Ethical implications of defining longstanding anorexia nervosa.

The label severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) is widely used in the literature on longstanding anorexia nervosa (AN). However, the process of constructing the criteria and the use of the label SE-AN has ethical implications that have not been taken into account. Through combining existing literature and lived experience perspective, this paper addresses to what extent the current criteria do and do not reflect the lived experience. Arguments are presented on why the process of constructing the criteria for SE-AN and the application of the label can be both identified as, and give rise to, epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice is an injustice that is done to a person as an individual with the capacity of acquiring and sharing knowledge. This type of injustice can occur at any stage of an interaction between people in which knowledge is shared with one another. The paper concludes by giving suggestions on how to pursue epistemic justice in the process of defining longstanding AN.

Some patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) develop a longstanding eating disorder. Over the years different labels, such as 'chronic AN' or 'treatment resistant AN', have been used to describe longstanding AN. Currently, the label that is used most often in scientific literature is 'severe and enduring AN' (SE-AN) and criteria for what entails SE-AN have been proposed. This paper looks at the possible ethical issues that have arisen in the process of constructing the criteria and possible ethical problems that may result from using the label SE-AN. The paper focuses on injustice that may arise when people with specific experiences, such as lived experience of longstanding AN, are not acknowledged as people with important knowledge to share. The paper concludes by giving suggestions on how to overcome this type of injustice.

The Ethics of Decentralized Clinical Trials and Informed Consent: Taking Technologies' Soft Impacts into Account.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) have the potential to advance the conduct of clinical trials, but raise several ethical issues, including obtaining valid informed consent. The debate on the ethical issues resulting from digitalization is predominantly focused on direct risks relating to for example data protection, safety, and data quality. We submit however, that a broader view on ethical aspects of DCTs is needed to touch upon the new challenges that come with the DCT practice. Digitalization has impacts that go beyond its direct purposes, by shaping behaviors, experiences, social relations, and values. We examine four elements of the informed consent procedure that are affected by DCTs, while taking these soft impacts of technologies into account: (i) informing participants and testing understanding, (ii) freedoms in relation to responsibilities and burdens, (iii) trust in participant-researcher relations, and (iv) impacts on the concept of privacy. Our analysis reveals that a broad view is key for optimal conduct of DCTs. In addition, it provides insight into the ethical impacts of DCTs on informed consent. Technologies such as DCTs potentially have profound impacts which are not immediately addressed by the existing regulatory frameworks, but nonetheless important to recognize. These findings can guide future practices of DCTs to foster the important values of clinical research in this novel approach for conducting clinical trials.

Cardiac organoids do not warrant additional moral scrutiny.

Certain organoid subtypes are particularly sensitive. We explore whether moral intuitions about the heartbeat warrant unique moral consideration for newly advanced contracting cardiac organoids. Despite the heartbeat's moral significance in organ procurement and abortion discussions, we argue that this significance should not translate into moral implications for cardiac organoids.

Active involvement in scientific research of persons living with dementia and long-term care users: a systematic review of existing methods with a specific focus on good practices, facilitators and barriers of involvement.

BACKGROUND: Active involvement of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and long-term care (LTC) users in research is essential but less developed compared to other patient groups. However, their involvement in research is not only important but also feasible. This study aims to provide an overview of methods, facilitators, and barriers for involving PLWD and LTC users in scientific research. METHODS: A systematic literature search across 12 databases in December 2020 identified studies involving PLWD, LTC users, or their carers beyond research subjects and describing methods or models for involvement. Qualitative descriptions of involvement methods underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist 2018. A data collection sheet in Microsoft Excel and thematic analysis were used to synthesize the results. RESULTS: The eighteen included studies delineated five core involvement methods spanning all research phases: advisory groups, formal and informal research team meetings, action groups, workshops, and co-conducting interviews. Additionally, two co-research models with PLWD and carers were found, while only two studies detailed LTC user involvement methods. Four distinct involvement roles were identified: consulting and advisory roles, co-analysts, co-researchers, and partners. The review also addressed barriers, facilitators, and good practices in the preparation, execution, and translation phases of research, emphasizing the importance of diversity, bias reduction, and resource allocation. Trust-building, clear roles, ongoing training, and inclusive support were highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Planning enough time for active involvement is important to ensure that researchers have time to build a trusting relationship and meet personal needs and preferences of PLWD, LTC users and carers. Researchers are advised not to presume the meaning of burden and to avoid a deficit perspective. A flexible or emergent design could aid involved persons' ownership of the research process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero 2021: CRD42021253736.

