; Shortened Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised; Uncivil Workplace Behaviour Questionnaire) were identified. Most included studies were methodologically robust. Six measures had strong psychometric properties except for the Mobbing of Single Cases of Harassment in Employees Relations (MSCH) where key information about psychometric properties was not reported. Conclusions: We identified six measures of horizontal violence that had good psychometric properties. The Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised has been most extensively tested in different settings but is not necessarily a more precise measure than others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Six years ago, the Supreme Court judgement in Montgomery v Lanarkshire changed medical law. It introduced a new patient‐based standard of care for the communication of treatment risks and alternatives, rejecting the doctor‐based standard that had long governed all aspects of medical negligence. This is the first systematic review to analyse the literature on Montgomery. Our aim is to appraise and synthesize the literature on Montgomery's impact on medicine and the law and to identify areas for further academic enquiry and implications for professional guidance and training. Methods: Searches were run in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Westlaw UK, HeinOnline, and LexisNexis. Two reviewers screened papers. Extracted data was analysed and discussed by an interdisciplinary team. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results: Of the 1134 papers identified, 100 met the inclusion criteria. These papers revealed significant disagreement on four core sets of issues, focusing on Montgomery's impact on: (1) legal and professional duties; (2) medical practice; (3) the patient experience; and (4) litigation. The first set addresses whether the case actually changed doctors' legal and professional duties, the relationship between GMC guidance and medical law, and the boundaries of Montgomery. The second explores whether the decision has incentivized defensive medicine, its resource implications, and doctors' knowledge of it. The third concerns whether and how the decision has promoted patient autonomy and involvement in their own care. The fourth focuses on whether the case has caused an increase in litigation. Conclusions: Despite the abundance of legal and medical literature on Montgomery, many issues remain unresolved. Empirical research is required for many of the questions. Doctrinal analysis informed by medical knowledge is also required to assess whether Montgomery may have unrecognized ramifications—for example, whether it will require the disclosure of risks associated with diagnostic uncertainty, where doctors advise patients without performing procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Aims Methods Discussion Conclusion The present paper aimed at discussing how the process of decision‐making should be taken care of in healthcare services.This is a position paper based on a review of the relevant literature about meaning‐making processes in medical encounters and psychotherapy.Authors argued that choice options could be perceived as meaningful by patients if their uncertainties were taken into account and grounded on mutual understanding and reciprocal trust. To this end, any decision‐making process should satisfy the patient's legitimate expectations by making choices and habits compatible.In depht analysis of meaning‐making processes is crucial for better refining good practices of shared decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Self‐management support for schizophrenia has become expected practice leaving organisations to find ways for feasible implementation. Self‐management support involves a foundational cultural shift for traditional disease‐based services, new ways of clients‐providers working together, coupled with delivering a portfolio of tools and techniques. A new model of self‐management support embedded into traditional case management services, called SET for Health (Self‐management Engaging Together for Health), was designed and tailored to make such services meaningfully accessible to clients of a tertiary care centre. This paper describes the proof of concept demonstration efforts, the successes/challenges, and initial organisational changes. Method: An integrated knowledge translation approach was selected as a means to foster organisational change grounded in users' daily realities. Piloting the model in two community case management programmes, we asked two questions: Can a model of self‐management support be embedded in existing case management and delivered within routine specialised mental health services? What organisational changes support implementation? Results: Fifty‐one clients were enroled. Indicators of feasible delivery included 72.5% completion of self‐management plans in a diverse sample, exceeding the 44% set minimum; and an attrition rate of 21.6%, less than 51% set maximum. Through an iterative evaluation process, the innovation evolved to a targeted hybrid approach revolving around client goals and a core set of co‐created reference tools, supplemental tools and resources. Operationalisation by use of tools was implemented to create spaces for client‐provider collaborations. Monitoring of organisational changes identified realignment of practices. Changes were made to procedures and operations to further spread and sustain the model. Conclusion: This study demonstrated how self‐management support can be implemented, within existing resources, for routine delivery of specialised services for individuals living with schizophrenia. The model holds promise as a hybrid option for supporting clients to manage their own health and wellness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives The quality of the current literature on external validity varies considerably. An improved checklist with validated items on external validity would aid decision-makers in judging similarities among circumstances when transferring evidence from a study setting to an implementation setting. In this paper, currently available checklists on external validity are identified, assessed and used as a basis for proposing a new improved instrument. Method A systematic literature review was carried out in Pubmed, Embase and Cinahl on English-language papers without time restrictions. The retrieved checklist items were assessed for (i) the methodology used in primary literature, justifying inclusion of each item; and (ii) the number of times each item appeared