Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles. MAIN RESULTS: We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Vulnerability and the Ethics of Human Germline Genome Editing.

The concept of vulnerability has played an important role in theoretical bioethics as well as in numerous authoritative guidelines on research ethics. The concept helps to identify situations in which research participants and other individuals may be at a heightened risk of experiencing harm. However, existing guidance documents on the ethics of human germline gene editing largely fail to make any reference to considerations of vulnerability. In this article, we discuss this oversight and we highlight the role that vulnerability can play in ethical debates about human heritable genome editing. Future guidance documents on germline gene editing should pay attention to considerations of vulnerability and reference these appropriately.

Two kinds of embryo research: four case examples.

There are ethical obligations to conduct research that contributes to generalisable knowledge and improves reproductive health, and this should include embryo research in jurisdictions where it is permitted. Often, the controversial nature of embryo research can alarm ethics committee members, which can unnecessarily delay important research that can potentially improve fertility for patients and society. Such delay is ethically unjustified. Moreover, countries such as the UK, Australia and Singapore have legislation which unnecessarily captures low-risk research, such as observational research, in an often cumbersome and protracted review process. Such countries should revise such legislation to better facilitate low-risk embryo research.We introduce a philosophical distinction to help decision-makers more efficiently identify higher risk embryo research from that which presents no more risks to persons than other types of tissue research. That distinction is between future person embryo research and non-future person embryo research. We apply this distinction to four examples of embryo research that might be presented to ethics committees.Embryo research is most controversial and deserving of detailed scrutiny when it potentially affects a future person. Where it does not, it should generally require less ethical scrutiny. We explore a variety of ways in which research can affect a future person, including by deriving information about that person, and manipulating eggs or sperm before an embryo is created.

Germline genome modification through novel political, ethical, and social lenses.

Much has been written about gene modifying technologies (GMTs), with a particularly strong focus on human germline genome editing (HGGE) sparked by its unprecedented clinical research application in 2018, shocking the scientific community. This paper applies political, ethical, and social lenses to aspects of HGGE to uncover previously underexplored considerations that are important to reflect on in global discussions. By exploring 4 areas-(1) just distribution of HGGE benefits through a realist lens; (2) HGGE through a national interest lens; (3) "broad societal consensus" through a structural injustice lens; and (4) HGGE through a scientific trustworthiness lens-a broader perspective is offered, which ultimately aims to enrich further debates and inform well-considered solutions for developments in this field. The application of these lenses also brings to light the fact that all discussions about scientific developments involve a conscious or unconscious application of a lens that shapes the direction of our thinking.

Germline genome editing: Moratorium, hard law, or an informed adaptive consensus?

With the development of practical means of human germline genome editing (HGGE) in recent years, there have been calls for stricter regulation and oversight over HGGE interventions with potential for heritable changes in the germline. An international moratorium has been advocated. We examine the practicality of such a proposal, as well as of a regulation through the "traditional" mechanisms of international and municipal laws. We argue that these mechanisms are unlikely to achieve their intended objectives and that the better approach is to engage the international community of stakeholders, researchers, scientists, clinicians, and other workers directly involved in the field in working toward the development of an "informed adaptive consensus". We offer suggestions as to how this may be achieved and how existing indirect levers of regulation may be harnessed toward this end.

Trust and Trade-Offs in Sharing Data for Precision Medicine: A National Survey of Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine (PM) programs typically use broad consent. This approach requires maintenance of the social license and public trust. The ultimate success of PM programs will thus likely be contingent upon understanding public expectations about data sharing and establishing appropriate governance structures. There is a lack of data on public attitudes towards PM in Asia. METHODS: The aim of the research was to measure the priorities and preferences of Singaporeans for sharing health-related data for PM. We used adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis (ACBC) with four attributes: uses, users, data sensitivity and consent. We recruited a representative sample of n = 1000 respondents for an in-person household survey. RESULTS: Of the 1000 respondents, 52% were female and majority were in the age range of 40-59 years (40%), followed by 21-39 years (33%) and 60 years and above (27%). A total of 64% were generally willing to share de-identified health data for IRB-approved research without re-consent for each study. Government agencies and public institutions were the most trusted users of data. The importance of the four attributes on respondents' willingness to share data were: users (39.5%), uses (28.5%), data sensitivity (19.5%), consent (12.6%). Most respondents found it acceptable for government agencies and hospitals to use de-identified data for health research with broad consent. Our sample was consistent with official government data on the target population with 52% being female and majority in the age range of 40-59 years (40%), followed by 21-39 years (33%) and 60 years and above (27%). CONCLUSIONS: While a significant body of prior research focuses on preferences for consent, our conjoint analysis found consent was the least important attribute for sharing data. Our findings suggest the social license for PM data sharing in Singapore currently supports linking health and genomic data, sharing with public institutions for health research and quality improvement; but does not support sharing with private health insurers or for private commercial use.

