Search

Abstract Background There is evidence of different use by different groups of people for general health-related applications. Yet, these findings are lacking for digitalized healthcare services. It is also unclear whether typical use patterns can be found and how user types can be characterized. Methods The analyses are based on data from 1 821 respondents to the Health Related Beliefs and Health Care Experiences in Germany panel (HeReCa). Digitalized healthcare services, that were used to determine the user types, include for example sick notes before/after examination and disease related training. User types were determined by latent class analysis. Individual groups were characterized using multinomial logistic regressions, taking into account socioeconomic and demographic factors as well as individual attitudes towards digitalization in the healthcare system. Results Three types were identified: rejecting (27.9%), potential (53.8%) and active (18.3%). Active participants were less likely to be employed, less likely to be highly educated and less skeptical of digital technologies. Potential users were the youngest, most highly-educated and most frequently employed group, with less skepticism than those who rejected. Rejecters were the oldest group, more likely to be female and of higher socio-economic status. Conclusions Socio-demographic and socio-economic differences were identified among three user types. It can therefore be assumed that not all population groups will benefit from the trend towards digitalization in healthcare. Steps should be taken to enhance access to innovations and ensure that everyone benefits from them.

Abstract Background In response to climate change (CC), medicine needs to consider new aspects in health counselling of patients. Such climate-sensitive health counselling (CSHC) may include counselling patients on preventing and coping with climate-sensitive diseases or on leading healthy and climate-friendly lifestyles. This study aimed to identify previous participation in and preferences for CSHC as well as associated sociodemographic and attitudinal factors among the general public in Germany. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in a population-based online panel in five German federal states (04–06/2022). We performed descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis to assess prior participation in CSHC and content preferences regarding CSHC, as well as associations between sociodemographic variables and general preference for CSHC. Results Among 1491 participants (response rate 47.1%), 8.7% explicitly reported having participated in CSHC, while 39.9% had discussed at least one CSHC-related topic with physicians. In the studied sample, 46.7% of participants would like CSHC to be part of the consultation with their physician, while 33.9% rejected this idea. Participants aged 21 to 40 years (versus 51 to 60), individuals alarmed about CC (versus concerned/cautious/disengaged/doubtful/dismissive), and those politically oriented to the left (vs. centre or right) showed greater preference for CSHC in the multivariable regression model. Most participants wanted to talk about links to their personal health (65.1%) as opposed to links to the health of all people (33.2%). Conclusions Almost half of the participants in this sample would like to receive CSHC, especially those who are younger, more alarmed about CC and more politically oriented to the left. More research and training on patient-centred implementation of CSHC is needed.

Abstract Background Medical students and doctors face various challenges in clinical practice. Some of these challenges are related to ethical issues. Therefore, teaching ethics respectively building moral competences has become an integral part of the medical curriculum in Germany and many other countries. To date, there is little evidence on moral competence of medical students. Methods Self-administered survey among medical students from one German medical school in the first (cohort 1) and fifth semester (cohort 2) in the winter term 2019/20 (T0). Both cohorts received the same questionnaire one year later in winter term 2020/21 (T1). Assessment was performed with Lind’s Moral Competence Test. We performed convenience sampling. We analyzed the data with descriptive statistics and C-Scores as a measure of moral competence (higher scores = higher competence, ≥ 30 points = high competence). Results A total of 613 students participated in the study (response rate 67.5%, n = 288 with data on both time points). 69.6% of the participants were female, the mean age was 21.3 years. Mean C-Score for both cohorts for T0 (first and fifth semester) is 32.5 ± 18.0 and for T1 (third and seventh semester) is 30.4 ± 17.9. Overall, 6.6% (T0) and 6.7% (T1) of respondents showed some but very low moral competence. 3.3% (T0) and 3.0% (T1) showed no moral competence. Additionally, students without prior experience in the healthcare system scored 3.0 points higher. Conclusions Improvement of assessment of moral competence as well effective interventions are particular needed for supporting those students which have been identified to demonstrate little moral competences.