in checklists. Results Fifteen papers were identified, presenting a total of 21 checklists for external validity, yielding a total of 38 checklist items. Empirical support was considered the most valid methodology for item inclusion. Assessment of methodological justification showed that none of the items were supported empirically. Other kinds of literature justified the inclusion of 22 of the items, and 17 items were included on the basis of consensus. On 36 occasions, the items were presented without methodological justification for inclusion. Assessment of frequency/occurrence showed that items were mentioned in one to at most 17 checklists. Conclusion This paper provides building blocks for the development of a new checklist for external validity. The next step is provision of empirical evidence for the checklist items to be selected, and finally, development and validation of a checklist on external validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is now broad agreement that ideas like person‐centred care, patient expertise and shared decision‐making are no longer peripheral to health discourse, fine ideals or merely desirable additions to sound, scientific clinical practice. Rather, their incorporation into our thinking and planning of health and social care is essential if we are to respond adequately to the problems that confront us: they need to be seen not as "ethical add‐ons" but core components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. This, the tenth philosophy thematic edition of the journal, presents papers conducting urgent research into the social context of scientific knowledge and the significance of viewing clinical knowledge not as something that "sits within the minds" of researchers and practitioners, but as a relational concept, the product of social interactions. It includes papers on the nature of reasoning and evidence, the on‐going problems of how to 'integrate' different forms of scientific knowledge with broader, humanistic understandings of reasoning and judgement, patient and community perspectives. Discussions of the epistemological contribution of patient perspectives to the nature of care, and the crucial and still under‐developed role of phenomenology in medical epistemology, are followed by a broad range of papers focussing on shared decision‐making, analysing its proper meaning, its role in policy, methods for realising it and its limitations in real‐world contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper depicts a Covid science case, that of the AstraZeneca Vaxzevria vaccine, with specific focus on what happened in Italy. Given that we believe acknowledging the role of non‐evidential factors in medicine is an important insight into the recent philosophy of science, we illustrate how in the case of Vaxzevria, the interplay between facts, values (both epistemic and non‐epistemic) and cognitive biases may have possibly led to different institutional decisions based on the same evidence. The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we provide a glossary of the relevant terms involved, that is to say, epistemic values, non‐epistemic values and cognitive biases. Second, we sketch a timeline of Vaxzevria's approvals and suspensions by relevant institutional healthcare authorities with special focus on Italy and the Italian Medicines Agency. Then we show the interplay between the evidence base, epistemic as well as non‐epistemic values and cognitive biases using a narrative review of political decisions along with newspaper and social media content pertaining to Vaxzevria. We briefly compare Italy with other European countries to show that different political decisions were made on the basis of the same evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To reduce their decisional uncertainty, health policy decision‐makers rely more often on experts or their intuition than on evidence‐based knowledge, especially in times of urgency. However, this practice is unacceptable from an evidence‐based medicine (EbM) perspective. Therefore, in fast‐changing and complex situations, we need an approach that delivers recommendations that serve decision‐makers' needs for urgent, sound and uncertainty‐reducing decisions based on the principles of EbM. Aims: The aim of this paper is to propose an approach that serves this need by enriching EbM with theory. Materials and Methods: We call this the EbM+theory approach, which integrates empirical and theoretical evidence in a context‐sensitive way to reduce intervention and implementation uncertainty. Results: Within this framework, we propose two distinct roadmaps to decrease intervention and implementation uncertainty: one for simple and the other for complex interventions. As part of the roadmap, we present a three‐step approach: applying theory (step 1), conducting mechanistic studies (EbM+; step 2) and conducting experiments (EbM; step 3). Discussion: This paper is a plea for integrating empirical and theoretical knowledge by combining EbM, EbM+ and theoretical knowledge in a common procedural framework that allows flexibility even in dynamic times. A further aim is to stimulate a discussion on using theories in health sciences, health policy, and implementation. Conclusion: The main implications are that scientists and health politicians – the two main target groups of this paper—should receive more training in theoretical thinking; moreover, regulatory agencies like NICE may think about the usefulness of integrating elements of the EbM+theory approach into their considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fear and anxiety can interfere profoundly with a person's ability to deliberate. Patients sometimes face critical medical decisions while subject to intense emotions which involve catastrophic (or wishful) convictions about the future. Medical teams, and even psychiatrists and bioethicists, lack a model for what to do in such cases. Philosophical accounts of autonomy and the clinical criteria for decision‐making capacity derived from them fail to address cases in which emotions do not merely skew judgment but rather block decision‐making capacity itself. This paper provides an account of when emotions undermine a person's freedom to deliberate, which is the basis of the capacity for autonomy. People subject to what I call 'concretized emotions' meet the cognitive criteria for decision‐making capacity. Yet their emotions dictate their views of reality and prevent them from meeting the basic conditions for deliberation. To deliberate one needs to be able to think through alternatives, and this