Ethics and regulatory considerations for the clinical translation of somatic cell human epigenetic editing.

Altering the human epigenome with gene-editing technology in attempt to treat a variety of diseases and conditions seems scientifically feasible. We explore some of the ethical and regulatory issues related to the clinical translation of human epigenetic editing arguing that such approaches should be considered akin to somatic therapies.

Perceptions of 'Precision' and 'Personalised' Medicine in Singapore and Associated Ethical Issues.

Governments are investing in precision medicine (PM) with the aim of improving healthcare through the use of genomic analyses and data analytics to develop tailored treatment approaches for individual patients. The success of PM is contingent upon clear public communications that engender trust and secure the social licence to collect and share large population-wide data sets because specific consent for each data re-use is impractical. Variation in the terminology used by different programmes used to describe PM may hinder clear communication and threaten trust. Language is used to create common understanding and expectations regarding precision medicine between researchers, clinicians and the volunteers. There is a need to better understand public interpretations of PM-related terminology. This paper reports on a qualitative study involving 24 focus group participants in the multi-lingual context of Singapore. The study explored how Singaporeans interpret and understand the terms 'precision medicine' and 'personalised medicine', and which term they felt more aptly communicates the concept and goals of PM. Results suggest that participants were unable to readily link the terms with this area of medicine and initially displayed preferences for the more familiar term of 'personalised'. The use of visual aids to convey key concepts resonated with participants, some of whom then indicated preferences for the term 'precision' as being a more accurate description of PM research. These aids helped to facilitate dialogue around the ethical and social value, as well as the risks, of PM. Implications for programme developers and policy makers are discussed.

Correction: Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241783.].

International Reporting Mechanism for Unethical Germline Gene Editing Experiments Is Needed.

Recent reporting found that a number of scientists internationally knew about the experiment resulting in the birth of the first gene-edited babies well before the news broke. Because scientists have a responsibility to reveal such activities, an international governance mechanism for reporting unethical gene editing experiments should be established.

Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical research is overseen by numerous Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Singapore but there has been no research that examines how the research review process is perceived by the local research community nor is there any systematic data on perceptions regarding the review process or other research ethics processes and IRB characteristics. The aim of this study was to ascertain general views regarding the overall perceived value of ethics review processes; to measure perceptions about local IRB functions and characteristics; to identify IRB functions and characteristics viewed as important; and to compare these views with those of other international studies. METHODS: An online survey was used with the main component being the IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), a validated tool, to evaluate perceptions of ideal and actual IRB functions and characteristics held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff. Data were analysed descriptively first, with mean and SD of each item of IRB-RAT questionnaire reported, excluding the respondents whose answers were unknown or not applicable. The Wilcoxon Sign Rank test was used to compare the ideal and actual ratings of each IRB-RAT item, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the ratings of each IRB-RAT item between respondents with different characteristics. The Z-test was used to compare the mean ratings of our cohort with the mean ratings reported in the literature. The correlation between our mean ideal scores and those of two international studies also employing the IRB-RAT was examined. RESULTS: Seventy-one respondents completed the survey. This cohort generally held positive views of the impact of the ethics review process on: the quality of research; establishing and maintaining public trust in research; the protection of research participants; and on the scientific validity of research. The most important ideal IRB characteristics were timeliness, upholding participants' rights while also facilitating research, working with investigators to find solutions when there are disagreements, and not allowing biases to affect reviews. For almost all 45 IRB-RAT statements, the rating of the importance of the characteristic was higher than the rating of how much that characteristic was descriptive of IRBs the respondents were familiar with. There was a significant strong correlation between our study's scores on the ideal IRB characteristics and those of the first and largest published study that employed the IRB-RAT, the US National Validation (USNV) sample in Keith-Spiegel et al. [19]. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the perceptions held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff on the value that the ethics review process adds, their perceptions of actual IRB functions and characteristics as well as what they view as central to high functioning IRBs is the first step to considering the aspects of the review process that might benefit from improvements. This study provides insight into how our cohort compares to others internationally and highlights strengths and areas for improvement of Singapore IRBs as perceived by a small sample of the local research community. Such insights provide a springboard for additional research and may assist in further enhancing good relations so that both are working towards the same end.

