Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Cancer Questions From Social Media.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots pose the opportunity to draft template responses to patient questions. However, the ability of chatbots to generate responses based on domain-specific knowledge of cancer remains to be tested. Objective: To evaluate the competency of AI chatbots (GPT-3.5 [chatbot 1], GPT-4 [chatbot 2], and Claude AI [chatbot 3]) to generate high-quality, empathetic, and readable responses to patient questions about cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This equivalence study compared the AI chatbot responses and responses by 6 verified oncologists to 200 patient questions about cancer from a public online forum. Data were collected on May 31, 2023. Exposures: Random sample of 200 patient questions related to cancer from a public online forum (Reddit r/AskDocs) spanning from January 1, 2018, to May 31, 2023, was posed to 3 AI chatbots. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were pilot ratings of the quality, empathy, and readability on a Likert scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). Two teams of attending oncology specialists evaluated each response based on pilot measures of quality, empathy, and readability in triplicate. The secondary outcome was readability assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Results: Responses to 200 questions generated by chatbot 3, the best-performing AI chatbot, were rated consistently higher in overall measures of quality (mean, 3.56 [95% CI, 3.48-3.63] vs 3.00 [95% CI, 2.91-3.09]; P < .001), empathy (mean, 3.62 [95% CI, 3.53-3.70] vs 2.43 [95% CI, 2.32-2.53]; P < .001), and readability (mean, 3.79 [95% CI, 3.72-3.87] vs 3.07 [95% CI, 3.00-3.15]; P < .001) compared with physician responses. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of physician responses (mean, 10.11 [95% CI, 9.21-11.03]) was not significantly different from chatbot 3 responses (mean, 10.31 [95% CI, 9.89-10.72]; P > .99) but was lower than those from chatbot 1 (mean, 12.33 [95% CI, 11.84-12.83]; P < .001) and chatbot 2 (mean, 11.32 [95% CI, 11.05-11.79]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that chatbots can generate quality, empathetic, and readable responses to patient questions comparable to physician responses sourced from an online forum. Further research is required to assess the scope, process integration, and patient and physician outcomes of chatbot-facilitated interactions.

Exposure to moral stressors and associated outcomes in healthcare workers: prevalence, correlates, and impact on job attrition.

Introduction: Healthcare workers (HCWs) often experience morally challenging situations in their workplaces that may contribute to job turnover and compromised well-being. This study aimed to characterize the nature and frequency of moral stressors experienced by HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic, examine their influence on psychosocial-spiritual factors, and capture the impact of such factors and related moral stressors on HCWs' self-reported job attrition intentions.Methods: A sample of 1204 Canadian HCWs were included in the analysis through a web-based survey platform whereby work-related factors (e.g. years spent working as HCW, providing care to COVID-19 patients), moral distress (captured by MMD-HP), moral injury (captured by MIOS), mental health symptomatology, and job turnover due to moral distress were assessed.Results: Moral stressors with the highest reported frequency and distress ratings included patient care requirements that exceeded the capacity HCWs felt safe/comfortable managing, reported lack of resource availability, and belief that administration was not addressing issues that compromised patient care. Participants who considered leaving their jobs (44%; N = 517) demonstrated greater moral distress and injury scores. Logistic regression highlighted burnout (AOR = 1.59; p < .001), moral distress (AOR = 1.83; p < .001), and moral injury due to trust violation (AOR = 1.30; p = .022) as significant predictors of the intention to leave one's job.Conclusion: While it is impossible to fully eliminate moral stressors from healthcare, especially during exceptional and critical scenarios like a global pandemic, it is crucial to recognize the detrimental impacts on HCWs. This underscores the urgent need for additional research to identify protective factors that can mitigate the impact of these stressors.

This study explored the nature of moral stressors encountered by health care workers, along with impacts on moral injury and intentions to leave their jobs.Morally distressing encounters were common, with the most prevalent and distressing experiences being organizational or team-based in nature.Findings revealed that severity of moral injury, particularly related to trust violation or betrayal, was a key factor influencing healthcare workers' intentions to leave their jobs.

The mediating roles of workplace support and ethical work environment in associations between leadership and moral distress: a longitudinal study of Canadian health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in heightened moral distress among health care workers (HCWs) worldwide. Past research has shown that effective leadership may mitigate potential for the development of moral distress. However, no research to date has considered the mechanisms by which leadership might have an influence on moral distress. We sought to evaluate longitudinally whether Canadian HCWs' perceptions of workplace support and ethical work environment would mediate associations between leadership and moral distress. Methods: A total of 239 French- and English-speaking Canadian HCWs employed during the COVID-19 pandemic were recruited to participate in a longitudinal online survey. Participants completed measures of organizational and supervisory leadership at baseline and follow-up assessments of workplace support, perceptions of an ethical work environment, and moral distress. Results: Associations between both organizational and supervisory leadership and moral distress were fully mediated by workplace supports and perceptions of an ethical work environment. Discussion: To ensure HCW well-being and quality of care, it is important to ensure that HCWs are provided with adequate workplace supports, including manageable work hours, social support, and recognition for efforts, as well as an ethical workplace environment.

