Moral distress and protective work environment for healthcare workers during public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND: Public health emergencies, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, put great pressure on healthcare workers (HCW) across the world, possibly increasing the risk of experiencing ethically challenging situations (ECS). Whereas experiencing ECS as a HCW in such situations is likely unavoidable, mitigation of their adverse effects (e.g., moral distress) is necessary to reduce the risk of long-term negative consequences. One possible route of mitigation of these effects is via work environmental factors. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to examine: [1] risk factors associated with ECS among HCW [2], intensity of moral distress associated with ECS across various occupational factors (i.e., profession, degree of exposure to patients with Covid-19), and [3] the impact of work environmental factors on this association, in a sample of HCW during the pandemic. METHODS: We employed multiple logistic and linear regression to self-report data from 977 HCWs at four Norwegian hospitals responding to a survey at the fourth wave of the pandemic. RESULTS: About half of HCW in this study had experienced ECS during the pandemic, and levels of moral distress associated with such were higher than in previous studies using similar assessment methods. Younger age, female sex, geographical work area (mid-north of Norway), and profession (nurse) were all associated with higher odds (range of OR: 1.30-2.59) of experiencing ECS, as were direct contact with patients with Covid-19. Among those participants who reported that they had experienced ECS during the pandemic, moral distress levels when recalling those situations were moderate (Mean 5.7 on a 0-10 scale). Men reported somewhat lower intensity of moral distress (partial eta squared; ηp2 = 0.02). Reporting a manageable workload (ηp2 = 0.02), and greater opportunity to work according to best practice (ηp2 = 0.02), were associated with lower levels of moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that moral distress could potentially be mitigated on an organizational level, particularly by focusing on ensuring a manageable workload, and an ability to work according to best practice. To build sustainable healthcare systems robust enough to withstand future public health emergencies, healthcare organizations should implement measures to facilitate these aspects of HCWs' work environment.

What Are Epidemiological Foundations for Integrating Legal Services Into Health Care Settings?

Medical-legal partnerships vary widely in how they are structured and use data to inform service delivery. Epidemiological data on certain chronic conditions' prevalence, the incidence of potentially preventable morbidity, and health-harming legal factors also influence approaches to care. This article draws on a pediatric example of how data-driven medical care complements data-driven legal care. This article also considers medical and public health ethical frameworks to guide protected information sharing, promote optimal service delivery, and achieve the best possible medical-legal outcomes.

The use of individual tracking programs in public health: a bioethics dilemma.

OBJECTIVE: to understand the bioethical perspectives on mobile tracking device use. METHODS: theoretical study based on action research, carried out with eight graduate students from a public university. A focus group was used, with a thematic content analysis methodology with a codebook structure, approved by the Research Ethics Committee. RESULTS: from the analysis, there was a concern about using devices after the pandemic ended. Using or not the device, rights inherent to humans, legislation and effectiveness of methods deepen interpretations, moving participants from a personalistic conception of the topic to a vision focused on professional implications about the methods. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: the debate on the impact of using technological devices on health, especially those that imply restriction of rights that refer to individuals' private life, involves a discussion of a professional nature, in addition to requirement for clear rules on the topic.

KPHA 2023 should explicitly include state accountability: Response to Fernandez et al.

The commentary "Public health ethics and the Kerala Public Health Act, 2023" published on January 27, 2024 in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME) has received a response from members of the State Health Systems Resource Centre and Government Medical College, Malappuram, Kerala. They explain that the Kerala Public Health Act (KPHA) is a legal document and not required to explicitly include accountability mechanisms and social obligations of the state. Given the very real danger of state over-reach as was evident during the Covid pandemic, these checks and balances should, in fact, be non-negotiable. The position of KPHA on healthcare of migrant workers and patients with tuberculosis goes against existing public healthcare principles. There is therefore a need to revisit the Act to explicitly include state accountability.

Health Equity and Ethical Considerations in Using Artificial Intelligence in Public Health and Medicine.

This commentary explores the critical roles of health equity and ethical considerations in the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in public health and medicine. As AI increasingly permeates these fields, it promises substantial benefits but also poses risks that could exacerbate existing disparities and ethical challenges. This commentary delves into the current integration of AI technologies, underscores the importance of ethical social responsibility, and discusses the implications for practice and policy. Recommendations are provided to ensure AI advancements are leveraged responsibly, promoting equitable health outcomes and adhering to rigorous ethical standards across all populations.

"Lives versus livelihoods": Conflict and coherence between policy objectives in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many policies were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to manage the negative impact of the coronavirus. Limiting severe illness and death was one important objective of these policies, but it is widely acknowledged by public health ethicists that pandemic policies needed to consider other factors. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 38 people across 17 states who participated in the state-level COVID-19 pandemic policy process, we examine how those actors recounted their engagement with four different objectives over the course of the pandemic: protecting public health with respect to COVID-19 (which we refer to as pathogen-focused disease prevention), protecting the economy, promoting the public's broader health and wellbeing, and preserving and restoring individual freedoms. We describe the different ways that pathogen-focused disease prevention was thought to have conflicted with, or to have been coherent with, the other three policy objectives over the course of the pandemic. In tracing the shifting relationships between objectives, we highlight four reasons put forward by the participants for why policy changes occurred throughout the pandemic: a change on the part of decisionmaker(s) regarding the perceived acceptability of the negative effects of a policy on one or more policy objectives; a change in the epistemic context; a change in the 'tools in the toolbox'; and a change in the public's attitudes that affected the feasibility of a policy. We conclude by considering the ethical implications of the shifting relationships that were described between objectives over the course of the pandemic.