thinking through alternatives needs to be responsive to evidence. With concretized fear, both the ability to think through alternatives and the ability to respond cognitively to evidence is undermined. The person can engage in apparent deliberation, but her thought processes regarding the feared matter are characterized by the rigid view that things are just as they seem from her emotional view. This paper develops a theoretical and clinical model for a more appropriate and nuanced approach to acting responsibly toward patients subject to intense fear and related emotional states that block their decision‐making capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When we face an equation with an unknown variable, we 'solve for x', using methods that allow us to isolate and identify the unknown. Stigma is a known variable in health care equations, but remains impactful in a variety of ways that are not fully mapped or understood. In other words, stigma is a known unknown: it presents potential obstacles to the delivery of effective health care, but what kind of obstacles, of what size and significance, and for whom is often unclear. This paper investigates what Erving Goffman called the 'stigma situation': 'the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance.' The core argument is that to successfully incorporate the experiential knowledge of mental health care service users, we must first solve for stigma—that is, we must determine the nature and scope of its significance, and then mitigate its effects. The present paper begins by demonstrating that stigma in mental health care remains an obstacle worthy of sustained attention. It then discusses typical methods taken in efforts to destigmatize mental illness, and suggests that additional work is needed in the clinical context of mental health care. The pervasiveness and complexity of stigma requires diligence in clinical settings to integrate the experience of mental health care service users and work towards an adequate model of recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the processes that contribute to the stigmatization of a group of people typically identified as "children in care" or "looked after children." In particular, we will look at the ways that we (adults, professionals, and carers) interact with these children, based on their status as both children and members of a socially marginalized and disadvantaged group, and how these modes of interaction can inhibit dialogue—a dialogue that is needed if we are to base our conceptions regarding the needs of these children on a more accurate understanding of their experiences and perspective. The problem is particularly challenging because the very terminology we use in the care community to identify this group is a product of the damaging preconceptions that have affected our interactions with its members and, we argue, it serves to reinforce those preconceptions. Using Fricker's work on epistemic injustice, in conjunction with evidence regarding how accusations of abuse and neglect of these children have been addressed in numerous cases, we illustrate the problems we have in hearing the voices of members of this group and the harmful effects this has on their own ability to understand and articulate their experiences. These problems represent "barriers to disclosure" that need to be surmounted if we are to establish a more inclusive dialogue. Currently, dialogue between these children and those of us charged to "look after" them is too often characterized by a lack of trust: not only in terms of the children feeling that their word is not taken seriously, that their claims are not likely to be believed, but also in their feeling that they cannot trust those to whom they might disclose abuse or neglect. The goals of the paper are modest in that we aim simply to open up the debate on how to meet this epistemic challenge, noting that there are specific problems that extend beyond those already identified for hearing the voices of other victims of epistemic injustice. Explicitly recognizing the nature and extent of the problem still leaves us a long way from its solution, but it is a crucial start. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Substance use disorder (SUD) is often understood as a chronic illness. Aims: This paper investigates whether SUD is treated as a chronic illness. Method: To this aim, we have used World Health Organizations (WHO's) definition of chronic illness to conduct a comparative analysis of SUD and type 2 diabetes (T2D), which is another chronic illness. Results: When analysing Norwegian treatment guidelines, we found that only the T2D guideline reflects the WHO's conceptualization of chronic illnesses. We argue that this discrepancy implies that SUD is understood as a moral and legal problem, while T2D is conceptualized as a somatic illness. We discuss how social, political and historical conditions of the possibility for understanding SUD are interwoven with normative presumptions about the clinician, patient, treatment guidelines and drug policies in a way that may impede the development of continuing care. Conclusion: The paper concludes that the delivery of treatment services is inequitable as SUD is not treated as a chronic illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are thousands of papers about stigma, for instance about stigma's impact on wellbeing, mental or physical health. But the definition of stigma has received only modest attention. In "Conceptualizing stigma" from 2001, Link and Phelan offer a thorough and detailed definition of stigma. They suggest that there are six necessary conditions for stigma, namely labelled differences, stereotypes, separation, status loss and discrimination, power, and emotional reaction. This definition is widely applied in the literature but is left mainly uncriticized. Method: We submit the Link and Phelan definition of stigma to a systematic conceptual analysis. We first interpret, analyze and reconsider each of the six components in Link and Phelan's definition of stigma, and on the basis of these analyses, we secondly suggest a revised definition of stigma. Result: The Link and Phelan definition is thorough and detailed, but includes redundant components. These are status loss and discrimination, and emotional reaction. Conclusion: We suggest that groups, not individuals, are the target of stigma, though it is individuals who may be the victims of it. We suggest a revised definition of stigma that is more simple, precise, and consistent with the empirical literature on stigma; there is stigma if and only