For a honest Maghreb care system. Systematic Review of the International Literature on Corruption in the Health care System.

INTRODUCTION: Corruption in the health care system is a universal phenomenon, putting at risk the health of populations. The purpose of this work was to synthesize the international literature on corruption in the health sector. METHODS: This is a systematic review of literature dealing with articles on health corruption practices, published between July 2008 and June 2018, via two search engines: PubMed and Google Scholar. The extracted data were narratively summarized in three major areas: defining the concept of corruption in health, its typology / manifestations and anti-corruption interventions. RESULTS: A total of 23 articles were selected for final analysis. The articles that defined health corruption shared two key aspects: "abuse of power" and "benefit". The main types of corruption were "abuse of therapeutic indication", followed by "bribes" and "falsification". The anti-corruption interventions were synthesized into seven types: creation of an independent multi-interventional agency, support for scientific research, law enforcement, awareness raising, detection, reporting and institutional commitment. CONCLUSION: Based on the use of power, corruption in health is a complex phenomenon whose struggle requires a specific and contextualized strategy integrating information, detection and punishment.

Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015-2017.

Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.

Unethical Aspects of Open Access.

In this article, we identify and discuss several ethically problematic aspects of open access scientific publishing. We conclude that, despite some positive effects, paid open access has at least three unethical aspects: it discriminates against researchers, creates an editorial conflict of interest, and diverts funding from the actual conduct of research. To be truly open access, all researchers must be able to access its benefits.

"You cannot collect data using your own resources and put It on open access": Perspectives from Africa about public health data-sharing.

Data-sharing is a desired default in the field of public health and a source of much ethical deliberation. Sharing data potentially contributes the largest, most efficient source of scientific data, but is fraught with contextual challenges which make stakeholders, particularly those in under-resourced contexts hesitant or slow to share. Relatively little empirical research has engaged stakeholders in discussing the issue. This study sought to explore relevant experiences, contextual, and subjective explanations around the topic to provide a rich and detailed presentation of what it means to different stakeholders and contexts to share data and how that can guide practice and ethical guidance. A qualitative design involving interviews was undertaken with professionals working in public health institutions endowed with data (HDSS), ethics committees, and advisory agencies which help shape health research in Africa. A descriptive form of thematic analysis was used to summarize results into six key themes: (1) The role of HDSSs in research using public health data and data-sharing; (2) Ownership and funding are critical factors influencing data-sharing; (3) Other factors discourage data-sharing; (4) Promoting and sustaining data-sharing; (5) Ethical guidance structures; and (6) Establishing effective guidance. The themes reveal factors regarding the willingness or not to share and an intricate ethical system that current discourse could reflect. Many of the concerns resonate with the literature, but a whole other gamut of people and process issues; commitments, investments, careers, and the right ethical guidance are needed to realize a sustainable goal of reaching 'share' as a default.

Views of Cohort Study Participants about Returning Research Results in the Context of Precision Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The practice of biorepository-based genetics research raises questions related to what ethical obligations researchers have to their participants. It is important to explore and include the thoughts of current biorepository participants as we move forward with this type of research. METHODS: Thirty participants (17 cancer patients, 7 cancer-free controls, and 6 relatives) were drawn from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and participated in qualitative interviews lasting between 45 and 90 min. Topics explored in this study include which types of genetic test results participants of large biorepositories expect and would like to receive from research analyzing their samples, as well as thoughts on best practice for conducting this type of research. RESULTS: Cancer cases, controls, and first-degree relatives have differing views on what results they would like to receive from biorepository-based research. Participants across all groups attempted to balance the costs and benefits of returning individual research results. DISCUSSION: In the wake of precision medicine, it is important to describe the range of ways participants in large biorepositories both think and talk about the utilization of their specimens for genetics research.

Public Figures, Professional Ethics, and the Media.

Death certificates and autopsy reports contain personal identifying information and clinical information protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. These documents are used, for example, by the families of the deceased for settling estates, bereavement and closure, and genetic counseling of relatives. Insurance companies, public health and law enforcement officials, and the legal community also have legitimate claims to this information. Critical ethical questions have not yet been settled about whether and when this information should be public and under which circumstances making this kind of information public incurs benefits, harms, or both. Additional considerations include which organizations-the media, academic institutions, or government agencies, for example-are best suited to interpret these questions and respond to them.

Direct to consumer genetic testing and the libertarian right to test.

I sketch a libertarian argument for the right to test in the context of 'direct to consumer' (DTC) genetic testing. A libertarian right to genetic tests, as defined here, relies on the idea of a moral right to self-ownership. I show how a libertarian right to test can be inferred from this general libertarian premise, at least as a prima facie right, shifting the burden of justification on regulators. I distinguish this distinctively libertarian position from some arguments based on considerations of utility or autonomy, which are sometimes labelled 'libertarian' because they oppose a tight regulation of the direct to consumer genetic testing sector. If one takes the libertarian right to test as a starting point, the whole discussion concerning autonomy and personal utility may be sidestepped. Finally, I briefly consider some considerations that justify the regulation of the DTC genetic testing market, compatible with the recognition of a prima facie right to test.