Non-empirical methods for ethics research on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health: a systematic journal review.

Bioethics has developed approaches to address ethical issues in health care, similar to how technology ethics provides guidelines for ethical research on artificial intelligence, big data, and robotic applications. As these digital technologies are increasingly used in medicine, health care and public health, thus, it is plausible that the approaches of technology ethics have influenced bioethical research. Similar to the "empirical turn" in bioethics, which led to intense debates about appropriate moral theories, ethical frameworks and meta-ethics due to the increased use of empirical methodologies from social sciences, the proliferation of health-related subtypes of technology ethics might have a comparable impact on current bioethical research. This systematic journal review analyses the reporting of ethical frameworks and non-empirical methods in argument-based research articles on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health that have been published in high-impact bioethics journals. We focus on articles reporting non-empirical research in original contributions. Our aim is to describe currently used methods for the ethical analysis of ethical issues regarding the application of digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health. We confine our analysis to non-empirical methods because empirical methods have been well-researched elsewhere. Finally, we discuss our findings against the background of established methods for health technology assessment, the lack of a typology for non-empirical methods as well as conceptual and methodical change in bioethics. Our descriptive results may serve as a starting point for reflecting on whether current ethical frameworks and non-empirical methods are appropriate to research ethical issues deriving from the application of digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health.

COVID-19 ethics: unique aspects and a review as of early 2024.

COVID-19 presents a variety of ethical challenges in a set of arenas, arenas not always considered in past pandemics. These challenges include issues related to autonomy, distributive ethics, and the establishment of policies of equity and justice. Methods are a literature review based on regular editing of an online textbook during the COVID-19 outbreak and a literature review using key ethical terms. Patients are confronted with new issues related to autonomy. Providers need to expand their concepts of ethical issues to include decisions based on proportionality and public health ethics. The public health sector needs to assess the beneficence of alternative modes of disease control. The research community needs to redefine the concept of informed consent in emergent conditions. All elements of the medical spectrum-physicians, scientists, and the community-at-large including the pharmaceutical industry-need to consider the multifaceted methods for preventing future pandemics. This will require giving particular emphasis to public health funding and ending the documented discrimination that exists in the provision of proven therapies. The developing world is especially at risk for most of the ethical issues, especially those related to equity and justice. The ethical issues associated with the COVID-19 outbreak are not unique but provide a diverse set of issues that apply to patients, providers, social groups, and investigators. The further study of such issues can help with preventing future outbreaks.

Can a human right to good mental health be justified?

Can a human right to good mental health be justified? This is an under-explored question: until recently, rights in relation to mental health have been framed and debated primarily in terms of their relevance to psychosocial disability and mental ill-health/mental distress. By contrast, in this article, I propose the basis of a normative justification for a population-wide right to good mental health, focusing in particular on individuals who do not experience mental ill-health/distress or do not have (or may never have) a psychiatric diagnosis or a psychosocial disability. The article is structured into three parts. First, I will outline the emergence of a population-wide right to good mental health in mental health discourse, led by recent reports published by the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Danius Puras. I will then go on to explore what we might understand by 'good mental health'. Finally, I will explain how a right to good mental health may be justified, drawing on insights from compassion, 'vulnerable agency', and James Wilson's account of 'a right to public health'. I then respond to feasibility and demandingness concerns about such a right, which together inform the basis of the qualified public health right to good mental health I propose.

Anti-obesity Medications: Ethical, Policy, and Public Health Concerns.

New anti-obesity medications (AOMs) have received widespread acclaim in medical journals and the media, but they also raise critical ethical, public health, and public policy concerns that have largely been ignored. AOMs are very costly, need to be taken by a patient in perpetuity (since significant rebound weight gain otherwise occurs), and threaten to shift resources and focus away from other crucial efforts at obesity treatment and prevention. Many people may feel less motivated to exercise or reduce their caloric consumption, if they assume that obesity is now medically treatable. Policy-makers may similarly come to feel that the solution to the obesity pandemic is simply to prescribe medications and that prevention efforts are far less necessary. These drugs raise concerns about justice (since AOMs will disproportionately benefit the wealthy), medicalization, and marketing. Policy-makers, clinicians, and others need to engage in multipronged educational and policy efforts to address these challenges.

A Federally Qualified Health Center-led Ethics & Equity Framework & Workflow Checklist: An Invited Commentary in Response to a Relational Public Health Framing of FQHCs During COVID-19.