if there is labelling, negative stereotyping, linguistic separation, and power asymmetry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present paper is to describe and discuss how recent theories about translation, bridging medical and humanistic understandings of knowledge translation, in the medical humanities can bring about a new understanding of health literacy in the context of patient education. We argue that knowledge translation must be understood as active engagement with contextual meaning, considering the understandings, interpretation, and expertise of both patient and health care provider (deconstruction of the distinction between biomedical and cultural knowledge). To illustrate our points, we will describe the case of Jim, a kidney transplant recipient who received standard patient education but lost the graft (the new kidney). If we apply Kristeva's view to this context, graft function is not merely biology but a complex biocultural fact. In this perspective, graft function is seen as a phenomenon that embraces translation between health as a biomedical phenomenon and healing as lived experience, and that opens for shared meaning‐making processes between the patient and the health care provider. In Jim's case, this means that we need to rethink the approach to patient education in a way that encourages the patient's idiosyncratic way of thinking and experiencing, and to transform health information into a means for sustaining Jim's singular life – not biological life "in general." The patient education programme did not take into consideration the singularities of Jim's biographical temporality, with its changes in everyday life, priorities, attitudes, and values. Hence, we claim that health literacy should involve a simultaneous interrogation of the patients and the health professional's constructions of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some have questioned the extent of medical intervention at the end of people's lives, arguing that we often intervene in the dying process in ways which are harmful, inappropriate, or undignified. In this paper, I argue that over‐treatment of dying is a function of the way in which clinicians manage epistemic risk—the risk of being wrong. When making any scientific decision—whether making inferences from empirical data, or determining a plan for medical treatment—there is always a degree of uncertainty: in other words, there is always a possibility we make the wrong decision. As philosophers of science such as Justin Biddle have argued, there is no way to resolve epistemic risk without weighing up the consequences of being wrong. This requires us to draw upon other, non‐epistemic considerations, like social and ideological values; as such, questions of epistemic risk cannot be answered solely with reference to epistemic considerations such as evidence. In this paper, I explore how epistemic risk arises in end‐of‐life care, highlighting how clinicians face epistemic risk when diagnosing patients as dying and when determining whether a particular treatment is futile. I argue that there is no clear cut‐off between reversible and irreversible illness, nor between useful and futile treatment. Clinicians who diagnose a patient as dying thus risk failing to provide treatment which could be beneficial; conversely, clinicians who determine that a patient has a potentially reversible illness risk subjecting them to futile treatment that may be painful or distressing. Having outlined where and how epistemic risk arises in end‐of‐life care, I turn my attention to the values and norms which shape clinicians' management of epistemic risk. I highlight how societal attitudes towards death, the medicalisation of dying, and the practice of defensive medicine all contribute to clinicians erring on one side of epistemic caution, minimising the risk that they miss or fail to treat illness. By applying the concept of epistemic risk to end‐of‐life care, I offer a novel lens through which to view medical decision‐making in dying patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and aim Clear and logical eligibility criteria are fundamental to the design and conduct of a systematic review. This methodological review examined the quality of reporting and application of eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in three leading medical journals. Methods All systematic reviews in the BMJ, JAMA and T he L ancet in the years 2013 and 2014 were extracted. These were assessed using a refined version of a checklist previously designed by the authors. Results A total of 113 papers were eligible, of which 65 were in BMJ, 17 in T he L ancet and 31 in JAMA. Although a generally high level of reporting was found, eligibility criteria were often problematic. In 67% of papers, eligibility was specified after the search sources or terms. Unjustified time restrictions were used in 21% of reviews, and unpublished or unspecified data in 27%. Inconsistency between journals was apparent in the requirements for systematic reviews. Conclusions The quality of reviews in these leading medical journals was high; however, there were issues that reduce the clarity and replicability of the review process. As well as providing a useful checklist, this methodological review informs the continued development of standards for systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Restricted randomization, such as blocking or minimization, allows for the creation of balanced groups and even distribution of covariates, but it increases the risk of selection bias and technical error. Various methods are available to reduce these risks but there is limited evidence about their current usage, and there are also indications that reporting of these methods may not be adequate. This review aims to identify how frequently different methods of restriction are being used and to assess the reporting of these methods against established reporting standards. Methods 82 reports of randomized controlled trial were reviewed. For each trial, the reported method of randomization was recorded and the reporting of randomization was assessed. Where the method of randomization was not clear from the main paper, protocols and other published materials were also reviewed, and authors were contacted for further information. Results For 11% of trials the method of randomization was not reported in either the paper or a published protocol, and in a further 39% of cases the report omitted key details so that the predictability of the method could not be evaluated. In total, 88% of trials appear to have used some form of restricted randomization, and all of those that report the exact methods used either blocking or minimization. 