Abstract Introduction Early palliative care (EPC) has been advocated to improve cancer patients' health. However, EPC differs with regard to its elements and target groups. It is not known which parts of EPC contribute to effectiveness for which patient group. This scoping review provides a structured analysis of EPC interventions and outcome measures. Design We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL up to February 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), nonrandomized trials, cohort studies (CS), and controlled before‐after studies of EPC in adult patients in English, Dutch, and German language. Interventions had to be self‐labeled as EPC. Screening and data extraction were performed by two raters. A structured analysis incorporating the TIDieR checklist was performed to describe the elements of the interventions. Results We screened 2651 articles, resulting in 40 articles being included: 34 studies were RCT and six studies were CS with a mean sample size of 208 patients. Patients with pancreatic (n = 10) and lung cancer (n = 9) were most often included. Studies reported different reference points for the onset of EPC such as time after diagnosis of incurable cancer (n = 18) or prognosis (n = 9). Thirteen studies provided information about elements of EPC and eight studies about the control intervention. Most frequent elements of EPC were symptom management (n = 28), case management (n = 16), and advance care planning (ACP; n = 15). Most frequently reported outcome measures were health‐related quality of life (n = 26), symptom intensity (n = 6), resource use, and the patient's mood (n = 4 each). Conclusion The elicited heterogeneity of ECP in combination with deficits of reporting are considerable barriers that should be addressed to further develop effective EPC interventions for different groups of cancer patients.

Abstract Background The use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in end-of-life care is associated with clinical, ethical and legal challenges. In view of these and of the issue’s great importance to patients undergoing intolerable suffering, we conducted a project titled SedPall (“From anxiolysis to deep continuous sedation – Development of recommendations for sedation in palliative care“) with the purpose of developing best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and obtaining feedback and approval from experts in this area. Design Our stepwise approach entailed drafting the recommendations, obtaining expert feedback, conducting a single-round Delphi study, and convening a consensus conference. As an interdisciplinary group, we created a set of best practice recommendations based on previously published guidance and empirical and normative analysis, and drawing on feedback from experts, including patient representatives and of public involvement participants. We set the required agreement rate for approval at the single-round Delphi and the consensus conference at ≥80%. Results Ten experts commented on the recommendations’ first draft. The Delphi panel comprised 50 experts and patient and public involvement participants, while 46 participants attended the consensus conference. In total, the participants in these stages of the process approved 66 recommendations, covering the topics “indications”, “intent/purpose [of sedation]”, “decision-making”, “information and consent”, “medication and type of sedation”, “monitoring”, “management of fluids and nutrition”, “continuing other measures”, “support for relatives”, and “team support”. The recommendations include suggestions on terminology and comments on legal issues. Conclusion Further research will be required for evaluating the feasibility of the recommendations’ implementation and their effectiveness. The recommendations and the suggested terminology may serve as a resource for healthcare professionals in Germany on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and may contribute to discussion on the topic at an international level. Trial Registration DRKS00015047 (German Clinical Trials Register)

Objective: To explore the role of reminders in recruiting and maintaining participation in an online panel.Methods: 50,045 individuals from five German federal states were invited by regular mail to participate in the online study “Health-Related Beliefs and Healthcare Experiences in Germany.” Those who did not respond to the first attempt received a postal reminder. Comparisons of sociodemographic characteristics and responses were made between first-attempt respondents and those who enrolled after the second letter.Results: After the initial letter, 2,216 (4.4%, 95%CI: 4.3%–4.6%) registered for the study; after a reminder 1,130 (2.5%, 2.3%–2.6% of those reminded) enrolled. Minor sociodemographic differences were observed between the groups and the content of the responses did not differ. Second-attempt respondents were less likely to participate in subsequent questionnaires: 67.3% of first-attempt vs. 43.3% of second-attempt respondents participated in their fourth survey. Recruitment costs were 79% higher for second-attempt respondents.Conclusion: While reminders increased the number of participants, lower cost-effectiveness and higher attrition of second-attempt respondents support the use of single invitation only for studies with a similar design to ours when the overall participation is low.