Outsourcing practice-based education: The role of industry representatives and implications for clinical expertise.

In an era of significant human and fiscal constraints, hospitals increasingly rely on industry representatives to fill gaps related to practice-based education. Given their dual sales and support functions, the extent to which education and support functions are, or ought to be, fulfilled by industry representatives is unclear. We conducted an interpretive qualitative study at a large, academic medical centre in Ontario, Canada, during 2021-2022, interviewing 36 participants across the organization with direct and varied experiences with industry-delivered education. We found that ongoing fiscal and human resource challenges prompted hospital leaders to outsource practice-based education to industry representatives, which created an expanded role for industry beyond initial product rollouts. Outsourcing, however, generated downstream costs to the organization and undermined the goals of practice-based education. To attract and retain clinicians, participants advocated for re-investment in practice-based education in-house, with a limited and supervised role for industry representatives.

Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics consultations (CEC) can be complex interventions, involving multiple methods, stakeholders, and competing ethical values. Despite longstanding calls for rigorous evaluation in the field, progress has been limited. The Medical Research Council (MRC) proposed guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of complex interventions. The evaluation of CEC may benefit from application of the MRC framework to advance the transparency and methodological rigor of this field. A first step is to understand the outcomes measured in evaluations of CEC in healthcare settings. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review was to identify and map the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC. The secondary objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of CEC structures, processes, and roles to enhance understanding and to inform standardization. METHODS: We searched electronic databases to identify primary studies of CEC involving patients, substitute decision-makers and/or family members, clinicians, healthcare staff and leaders. Outcomes were mapped across five conceptual domains as identified a priori based on our clinical ethics experience and preliminary literature searches and revised based on our emerging interpretation of the data. These domains included personal factors, process factors, clinical factors, quality, and resource factors. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies were included in the review. Studies were highly heterogeneous and varied considerably regarding format and process of ethical intervention, credentials of interventionist, population of study, outcomes reported, and measures employed. In addition, few studies used validated measurement tools. The top three outcome domains that studies reported on were quality (n = 31), process factors (n = 23), and clinical factors (n = 19). The majority of studies examined multiple outcome domains. All five outcome domains were multidimensional and included a variety of subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review represents the initial phase of mapping the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC and identifying gaps in the evidence. The confirmed lack of standardization represents a hindrance to the provision of high quality intervention and CEC scientific progress. Insights gained can inform the development of a core outcome set to standardize outcome measures in CEC evaluation research and enable scientifically rigorous efficacy trials of CEC.

Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: "the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help".

BACKGROUND: Rapid ethical access to personal health information (PHI) to support research is extremely important during pandemics, yet little is known regarding patient preferences for consent during such crises. This follow-up study sought to ascertain whether there were differences in consent preferences between pre-pandemic times compared to during Wave 1 of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and to better understand the reasons behind these preferences. METHODS: A total of 183 patients in the pandemic cohort completed the survey via email, and responses were compared to the distinct pre-pandemic cohort (n = 222); all were patients of a large Canadian cancer center. The survey covered (a) broad versus study-specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out contact approach; (c) levels of comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions of commercialization; and (e) options to track use of information and be notified of results. Four focus groups (n = 12) were subsequently conducted to elucidate reasons motivating dominant preferences. RESULTS: Patients in the pandemic cohort were significantly more comfortable with sharing all information and biological samples (90% vs. 79%, p = 0.009), sharing information with the health care institution (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.001), sharing information with researchers at other hospitals (85% vs. 70%, p < 0.001), sharing PHI provincially (69% vs. 53%, p < 0.002), nationally (65% vs. 53%, p = 0.022) and internationally (48% vs. 39%, p = 0.024) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Discomfort with sharing information with commercial companies remained unchanged between the two cohorts (50% vs. 51% uncomfortable, p = 0.58). Significantly more pandemic cohort patients expressed a wish to track use of PHI (75% vs. 61%, p = 0.007), and to be notified of results (83% vs. 70%, p = 0.012). Thematic analysis uncovered that transparency was strongly desired on outside PHI use, particularly when commercialization was involved. CONCLUSIONS: In pandemic times, patients were more comfortable sharing information with all parties, except with commercial entities, where levels of discomfort (~ 50%) remained unchanged. Focus groups identified that the ability to track and receive results of studies using one's PHI is an important way to reduce discomfort and increase trust. These findings meaningfully inform wider discussions on the use of personal health information for research during global crises.