15% of trials reported using blocks of six or less and 4% used minimization with no random element reported, both of which are highly predictable. Conclusion Our results indicate that the majority of trials use some form of restriction, with many using relatively predictable methods that put them at greater risk of selection bias and technical error. Reporting of randomization methods often falls short of the minimum requirements set out by the CONSORT statement, leaving the reader unable to make an informed judgement about the risk of bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Method Results Conclusion Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is used to triage people with signs or symptoms of a colorectal cancer (CRC). Recent guidelines have recommended further research to improve access, uptake and return of FIT. This systematic scoping review aims to understand the barriers and facilitators to FIT testing in symptomatic patients.Qualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods studies published after September 2013 were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify publications examining barriers and facilitators to FIT. Initially, the data underwent thematic analysis, and subsequently, factors were aligned to components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model. All outcomes are presented in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines.One thousand two hundred thirty‐two papers were identified; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., general practitioner awareness) and service level (e.g., method of providing FIT kits). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: psychological capability (e.g., lack of FIT knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding FIT sampling and faeces being unhygienic) and automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment, scary, anxiety provoking). Gaps in knowledge emerged in three domains: (1) patient experience, (2) FIT pathway and (3) healthcare professionals experience of FIT.This systematic scoping review provides a summary of the literature on FIT uptake, and identified factors across multiple levels and components. To increase adherence to FIT completion within primary care, a multifaceted theory and evidence‐based approach is needed to underpin future behavioural science interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Workplace attitudes among nurses with back pain disability are usually unsupportive as nurses tend to rely on passive approaches like pain medications and taking sick leave to manage the impact of their back pain experiences. Aims and Objectives: To lessen the burden of back pain disability, this paper aimed to collate information from publicly accessible health resources such as posters, pamphlets, and electronic resources and cross‐culturally validate this information for nurses in Zambia. Methods: Focus group discussions were used to produce the validation data for this study's qualitative research design. For cross‐cultural validation, deductive analysis was carried out using Herdman's framework for Conceptual Equivalence, Item Equivalence, and Semantic Equivalence. Results and Conclusion: The 14 messages on back pain given to the participants were reviewed to enhance clarity, applicability, and acceptability. Messages with similar meanings were merged, reducing the total number to 7. The revisions made to the 14 back pain messages aimed to improve understanding, acceptability, and relevance within the contexts and circumstances in which nurses' practice. This is important because the messages adapted for use in low‐ and middle‐income countries like Zambia are equivalent and applicable to those originally developed in high‐income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour populations in the United States are disproportionately affected by the emerging health threat SARS‐CoV‐2, which causes COVID‐19. Aims and Objectives: This paper aims to demonstrate the usefulness of critical systems thinking by using scenario planning based on epidemiological data and tying epidemiology with soft systems methodology to investigate COVID‐19 disparities among disproportionately affected Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour populations. Methods: Using a review of the COVID‐19 literature and publicly available US COVID‐19 data, critical systems thinking is applied in a scenario planning example and a call to link soft systems methodology with epidemiology. Results: According to the four plausible Endgame scenarios, levels of community transmission as well as the current state transmission are based on the driving forces of the scenarios. In addition, soft systems methodology explores the effect on stakeholders and strengthens the picture of disease burden beyond sole reliance on traditional data sources. Conclusion: This analysis underscores employing critical systems thinking to critically assess diverse methods appropriate for the ongoing complexity of global crises. It is argued that critically engaged subjectivity should be given space alongside data‐dependent objectivity. COVID‐19 disparities are reliant on the social determinants of health's effects as driving forces on disease transmission in Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour populations. It is moreover argued that critical systems thinking is demonstrated by linking epidemiological evidence with scenario planning and soft systems methodology. This in turn supports a critical systems thinking approach to uncover the state of health disparities among minoritized communities under COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the complex landscape of health care, the relationship between medical practice and health insurance is increasingly crucial for effective care delivery. This paper emphasises the importance of integrating health insurance education into medical training, focusing on its impact on patient outcomes, health care accessibility, and system sustainability. It posits that health care providers with a comprehensive understanding of health insurance can offer more informed, efficient care by adeptly navigating coverage complexities. The study utilised a pretest‐post‐test design with a yearlong health insurance education curriculum at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. Student participants from various medical programmes self‐assessed their knowledge and comfort across 13 health insurance topics before