Abstract Background Right from the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic the general public faced the challenge to find reliable and understandable information in the overwhelming flood of information. To enhance informed decision-making, evidence-based information should be provided. Aim was to explore the general public’s information needs and preferences on COVID-19 as well as the barriers to accessing evidence-based information. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study. Nine hundred twenty-seven panel members were invited to an online survey (12/2020-02/2021). The HeReCa-online-panel is installed at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg to assess regularly the general public’s view on health issues in five regions in Germany. The survey was set up in LimeSurvey, with nine items, multiple-choice and open-ended questions that allowed to gather qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and a content analysis was carried out to categorise the qualitative data. Results Six hundred thirty-six panel members provided data; mean age 52 years, 56.2% female, and 64.9% with higher education qualifications. Asked about relevant topics related to COVID-19, most participants selected vaccination (63.8%), infection control (52%), and long-term effects (47.8%). The following 11 categories were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the topics of interest: vaccination, infection control, long-term effects, therapies, test methods, mental health, symptoms, structures for pandemic control, infrastructure in health care, research. Participants preferred traditional media (TV 70.6%; radio 58.5%; newspaper 32.7%) to social media, but also used the internet as sources of information, becoming aware of new information on websites (28.5%) or via email/newsletter (20.1%). The knowledge question (Which European country is most affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?) was correctly answered by 7.5% of participants. The Robert Koch Institute (93.7%) and the World Health Organization (78%) were well known, while other organisations providing health information were rarely known (

Abstract Background Cancer patients form a notable proportion of requestors for physician‐assisted suicide (PAS). This manuscript provides data on German oncologists' views concerning due criteria for the assessment of requests for PAS and quality assurance. Methods The German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) has conducted a survey among its members to elicit data about practices and views on regulating PAS in March 2021. Descriptive analysis and bivariate logistic regression of quantitative data on socio‐demographic and other determinants possibly associated with respondents' views on PAS as well as content analysis of qualitative data were performed. Results About 57.1% (n = 425) of respondents (n = 745) indicated that they had been asked for information about PAS by patients. Information about palliative (92.7%; n = 651) and psychological care options (85.6%; n = 598) was deemed most important in cases of requests for PAS. More than half of the respondents (57.6%; n = 429) were in favour of a formal expert assessment of decisional capacity and about 33.4% (n = 249) favoured a time span of 14 days between the counselling and prescription of a lethal drug. There was no association between participants who received more requests and a preference for disclosing publicly their willingness to assist with suicide. A majority of respondents requested measures of quality assurance (71.3%; n = 531). Conclusion According to respondents' views, the regulation of PAS will require diligent procedures regarding the assessment of decisional capacity and counselling. The findings suggest that the development of adequate and feasible criteria to assess the quality of practices is an important task.

BackgroundDigital assistive technologies have the potential to address the pressing need for adequate therapy options for patients with long COVID (also known as post–COVID-19 condition) by enabling the implementation of individual and independent rehabilitation programs. However, the involvement of the target patient group is necessary to develop digital devices that are closely aligned to the needs of this particular patient group. ObjectiveParticipatory design approaches, such as cocreation, may be a solution for achieving usability and user acceptance. However, there are currently no set methods for implementing cocreative development processes incorporating patients. This study addresses the following research questions: what are the tasks and challenges associated with the involvement of patient groups? What lessons can be learned regarding the adequate involvement of patients with long COVID? MethodsFirst, a literature review based on a 3-stage snowball process was conducted to identify the tasks and challenges emerging in the context of the cocreation of digital assistive devices and services with patient groups. Second, a qualitative analysis was conducted in an attempt to extract relevant findings and criteria from the identified studies. Third, using the method of theory adaptation, this paper presents recommendations for the further development of the existing concepts of cocreation in relation to patients with long COVID. ResultsThe challenges of an active involvement of patients in cocreative development in health care include hierarchical barriers and differences in the levels of specific knowledge between professionals and patients. In the case of long COVID, patients themselves are still inexperienced in dealing with their symptoms and are hardly organized into established groups. This amplifies general hurdles and leads to questions of group identity, power structure, and knowledge creation, which are not sufficiently addressed by the current methods of cocreation. ConclusionsThe adaptation of transdisciplinary methods to cocreative development approaches focusing on collaborative and inclusive communication can address the recurring challenges of actively integrating patients with long COVID into development processes.