Ethical decision making during a healthcare crisis: a resource allocation framework and tool.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained healthcare resources the world over, requiring healthcare providers to make resource allocation decisions under extraordinary pressures. A year later, our understanding of COVID-19 has advanced, but our process for making ethical decisions surrounding resource allocation has not. During the first wave of the pandemic, our institution uniformly ramped-down clinical activity to accommodate the anticipated demands of COVID-19, resulting in resource waste and inefficiency. In preparation for the second wave, we sought to make such ramp down decisions more prudently and ethically. We report the development of a tool that can be used to make fair and ethical decisions in times of resource scarcity. We formed an interprofessional team to develop and use this tool to ensure that a diverse range of stakeholder perspectives were represented in this development process. This team, called the clinical activity recovery team, established institutional objectives that were combined with well-established procedural values, substantive ethical principles and decision-making criteria by using a variation on the well-known accountability for reasonableness ethical framework. The result of this is a stepwise, semiquantitative, ethical decision tool that can be applied to resource allocation challenges in order to reach fair and ethically defensible decisions. This ethical decision tool can be applied in various contexts and may prove useful at both the institutional and the departmental level; indeed this is how it is applied at our centre. As the second wave of COVID-19 strains healthcare resources, this tool can help clinical leaders to make fair decisions.

Dementia and sexuality in long-term care: Incompatible bedfellows?

Despite the recognized benefits of sexual expression and its importance in the lives of people living with dementia, research demonstrates that there are multiple barriers to its positive expression (e.g., expression that is pleasurable and free of coercion, discrimination, and violence) in RLTC homes. These barriers constitute a form of discrimination based on age and ability, and violate the rights of persons living with dementia to dignity, autonomy, and participation in everyday life and society. Drawing on a human rights approach to dementia and sexual expression, we explored the experiences of diverse professionals, family members, and persons living with dementia with explicit attention to the ways in which macro-level dynamics are influencing the support, or lack thereof, for sexual expression at the micro level. Focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted with 27 participants, and the collected data were analyzed thematically. While all participants acknowledged that intimacy and sexual expression of persons living with dementia should be supported, rarely is such expression supported in practice. Micro-level factors included negative attitudes of professionals toward sexual expression by persons living with dementia, their discomfort with facilitating intimacy and sexual expression in the context of their professional roles, their anxieties regarding potential negative reactions from family members, and concerns about sanctions for failing to prevent abuse. In our analysis, we importantly trace these micro-level factors to macro-level factors. The latter include the cultural stigma associated with dementia, ageism, ableism, and erotophobia, all of which are reproduced in, and reinforced by, professionals' education, as well as legal and professional standards that exclusively focus on managing and safeguarding residents from abuse. Our analysis demonstrates a complexity that has enormous potential to inform future research that is critically needed for the development of educational initiatives and to promote policy changes in this area.

Central Recruitment: A process for engaging and recruiting individuals with spinal cord injury/disease in research at Toronto Rehabilitation Institute.

CONTEXT: Insufficient recruitment is a barrier to research and limits statistical power. We describe an initiative aimed to streamline recruitment and consent processes for inpatients with spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) via implementation of a Central Recruitment (CR) process. The CR process adhered to ethical standards, reduced participant burden, and maximized research participation. METHODS: In this CR process, the inpatient's nurse affirmed suitability for research approach based on fluency, cognition and health stability. A patient research liaison (PRL) was the sole contact for information regarding the research process, and introduced ongoing studies, screened for eligibility, and completed the consent process(es). RESULTS: Over five and a half years, 1,561 inpatients with SCI/D were screened for eligibility upon admission, of whom 80% (1256/1561) were deemed suitable for the PRL approach. Of those suitable for the CR process, 80% (1001/1256) agreed to discuss current research opportunities, 46% (235/516) consented to participate in one or more studies, and 86% (856/1001) agreed to future research contact. CONCLUSION: This process adhered to ethical procedures and reduced the burden of having multiple researchers approach each individual inpatient regarding research participation, with high consent rates for low-risk studies. Future evaluation of the process scalability is underway.

Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. PARTICIPANTS: Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables. RESULTS: 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.

The use of personal health information outside the circle of care: consent preferences of patients from an academic health care institution.