and after the intervention. The curriculum included workshops and a capstone project, emphasising real‐life patient insurance challenges. Results show statistically significant improvements in 13 participants' understanding of health insurance concepts, highlighting the curriculum's effectiveness. The findings advocate for the inclusion of health insurance education in medical curricula. Such knowledge is vital in systems with diverse insurance models, like the United States, where understanding insurance intricacies is key to patient care. The study's limitations, such as a small sample size and reliance on self‐reported data, suggest the need for further research with more participants and objective measures. In conclusion, incorporating health insurance education into medical training is essential for preparing health care professionals to navigate insurance complexities, make informed treatment decisions, and guide patients effectively. This approach fosters well‐rounded professionals capable of managing both medical and financial aspects of patient care, leading to more equitable and efficient health care delivery. Future research should explore the long‐term effects of this education on clinical practice and patient outcomes, particularly its impact on health care costs and patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Research on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction. Aims and Objectives: In the present paper, we take issue with these claims. Method: We reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which this theoretical model is supported by the evidence. Results: We show that evidence derived from fundamental research in human cognition and studies in clinical medicine challenges the basic assumptions of this theory—that errors arise in System 1 processing as a consequence of cognitive biases, and are corrected by slow, deliberative analytical processing. We claim that, to the contrary, errors derive from both System 1 and System 2 reasoning, that they arise from lack of access to the appropriate knowledge, not from errors of processing, and that the two processes are not essential to the process of diagnostic reasoning. Conclusions: The two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Doctors hold a prima facie duty to respect the autonomy of their patients. This manifests as the patient's 'right' not to know when patients wish to remain unaware of medical information regarding their health, and poses ethical challenges for good medical practice. This paper explores how the emergence of digital health technologies might impact upon the patient's 'right' not to know. Method: The capabilities of digital health technologies are surveyed and ethical implications of their effects on the 'right' not to know are explored. Findings: Digital health technologies are increasingly collecting, processing and presenting medical data as clinically useful information, which simultaneously presents large opportunities for improved health outcomes while compounding the existing ethical challenges generated by the patient's 'right' not to know. Conclusion: These digital tools should be designed to include functionality that mitigates these ethical challenges, and allows the preservation of their user's autonomy with regard to the medical information they wish to learn and not learn about. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Since non‐directed (altruistic) kidney donors do not stand to benefit from the lengthening and strengthening of a relationship that they intrinsically value, their donations are considered to constitute the most altruistic variety of living kidney donation. Methodology: This paper uses publicly‐available data to assess the expected value that accrues to the donor of altruistic kidney donation. Findings: Compared to healthy non‐donors, living kidney donors experience only marginally increased absolute risks of poor physical health outcomes, and no difference in important psychosocial health outcomes. Crucially, the chance of requiring a kidney donation is only marginally increased by becoming a living kidney donor. In the United Kingdom, previous living kidney donors that subsequently become in need of any organ donation (not only kidneys) themselves are considered priority patients for these donations. They consequently experience shorter waiting times for these organs and reduced exposure to the inherently harmful effects of dialysis therapy (if a kidney donation is required) compared to non‐donors in need of organ donation. As such, while key data points required to compute an accurate and complete expected value calculation are unavailable, it is likely that the additional risk incurred by becoming a living kidney donor is outweighed by the benefit of being considered a priority patient for the donation of any type of organ in the event that this is needed. Conclusion: Accordingly, the expected value of becoming a living kidney donor is likely to be positive, meaning the act of doing so may be considered akin to the taking out of an insurance policy. In the context of non‐directed (altruistic) kidney donation, this may diminish the extent to which such a donation is considered altruistic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The evidentiary standards and epistemic models of clinical care, especially those of evidence‐based medicine, are dissimilar to those used in philosophy and examination of how the two systems intersect may help clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. Aims and Objectives: This paper examines the use of ethical frameworks in routine clinical decision‐making, using the example of acute stroke treatment decisions to demonstrate that ethical evaluation is integral to clinical practice. Method: Utilising acute stroke care as a lens through which to examine the phenomenon of ethical evaluation in medical practice, we offer a philosophical analysis of the presence of ethical evaluation in medicine. Results and Conclusion: We find that the medical establishment should embrace ethical evaluation as intrinsic to medical practice and that medical training and treatment guidelines should reflect this reality. Patients deserve clarity and transparency about how physicians make determinations about their treatment, and physicians should be prepared to offer explanations for those decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Objectives Search Methods Selection Criteria Data Collection and Analysis Main Results Conclusions The increasing number of immigrants in the United States (U.S.) has resulted in more patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). LEP contributes to patient‐provider language discordance, which may impact oncologic health outcomes.To assess the effects of LEP compared to English proficiency (EP) for oncological outcomes in adult cancer patients in the United States.We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus from data inception to 26 January 2023. We also searched the reference lists and cited lists of included studies. Studies were limited to the United States and the English language.We included retrospective and cross‐sectional studies that analyzed one or more clinical outcomes (survival, readmission, length of stay, complications and discharge disposition) in LEP and EP cancer patients. Studies were eligible if they assessed cancer patients in the United States who were 18 years and older.Using a piloted, standardized data collection form, two non‐blinded, independent reviewers extracted data in duplicate from studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Reviewers resolved discrepancies through discussion. We then performed a qualitative assessment of the findings.We retrieved 2425 records from the database searches. We screened 1496 records by title and abstract and reviewed the full text of eight records. We retrieved 347 records from additional search methods and reviewed the full text of six records. We included 14 papers in total for analysis. The studies included 55,141 total patients and assessed outcomes in brain, oesophageal, head and neck, pancreatic and skin cancer. Our qualitative assessment demonstrated limited information on whether LEP impacted survival, complications and discharge disposition. We found no significant association between LEP and readmission or length of stay.Studies assessing the impact of LEP and EP on the health outcomes of cancer patients are sparse and inconsistent in the measurements of outcomes and data reporting. The inconclusiveness of our study indicates that further standardized research is needed to assess the impact of LEP on the outcomes of cancer patients in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methodology Results Conclusion Tackling client absenteeism in primary and secondary care settings is crucial to ensure the continuity of care for individuals, families and communities, as well as preventing waste of resources within healthcare systems.This article is an integrative review to identify advancements in health technologies that address client absenteeism in primary and secondary care. The databases Medical Literature and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE/PubMed®), Scientific Electronic Library Online and Virtual Health Library were consulted. The inclusion criteria were as follows: full papers, published between 2013 and 2023, in English, Portuguese or Spanish. The descriptors used were the following: patients, mobile applications, health services management, absenteeism and primary care, and secondary care. Eleven articles published from 2014 to 2021 were included.Most articles were identified in the MEDLINE/PUBMED database, employed a randomized controlled trial methodology (36.36%), and were published between 2019 and 2021 (90.0%) in English (63.7%). The applications had managerial, assistive and/or educational purposes. In addition to absenteeism control, these applications strived to promote client engagement with health services, increase health literacy and tackle structural barriers to care, such as language barriers.Efforts are needed to ensure that providers receive training to educate clients on the applications. Moreover, community‐based participatory studies to ensure the feasibility of applications are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Aims and Objectives Method Results Conclusion The international policy agenda has recently advocated for the development of patient‐centeredness in healthcare service delivery. Consequently, various stakeholders in the healthcare systems have expressed a vital need for identifying strategies and tools that can enhance patient‐centeredness.The objective of this paper was to prioritise and benchmark the strategies that can improve patient‐centeredness in healthcare service delivery.We employed a multi‐stage research scenario that consisted of two phases: a phase including of a scoping review to identify the current strategies to improve patient‐centeredness (PC); And, a phase including of a multicriteria best‐worst method to assign weights to PC principles, and a questionnaire administered to a sample of experts for benchmarking the strategies derived from the literature using the Grey Multi‐Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC‐G) method.The most important principle of patient‐centeredness was deemed to be access to care, while telehealth tools and Electronic Health Information Systems were respectively suggested as the most efficacious platforms for promoting patient‐centeredness.We recommend that administrators and policy makers in the healthcare industry prioritise the implementation and research of strategies such as telehealth tools and electronic health information systems to enhance access and patient‐centeredness in the healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence‐based medicine (EBM), one of the most important movements in health care, has been a lightning rod for controversy. Conflicts about the meaning and value of EBM are owing in part to lack of clarity about basic questions regarding its development, the importance of expertise and intuition, and the role of evidence in clinical decision making. These issues have persisted in part because of unclarity at the outset, but also because of how EBM evolved, why it was introduced when it was, and how it was modified following its introduction. This paper traces the evolution of EBM from clinical epidemiology (CE) and the internal dispute that precipitated the developers to establish EBM as a distinct approach to clinical practice. The paper proposes that health care industrialization also had a significant role in EBM's emergence and that industrialization influenced the decision to merge EBM with the method of normative decision making known as decision analysis (DA). The paper discusses the impact of this merger, in particular how it led to EBM's identification with managed care and has added momentum to the effort at forging a connection between a normative decision model and clinical judgement. This effort would turn clinical decision making into a conduit for bringing administrative rules and regulations into the consulting