Abstract Background According to recent legislation, facilitated advance care planning (ACP) for nursing home (NH) residents is covered by German sickness funds. However, the effects of ACP on patient-relevant outcomes have not been studied in Germany yet. This study investigates whether implementing a complex regional ACP intervention improves care consistency with care preferences in NH residents. Methods This is a parallel-group cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with 48 NHs (≈ 3840 resident beds) between 09/2019 and 02/2023. The intervention group will receive a complex, regional ACP intervention aiming at sustainable systems redesign at all levels (individual, institutional, regional). The intervention comprises comprehensive training of ACP facilitators, implementation of reliable ACP processes, organizational development in the NH and other relevant institutions of the regional healthcare system, and education of health professionals caring for the residents. Control group NHs will deliver care as usual. Primary outcome is the hospitalization rate during the 12-months observation period. Secondary outcomes include the rate of residents whose preferences were known and honored in potentially life-threatening events, hospital days, index treatments like resuscitation and artificial ventilation, advance directives, quality of life, psychological burden on bereaved families, and costs of care. The NHs will provide anonymous, aggregated data of all their residents on the primary outcome and several secondary outcomes (data collection 1). For residents who have given informed consent, we will evaluate care consistency with care preferences and further secondary outcomes, based on chart reviews and short interviews with residents, surrogates, and carers (data collection 2). Process evaluation will aim to explain barriers and facilitators, economic evaluation the cost implications. Discussion This study has the potential for high-quality evidence on the effects of a complex regional ACP intervention on NH residents, their families and surrogates, NH staff, and health care utilization in Germany. It is the first cRCT investigating a comprehensive regional ACP intervention that aims at improving patient-relevant clinical outcomes, addressing and educating multiple institutions and health care providers, besides qualification of ACP facilitators. Thereby, it can generate evidence on the potential of ACP to effectively promote patient-centered care in the vulnerable population of frail and often chronically ill elderly. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04333303 . Registered 30 March 2020.

Abstract Background Clinical ethics case consultations (CECCs) provide a structured approach in situations of ethical uncertainty or conflicts. There have been increasing calls in recent years to assess the quality of CECCs by means of empirical research. This study provides detailed data of a descriptive quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a CECC service in a department of cardiology and intensive care at a German university hospital. Methods Semi-structured document analysis of CECCs was conducted in the period of November 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. All documents were analysed by two researchers independently. Results Twenty-four CECCs were requested within the study period, of which most (n = 22; 92%) had been initiated by physicians of the department. The patients were an average of 79 years old (R: 43–96), and 14 (58%) patients were female. The median length of stay prior to request was 12.5 days (R: 1–65 days). The most frequent diagnoses (several diagnoses possible) were cardiology-related (n = 29), followed by sepsis (n = 11) and cancer (n = 6). Twenty patients lacked decisional capacity. The main reason for a CECC request was uncertainty about the balancing of potential benefit and harm related to the medically indicated treatment (n = 18). Further reasons included differing views regarding the best individual treatment option between health professionals and patients (n = 3) or between different team members (n = 3). Consensus between participants could be reached in 18 (75%) consultations. The implementation of a disease specific treatment intervention was recommended in five cases. Palliative care and limitation of further disease specific interventions was recommended in 12 cases. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first in-depth evaluation of a CECC service set up for an academic department of cardiology and intensive medical care. Patient characteristics and the issues deliberated during CECC provide a starting point for the development and testing of more tailored clinical ethics support services and research on CECC outcomes.