BACKGROUND: Immense volumes of personal health information (PHI) are required to realize the anticipated benefits of artificial intelligence in clinical medicine. To maintain public trust in medical research, consent policies must evolve to reflect contemporary patient preferences. METHODS: Patients were invited to complete a 27-item survey focusing on: (a) broad versus specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out approaches; (c) comfort level sharing with different recipients; (d) attitudes towards commercialization; and (e) options to track PHI use and study results. RESULTS: 222 participants were included in the analysis; 83% were comfortable sharing PHI with researchers at their own hospital, although younger patients (≤ 49 years) were more uncomfortable than older patients (50 + years; 13% versus 2% uncomfortable, p < 0.05). While 56% of patients preferred broad consent, 38% preferred specific consent; 6% preferred not sharing at all. The majority of patients (63%) preferred to be asked for permission before entry into a contact pool. Again, this trend was more pronounced for younger patients (≤ 49 years: 76%). Approximately half of patients were uncomfortable sharing PHI with commercial enterprises (51% uncomfortable, 27% comfortable, 22% neutral). Most patients preferred to track PHI usage (61%), with the highest proportion once again reported by the youngest patients (≤ 49 years: 71%). A majority of patients also wished to be notified regarding study results (70%). CONCLUSIONS: While most patients were willing to share their PHI with researchers within their own institution, many preferred a transparent and reciprocal consent process. These data also suggest a generational shift, wherein younger patients preferred more specific consent options. Modernizing consent policies to reflect increased autonomy is crucial in fostering sustained public engagement with medical research.

Optimizing clinical research procedures in public health emergencies.

Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, have a devastating impact on an individual and societal level, and there is an urgent need to learn, understand and bridge the therapeutic gap at a time of extreme stress on the patient, health care systems and staff. Well-designed, controlled clinical trials play a crucial role in the discovery of novel diagnostic and management strategies; however, these catastrophic circumstances pose unique challenges in initiating research studies at institutional, national, and international levels, highlighting the importance of a coordinated, collaborative approach. This review discusses key elements necessary to consider for developing clinical trials within a Public Health Emergency setting.

Difficult healthcare transitions: Ethical analysis and policy recommendations for unrepresented patients.

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, Canada, patients who lack decision-making capacity and have no family or friends to act as substitute decision-makers currently rely on the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to consent to long-term care (nursing home) placement, but they have no legal representative for other placement decisions. OBJECTIVES: We highlight the current gap in legislation for difficult transition cases involving unrepresented patients and provide a novel framework for who ought to assist with making these decisions and how these decisions ought to be made. RESEARCH DESIGN: This paper considers models advanced by Volpe and Steinman with regard to who ought to make placement decisions for unrepresented patients, as well as current ethical models for analyzing how these decisions should be made. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: We describe an anonymized healthcare transition case to illustrate the fact that there is no legally recognized decision-maker for placement destinations other than long-term care facilities and to show how this impacts all stakeholders. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The case provided is an anonymized vignette representing a typical transition case involving an unrepresented patient. FINDINGS: As a result of a gap in provincial legislation, healthcare providers usually determine the appropriate placement destination without a clear framework to guide the process and this can cause significant moral distress. DISCUSSION: We argue for a team decision-making approach in the short term, and a legislative change in the long-term, to respect the patient voice, evaluate benefit and risk, enhance collaboration between healthcare providers and patients, and promote social justice. We believe that our approach, which draws upon the strengths of interprofessional teams, will be of interest to all who are concerned with the welfare and ethical treatment of the patients for whom they care. CONCLUSIONS: One of the main strengths of our recommendation is that it provides all members of the healthcare team (including nurses, social workers, therapists, and others) an increased opportunity to advocate on behalf of unrepresented patients.

HCEC pearls and pitfalls: suggested do's and don't's for healthcare ethics consultants.

Members of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Standing Committee of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities present a collection of insights and recommendations developed from their collective experience, intended for those engaged in the work of healthcare ethics consultation.

Education for ethics practice: tailoring curricula to local needs and objectives.

Currently, there is no authoritative credentialing process for individuals engaged in ethics practice, no accreditation system that sets minimum education standards for programs aiming to prepare these individuals for their work, and little evidence available that any particular training model is actually achieving its pedagogical goals. At the same time, a number of healthcare organizations and universities now routinely offer post-graduate programs, clinical fellowships and in-house training specifically devised to prepare graduates for ethics practice. However, while their numbers appear to be growing, information about these programs is limited. In this paper, we describe the goals, content and strategies of three educational programs offered in Ontario, Canada. These case studies highlight the diversity of ethics education available to those who engage in ethics practice and underscore the need to take this variety into account in the development of future education standards that would specify minimally acceptable educational requirements.

500 hats: exploring the challenges of boundary and community--reflections on professionalization.

I argue that it is possible to reframe the current debates over professionalization in a way that can account for disagreement without insisting that its advocates and opponents are adversaries. Giles Scofield, and critics like him, may be understood as engaging in the sort of theoretical disagreement that is an inescapable and vital part of our practice. The field could profit from the work of legal theorist Ronald Dworkin who has long argued that people of good will and great competence need not share foundational assumptions. They may, instead, be advancing rival interpretations of what the practice of healthcare ethics (PHE) requires.