"Who is watching the watchdog?": ethical perspectives of sharing health-related data for precision medicine in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the ethical concerns Singaporeans have about sharing health-data for precision medicine (PM) and identify suggestions for governance strategies. Just as Asian genomes are under-represented in PM, the views of Asian populations about the risks and benefits of data sharing are under-represented in prior attitudinal research. METHODS: We conducted seven focus groups with 62 participants in Singapore from May to July 2019. They were conducted in three languages (English, Mandarin and Malay) and analysed with qualitative content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: nuanced understandings of data security and data sensitivity; trade-offs between data protection and research benefits; trust (and distrust) in the public and private sectors; and governance and control options. Participants were aware of the inherent risks associated with data sharing for research. Participants expressed conditional support for data sharing, including genomic sequence data and information contained within electronic medical records. This support included sharing data with researchers from universities and healthcare institutions, both in Singapore and overseas. Support was conditional on the perceived social value of the research and appropriate de-identification and data security processes. Participants suggested that a data sharing oversight body would help strengthen public trust and comfort in data research for PM in Singapore. CONCLUSION: Maintenance of public trust in data security systems and governance regimes can enhance participation in PM and data sharing for research. Contrary to themes in much prior research, participants demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the inherent risks of data sharing, analysed trade-offs between risks and potential benefits of PM, and often adopted an international perspective.

Correction to: The Perfect Moral Storm: Diverse Ethical Considerations in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1007/s41649-020-00125-3.].

The Perfect Moral Storm: Diverse Ethical Considerations in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has both exposed and created deep rifts in society. It has thrust us into deep ethical thinking to help justify the difficult decisions many will be called upon to make and to protect from decisions that lack ethical underpinnings. This paper aims to highlight ethical issues in six different areas of life highlighting the enormity of the task we are faced with globally. In the context of COVID-19, we consider health inequity, dilemmas in triage and allocation of scarce resources, ethical issues associated with research, ethical considerations relating to tracing apps, and exit strategies such as immunity passports and COVID-19 vaccines. Finally, we consider environmental issues in light of COVID-19. The paper also offers some ethical reflection on these areas as many parts of the world contemplate the recovery phase.

'What is Inconvenient for You is Life-saving for Me': How Health Inequities are playing out during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact globally. Most affected, however, are those individuals and groups routinely disadvantaged by the social injustice created by the misdistribution of power, money, and resources. Simple measures that prevent the spread of COVID-19, such as frequent hand washing and social distancing, are unavailable to millions of people in the wealthiest of nations and in the poorest of nations. Disadvantaged groups are impacted more directly and in disproportionately higher numbers due to existing poor health, and the disruption of services central to securing an income and an education will have lasting consequences for their futures. The unintended effect of exclusionary government policies is that privileged citizens and healthcare systems are also at greater risk. This paper seeks to highlight the impact of COVID-19 on those already suffering health inequities through consideration of some of the social determinants of health on groups in affluent and poorer nations. It also highlights some of the factors that may assist in tackling health inequities as we emerge from this pandemic.

Making sense of it all: Ethical reflections on the conditions surrounding the first genome-edited babies.

In November 2018 the birth of the first genome-edited human beings was announced by Chinese scientist, He Jiankui. The ensuing ethical controversy, institutional investigations and legal proceedings led to the revision of standards, rules and procedures at many levels. Arguably, however, these developments have not fundamentally changed the conditions or the culture that nourished He Jiankui's vaulting ambition in the first place and enabled it to find expression. In this paper we explore the clinical, regulatory and societal circumstances of the 'gene-edited baby' case, the political, cultural and economic conditions that created a radical and dangerous climate for biotechnology innovation, and the responsibilities of the international research community, many of whose members were apprised of Dr He's intentions. The aim is not to heap anathemas on the heads of implicated individuals but to draw attention to the need for different communities (researchers, authorities and domestic publics) to play a part actively in the governance of biomedical innovation and for research to be bridled by human values.

Process trumps potential public good: better vaccine safety through linked cross-jurisdictional immunisation data in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insights into complexities of seeking access to state and federal cross-jurisdictional data for linkage with the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR). We provide recommendations for improving access and receipt of linked datasets involving Australian Government-administered data. METHODS: We describe requirements for linking eleven federal and state data sources to establish a national linked dataset for safety evaluation of vaccines. The required data linkage methodology for integrating cross-jurisdictional data sources is also described. RESULTS: Extensive negotiation was required with 18 different agencies for 21 separate authorisations and 12 ethics approvals. Three variations of the 'best practice' linkage model were implemented. Australian Government approval requests spanned nearly four years from initial request for data, with a further year before ACIR data transfer to the linkage agency. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of immunisation registers with other data collections is achievable in Australia but infeasible for routine and rapid identification of vaccine safety concerns. Lengthy authorisation requirements, convoluted disparate application processes and inconsistencies in data supplied all contribute to delayed data availability. Implications for public health: Delayed data access for safety surveillance prevents timely epidemiological reviews. Poor responsiveness to safety concerns may erode public confidence, compromising effectiveness of vaccination programs through reduced participation.