With disparate rates of morbidity and mortality among minoritized communities, COVID-19 illuminated the need for equity-informed practices in public health. Pacia et al posit FQHCs as entities that addressed inequity when others failed. This commentary further situates how FQHCs address the public health crisis of institutional racism and related health inequities every day and presents a FQHC-led Ethics and Equity Framework and Workflow Checklist to guide ethical and equitable engagement with FQHCs.

A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments, multilateral public health organisations and research institutions to undertake research quickly to inform their responses to the pandemic. Most COVID-19-related studies required swift approval, creating ethical and practical challenges for regulatory authorities and researchers. In this paper, we examine the landscape of ethics review processes in Africa during public health emergencies (PHEs). METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (Web of Science, PUBMED, MEDLINE Complete, and CINAHL) to identify articles describing ethics review processes during public health emergencies and/or pandemics. We selected and reviewed those articles that were focused on Africa. We charted the data from the retrieved articles including the authors and year of publication, title, country and disease(s) reference, broad areas of (ethical) consideration, paper type, and approach. RESULTS: Of an initial 4536 records retrieved, we screened the titles and abstracts of 1491 articles, and identified 72 articles for full review. Nine articles were selected for inclusion. Of these nine articles, five referenced West African countries including Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, and experiences linked to the Ebola virus disease. Two articles focused on South Africa and Kenya, while the other two articles discussed more general experiences and pitfalls of ethics review during PHEs in Africa more broadly. We found no articles published on ethics review processes in Africa before the 2014 Ebola outbreak, and only a few before the COVID-19 outbreak. Although guidelines on protocol review and approval processes for PHEs were more frequently discussed after the 2014 Ebola outbreak, these did not focus on Africa specifically. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap in the literature about ethics review processes and preparedness within Africa during PHEs. This paper underscores the importance of these processes to inform practices that facilitate timely, context-relevant research that adequately recognises and reinforces human dignity within the quest to advance scientific knowledge about diseases. This is important to improve fast responses to PHEs, reduce mortality and morbidity, and enhance the quality of care before, during, and after pandemics.

Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The internet community has become a significant source for researchers to conduct qualitative studies analyzing users' views, attitudes, and experiences about public health. However, few studies have assessed the ethical issues in qualitative research using social media data. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the reportage of ethical considerations in qualitative research utilizing social media data on public health care. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of studies mining text from internet communities and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2010 to May 31, 2023. These studies, limited to the English language, were retrieved to evaluate the rates of reporting ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues. We searched 5 databases, that is, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Embase. Gray literature was supplemented from Google Scholar and OpenGrey websites. Studies using qualitative methods mining text from the internet community focusing on health care topics were deemed eligible. Data extraction was performed using a standardized data extraction spreadsheet. Findings were reported using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. RESULTS: After 4674 titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, 108 studies on mining text from the internet community were included. Nearly half of the studies were published in the United States, with more studies from 2019 to 2022. Only 59.3% (64/108) of the studies sought ethical approval, 45.3% (49/108) mentioned informed consent, and only 12.9% (14/108) of the studies explicitly obtained informed consent. Approximately 86% (12/14) of the studies that reported informed consent obtained digital informed consent from participants/administrators, while 14% (2/14) did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent. Notably, 70.3% (76/108) of the studies contained users' written content or posts: 68% (52/76) contained verbatim quotes, while 32% (24/76) paraphrased the quotes to prevent traceability. However, 16% (4/24) of the studies that paraphrased the quotes did not report the paraphrasing methods. Moreover, 18.5% (20/108) of the studies used aggregated data analysis to protect users' privacy. Furthermore, the rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different countries (P=.02) and between papers that contained users' written content (both direct and paraphrased quotes) and papers that did not contain users' written content (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review demonstrates that the reporting of ethical considerations is widely neglected in qualitative research studies using social media data; such studies should be more cautious in citing user quotes to maintain user privacy. Further, our review reveals the need for detailed information on the precautions of obtaining informed consent and paraphrasing to reduce the potential bias. A national consensus of ethical considerations such as ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues is needed for qualitative research of health care using social media data of internet communities.

Beyond Trade-Offs: Autonomy, Effectiveness, Fairness, and Normativity in Risk and Crisis Communication.

This paper addresses the critiques based on trade-offs and normativity presented in response to our target article proposing the Public Health Emergency Risk and Crisis Communication (PHERCC) framework. These critiques highlight the ethical dilemmas in crisis communication, particularly the balance between promoting public autonomy through transparent information and the potential stigmatization of specific population groups, as illustrated by the discussion of the mpox outbreak among men who have sex with men. This critique underscores the inherent tension between communication effectiveness and autonomy versus fairness and equity. In response, our paper reiterates the adaptability of the PHERCC framework, emphasizing its capacity to tailor messages to diverse audiences, thereby reducing potential stigmatization and misinformation. Through community engagement and feedback integration, the PHERCC framework aims to optimize the effectiveness of communication strategies while addressing ethical concerns. Furthermore, by involving affected communities in the communication strategy from the onset, the framework seeks to minimize ethical trade-offs and enhance the acceptance and effectiveness of public health messages.