Abstract Background Sedation in palliative care is frequently but controversially discussed. Heterogeneous definitions and conceptual confusion have been cited as contributing to different problems 1) relevant to empirical research, for example, inconsistent data about practice, the ‘data problem’, and 2) relevant for an ethically legitimate characterisation of the practice, the ‘problem of ethical pre-emption’. However, little is known about how exactly definitions differ, how they cause confusion and how this can be overcome. Method Pre-explicative analyses: (A) systematic literature search for guidelines on sedation in palliative care and systematic decomposition of the definitions of the practice in these guidelines; (B) logical distinction of different ways through which the two problems reported might be caused by definitions; and (C) analysis of how content of the definitions contributes to the problems reported in these different ways. Results 29 guidelines from 14 countries were identified. Definitions differ significantly in both structure and content. We identified three ways in which definitions can cause the ‘data problem’ – 1) different definitions, 2) deviating implicit concepts, 3) disagreement about facts. We identified two ways to cause the problem of ethical pre-emption: 1) explicit or 2) implicit normativity. Decomposition of definitions linked to the distinguished ways of causing the conceptual problems shows how exactly single parts of definitions can cause the problems identified. Conclusion Current challenges concerning empirical research on sedation in palliative care can be remediated partly by improved definitions in the future, if content and structure of the used definitions is chosen systematically. In addition, future research should bear in mind that there are distinct purposes of definitions. Regarding the ‘data problem’, improving definitions is possible in terms of supplementary information, checking for implicit understanding, systematic choice of definitional elements. ‘Ethical pre-emption’, in contrast, is a pseudo problem if definitions and the relationship of definitions and norms of good practice are understood correctly.

Abstract Background Evaluating clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been hailed as important research task. At the same time, there is considerable debate about how to evaluate CESS appropriately. The criticism, which has been aired, refers to normative as well as empirical aspects of evaluating CESS. Main body In this paper, we argue that a first necessary step for progress is to better understand the intervention(s) in CESS. Tools of complex intervention research methodology may provide relevant means in this respect. In a first step, we introduce principles of “complex intervention research” and show how CESS fulfil the criteria of “complex interventions”. In a second step, we develop a generic “conceptual framework” for “ethics consultation on request” as standard for many forms of ethics consultation in clinical ethics practice. We apply this conceptual framework to the model of “bioethics mediation” to make explicit the specific structural and procedural elements of this form of ethics consultation on request. In a final step we conduct a comparative analysis of two different types of CESS, which have been subject to evaluation research: “proactive ethics consultation” and “moral case deliberation” and discuss implications for evaluating both types of CESS. Conclusion To make explicit different premises of implemented CESS interventions by means of conceptual frameworks can inform the search for sound empirical evaluation of CESS. In addition, such work provides a starting point for further reflection about what it means to offer “good” CESS.

BackgroundTo support advanced cancer patients and their oncologists in therapeutic decisions, we aim to develop a decision aid (DA) in a multiphased, bicentric study. The DA aims to help patients to better understand risks and benefits of the available treatment options including the options of standard palliative care or cancer-specific treatment (ie, off-label drug use within an individual treatment plan). ObjectiveThis study protocol outlines the development and testing of the DA in a pre-post study targeting a heterogeneous population of advanced cancer patients. MethodsIn the first step, we will assess patients’ information and decisional needs as well as the views of the health care providers regarding the content and implementation of the DA. Through a scoping review, we aim to analyze specific characteristics of the decision-making process and to specify the treatment options, outcomes, and probabilities. An interdisciplinary research group of experts will develop and review the DA. In the second step, testing of the DA (design and field testing) with patients and oncologists will be conducted. As a last step, we will run a pre-post design study with 70 doctor-patient encounters to assess improvements on the primary study outcome: patients’ level of decisional conflict. In addition, the user acceptance of all involved parties will be tested. ResultsInterviews with cancer patients, oncologists, and health care providers (ie, nurses, nutritionists) as well as a literature review from phase I have been completed. The field testing is scheduled for April 2021 to August 2021, with the final revision scheduled for September 2021. The pre-post study of the DA and acceptance testing are scheduled to start in October 2021 and shall be finished in September 2022. ConclusionsA unique feature of this study is the development of a DA for patients with different types of advanced cancer, which covers a wide range of topics relevant for patients near the end of life such as forgoing cancer-specific therapy and switching to best supportive care. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04606238; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04606238. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/24954