room and would result in expertise becoming a surplus skill. The paper closes by discussing a challenge yet unmet by EBM's advocates and critics—to chronicle the dangers that EBM in the framework of DA during the current era of industrialization poses to health and health care, and discover ways of unhinging the relationship between model and judgement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims, and objectives: One of the sectors challenged by the COVID‐19 pandemic is medical research. COVID‐19 originates from a novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) and the scientific community is faced with the daunting task of creating a novel model for this pandemic or, in other words, creating novel science. This paper is the first part of a series of two papers that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of scientific knowledge during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was chaotic and sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer‐reviewed journals, pre‐print servers, and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID‐19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges. Results: This paper demonstrates that a lack of prioritization among research questions and therapeutics was responsible for the duplication of clinical trials and the dispersion of precious resources. Study designs, aimed at minimising biases and increasing objectivity, were, instead, the subject of fruitless oppositions. The duplication of research works, combined with poor‐quality research, has greatly contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge. Conclusions: The COVID‐19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (1) finding and prioritising relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: This paper aims to show how the focus on eradicating bias from Machine Learning decision‐support systems in medical diagnosis diverts attention from the hermeneutic nature of medical decision‐making and the productive role of bias. We want to show how an introduction of Machine Learning systems alters the diagnostic process. Reviewing the negative conception of bias and incorporating the mediating role of Machine Learning systems in the medical diagnosis are essential for an encompassing, critical and informed medical decision‐making. Methods: This paper presents a philosophical analysis, employing the conceptual frameworks of hermeneutics and technological mediation, while drawing on the case of Machine Learning algorithms assisting doctors in diagnosis. This paper unravels the non‐neutral role of algorithms in the doctor's decision‐making and points to the dialogical nature of interaction not only with the patients but also with the technologies that co‐shape the diagnosis. Findings Following the hermeneutical model of medical diagnosis, we review the notion of bias to show how it is an inalienable and productive part of diagnosis. We show how Machine Learning biases join the human ones to actively shape the diagnostic process, simultaneously expanding and narrowing medical attention, highlighting certain aspects, while disclosing others, thus mediating medical perceptions and actions. Based on that, we demonstrate how doctors can take Machine Learning systems on board for an enhanced medical diagnosis, while being aware of their non‐neutral role. Conclusions: We show that Machine Learning systems join doctors and patients in co‐designing a triad of medical diagnosis. We highlight that it is imperative to examine the hermeneutic role of the Machine Learning systems. Additionally, we suggest including not only the patient, but also colleagues to ensure an encompassing diagnostic process, to respect its inherently hermeneutic nature and to work productively with the existing human and machine biases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Complex and chronic disease is placing significant pressure on hospital outpatient departments. Novel ways of delivering care have been developed recently and are often described as 'triage' services. This paper reviews the literature pertaining to definitions and descriptions of orthopaedic/musculoskeletal triage processes, in order to provide information on 'best practice' to assist health care facilities. Method A comprehensive open-ended search was conducted using electronic databases to identify studies describing models of triage clinics for patients with a musculoskeletal/orthopaedic complaint, who have been referred to hospital outpatient clinics for a surgical consultation. Studies were critically appraised using the McMaster quality appraisal tool and ranked using the National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy of evidence. A thematic analysis of the definitions, processes and procedures of triage described within the literature was undertaken. Results 1930 studies were identified and 45 were included in the review (including diagnostic and evaluative research). The hierarchy of evidence ranged from I to IV; however, the majority were at low levels of evidence and scored poorly on the critical appraisal tool. Three broad themes of triage were identified: presence of a referral, configuration of the triage (who, how and where) and the aim of triage. However, there were significant inconsistencies across these themes. Conclusions This systematic review highlighted the need for standardization of the definition of triage, the procedures of assessment and management and measures of outcome used in orthopaedic/musculoskeletal triage to ensure best-practice processes, procedures and outcomes for triage clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Something important is happening in applied, interdisciplinary research, particularly in the field of applied health research. The vast array of papers in this edition are evidence of a broad change in thinking across an impressive range of practice and academic areas. The problems of complexity, the rise of chronic conditions, overdiagnosis, co‐morbidity, and multi‐morbidity are serious and challenging, but we are rising to that challenge. Key conceptions regarding science, evidence, disease, clinical judgement, and health and social care are being revised and their relationships reconsidered: Boundaries are indeed being redrawn; reasoning is being made “fit for practice.” Ideas like “person‐centred care” are no longer phrases with potential to be helpful in some yet‐to‐be‐clarified way: Theorists and practitioners are working in collaboration to give them substantive import and application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]