[Supporting medical and nursing activities with AI: recommendations for responsible design and use]. / Unterstützung ärztlicher und pflegerischer Tätigkeit durch KI: Handlungsempfehlungen für eine verantwortbare Gestaltung und Nutzung.

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) based on artificial intelligence (AI) are complex socio-technical innovations and are increasingly being used in medicine and nursing to improve the overall quality and efficiency of care, while also addressing limited financial and human resources. However, in addition to such intended clinical and organisational effects, far-reaching ethical, social and legal implications of AI-based CDSS on patient care and nursing are to be expected. To date, these normative-social implications have not been sufficiently investigated. The BMBF-funded project DESIREE (DEcision Support In Routine and Emergency HEalth Care: Ethical and Social Implications) has developed recommendations for the responsible design and use of clinical decision support systems. This article focuses primarily on ethical and social aspects of AI-based CDSS that could have a negative impact on patient health. Our recommendations are intended as additions to existing recommendations and are divided into the following action fields with relevance across all stakeholder groups: development, clinical use, information and consent, education and training, and (accompanying) research.

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.

Responsibility and decision-making authority in using clinical decision support systems: an empirical-ethical exploration of German prospective professionals' preferences and concerns.

Machine learning-driven clinical decision support systems (ML-CDSSs) seem impressively promising for future routine and emergency care. However, reflection on their clinical implementation reveals a wide array of ethical challenges. The preferences, concerns and expectations of professional stakeholders remain largely unexplored. Empirical research, however, may help to clarify the conceptual debate and its aspects in terms of their relevance for clinical practice. This study explores, from an ethical point of view, future healthcare professionals' attitudes to potential changes of responsibility and decision-making authority when using ML-CDSS. Twenty-seven semistructured interviews were conducted with German medical students and nursing trainees. The data were analysed based on qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. Interviewees' reflections are presented under three themes the interviewees describe as closely related: (self-)attribution of responsibility, decision-making authority and need of (professional) experience. The results illustrate the conceptual interconnectedness of professional responsibility and its structural and epistemic preconditions to be able to fulfil clinicians' responsibility in a meaningful manner. The study also sheds light on the four relata of responsibility understood as a relational concept. The article closes with concrete suggestions for the ethically sound clinical implementation of ML-CDSS.

The Deception of Certainty: how Non-Interpretable Machine Learning Outcomes Challenge the Epistemic Authority of Physicians. A deliberative-relational Approach.

Developments in Machine Learning (ML) have attracted attention in a wide range of healthcare fields to improve medical practice and the benefit of patients. Particularly, this should be achieved by providing more or less automated decision recommendations to the treating physician. However, some hopes placed in ML for healthcare seem to be disappointed, at least in part, by a lack of transparency or traceability. Skepticism exists primarily in the fact that the physician, as the person responsible for diagnosis, therapy, and care, has no or insufficient insight into how such recommendations are reached. The following paper aims to make understandable the specificity of the deliberative model of a physician-patient relationship that has been achieved over decades. By outlining the (social-)epistemic and inherently normative relationship between physicians and patients, I want to show how this relationship might be altered by non-traceable ML recommendations. With respect to some healthcare decisions, such changes in deliberative practice may create normatively far-reaching challenges. Therefore, in the future, a differentiation of decision-making situations in healthcare with respect to the necessary depth of insight into the process of outcome generation seems essential.

Admitting the heterogeneity of social inequalities: intersectionality as a (self-)critical framework and tool within mental health care.

Inequities shape the everyday experiences and life chances of individuals at the margins of societies and are often associated with lower health and particular challenges in accessing quality treatment and support. This fact is even more dramatic for those individuals who live at the nexus of different marginalized groups and thus may face multiple discrimination, stigma, and oppression. To address these multiple social and structural disadvantages, intersectional approaches have recently gained a foothold, especially in the public health field. This study makes an empirically informed argument for the merits of increasing the use of intersectional frameworks in the mental health field. In the mental health field, the potential for greater attention to multiple unjustified disadvantages appears to be of particular importance, as many mental health service users already face stigma and discrimination because of their mental health issues and thus may benefit particularly frequently and far-reachingly from effective problem awareness about multiple disadvantages. Intersectional approaches may help address the complexity, interdependence, and mutual constitution of social inequalities better than previous approaches that examined only one category of sociostructural stratification. By helping to identify the needs of those at the greatest risk of poor health, intersectional frameworks and tools can contribute not only to better address the needs of multiple disadvantaged individuals with mental health issues but also to the promotion of equity in the field of mental health, contributing to the reduction of health disparities.

Evidence for a Selectively Regulated Prioritization Shift Depending on Walking Situations in Older Adults.

Background: Older adults have increased risks of balance issues and falls when walking and performing turns in daily situations. Changes of prioritization during different walking situations associated with dual tasking may contribute to these deficits. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate whether older adults demonstrate changes of prioritization during different walking paths. Methods: In total, 1,054 subjects with an age range from 50 to 83 years were selected from the first follow-up visit of the TREND (Tuebinger evaluation of Risk factors for Early detection of Neurodegenerative Disorders) study. They were classified according to their performance on the Trail Making Test (TMT) into good and poor TMT performers (based on recent results showing that cognitive flexibility affects prioritization strategies during straight walking). Absolute dual-task performance and relative dual-task costs (DTC, relative performance under dual-task conditions compared with single-task conditions) were assessed in two paradigms: walking while subtracting serial 7 s and walking while checking boxes on a clipboard. Both tasks were performed on straight and curved paths. Results: Overall, the poor TMT performers group performed worse in all single and dual tasks. Interestingly, the relative change in performance measured by dual-task costs differed in the groups between the two walking paths. On straight paths, poor TMT performers had a similar DTC of walking to that of good performers (p = 0.10) but had a significantly lower DTC of subtracting (p = 0.02). On curved paths, poor performers had a similar DTC of subtracting (p = 0.10), but their DTC of walking was significantly higher (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Given that walking on curved paths is considered more difficult than that on straight paths and that the serial subtracting dual task is more difficult than the box checking dual task, this study in older adults provides evidence for the existence of a (walking) situation-dependent change of prioritization. If confirmed in other studies, situation-dependent change of prioritization should be included as a potential factor contributing to gait and balance impairments, and increased fall risk in older adults.