Background: Ethics consultation has been advocated as a valuable tool in ethically challenging clinical situations in healthcare. It is paramount for the development and implementation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) in psychiatry that interventions can address the moral needs of mental health professionals adequately and communicate the nature of the services clearly. This study explores types of ethical problems and concepts of ethical expertise as core elements of CESS in mental healthcare with the aim of contributing to the further development of ethical support in psychiatry.Methods: We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with mental health professionals and CESS members and triangulated them with four non-participant observations of ethical case consultations in psychiatry. Data were analyzed according to principles of grounded theory and are discussed from a normative perspective.Results: The analysis of the empirical data reveals a typology of three different ethical problems professionals want to refer to CESS: (1) Dyadic problems based on the relationship between patients and professionals, (2) triangular problems, where a third party is involved and affected as a side effect, and (3) problems on a systemic level. However, CESS members focus largely on types (1) and (2), while the third remains unrecognized or members do not feel responsible for these problems. Furthermore, they reflect a strong inner tension connected to their role as ethical experts which can be depicted as a dilemma. On the one hand, as ethically trained people, they reject the idea that their judgments have expert status. On the other hand, they feel that mental health professionals reach out for them to obtain guidance and that it is their responsibility to offer it.Conclusion: CESS members and professionals in mental healthcare have different ideas of the scope of responsibility of CESS. This contains the risk of misunderstandings and misconceptions and may affect the quality of consultations. It is necessary to adapt concepts of problem solving to practitioners' needs to overcome these problems. Secondly, CESS members struggle with their role as ethical experts. CESS members in psychiatry need to develop a stable professional identity. Theoretical clarification and practical training are needed.

Abstract Background This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds. Methods The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach. Results Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise). Conclusions Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

Abstract This paper responds to the commentaries from Stacy Carter and Alan Cribb. We pick up on two main themes in our response. First, we reflect on how the process of setting standards for empirical bioethics research entails drawing boundaries around what research counts as empirical bioethics research, and we discuss whether the standards agreed in the consensus process draw these boundaries correctly. Second, we expand on the discussion in the original paper of the role and significance of the concept of ‘integrating’ empirical methods and ethical argument as a standard for research practice within empirical bioethics.

Abstract In 2014, the editorial board of BMC Medical Ethics came together to devise sections for the journal that would (a) give structure to the journal (b) help ensure that authors’ research is matched to the most appropriate editors and (c) help readers to find the research most relevant to them. The editorial board decided to take a practical approach to devising sections that dealt with the challenges of content management. After that, we started thinking more theoretically about how one could go about classifying the field of medical ethics. This editorial elaborates and reflects on the practical approach that we took at the journal, then considers an alternative theoretically derived approach, and reflects on the possibilities, challenges and value of classifying the field more broadly.

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) refers to the nonmedical use of prescription or recreational drugs to enhance cognitive performance. Several concerns about PCE have been raised in the public. The aim of the present study was to investigate students' attitudes toward PCE. Students at three Swiss universities were invited by e-mail to participate in a web-based survey. Of the 29,282 students who were contacted, 3,056 participated. Of these students, 22% indicated that they had used prescription drugs (12%) or recreational substances including alcohol (14%) at least once for PCE. The use of prescription drugs or recreational substances including alcohol prior to the last exam was reported by 16%. Users of pharmacological cognitive enhancers were more likely to consider PCE fair (24%) compared with nonusers (11%). Only a minority of the participants agreed with the nonmedical use of prescription drugs by fellow students when assuming weak (7%) or hypothetically strong efficacy and availability to everyone (14%). Two-thirds (68%) considered performance that is obtained with PCE less worthy of recognition. Additionally, 80% disagreed that PCE is acceptable in a competitive environment. More than half (64%) agreed that PCE in academia is similar to doping in sports. Nearly half (48%) claimed that unregulated access to pharmacological cognitive enhancers increases the pressure to engage in PCE and educational inequality (55%). In conclusion, Swiss students' main concerns regarding PCE were related to coercion and fairness. As expected, these concerns were more prevalent among nonusers than among users of pharmacological cognitive enhancers. More balanced information on PCE should be shared with students, and future monitoring of PCE is recommended.