Commentary: Can an effective end-of-life intervention for advanced dementia be viewed as moral?

We comment on Dr. Terman's considerations on the moral justification of ceasing assisted feeding and hydration for people with advanced dementia. The core idea of his paper is that an advance directive can solve future dilemmas regarding assisted feeding. We submit that this static instrument is unfit for the complex and dynamic nature of assessing how to deal with refusals to eat, in particular for people with dementia. It overvalues the past in relation to the present situation and leaves no room for the possibility of changing wishes. Moreover, the perspectives of professional caregivers and families are not addressed because the focus is entirely on individual autonomy in early dementia. Multiple perspectives should be considered in interpreting directives and the actual situation in light of the patient's view of life in order to realistically account for what is morally justifiable in care in advanced dementia.

Getting to Know Your Patient: Content Analysis of Patients' Answers to a Questionnaire for Promoting Person-Centered Care.

BACKGROUND: Person-centered care (PCC) encourages patients to actively participate in health care, thus facilitating care that fits the life of the patient. Therefore, health care professionals (HCPs) need to know the patient. As part of a broad policy for improving PCC, a digital questionnaire ("We would like to know you") consisting of 5 questions has previously been developed to help HCPs to get to know the patient with the help of patient and staff involvement. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the content and aims of the questionnaire to understand its potential and usability. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative, retrospective content analysis of patients' answers using NVivo Pro (QSR International). The questionnaire was used in the outpatient neuro-oncology department of a Dutch academic hospital. RESULTS: Of 374 invited patients, 78 (20.9%) completed the questionnaire. We selected a sample of 42 (54%) of the 78 patients. Patients used a median of 16 (IQR 7-27) words per question, and most answers were easily interpretable. When asked about important activities, social activities, sports, or maintaining a normal life were most frequently mentioned. Patients wrote about fear of the disease, its possible influence on life, or fear of the future in general. Patients wanted HCPs to know about their care and communication preferences or shared personal information. They formulated expectations about effective treatment, communication, and the care process. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire seems usable because patients provide interpretable answers that take little time to read, which HCPs can use to personalize care. Our study shows the potential of the questionnaire to help deliver PCC.

Finding the balance between person-centred and treatment-centred discussions in advance care planning-a qualitative analysis of conversations within the MUTUAL (Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations) intervention using a narrative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Advance care planning (ACP) aims to create conditions for more person-centred care. We aimed to explore variations in person-centred care discussions and treatment-centred care discussions within ACP conversations in the Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning (MUTUAL) intervention and how person-centred care discussions could be encouraged. The MUTUAL intervention consists of the following: (i) timely patient selection, (ii) the patient and healthcare professionals preparing for the conversation, (iii) a scripted ACP conversation in a multidisciplinary setting and (iv) documentation. METHODS: We conducted a narrative analysis of ACP conversations. A narrative summary template was created and used to analyse 18 audio-recordings. RESULTS: We noticed variations in person-centred and treatment-centred focus within the ACP conversations. We identified three important strategies that facilitated person-centred care discussions within ACP conversations. First, healthcare professionals' acceptance that ACP is an individual process. We believe it is important that healthcare professionals recognise and accept where the patient is in his or her individual ACP process; not making decisions right away can also be part of a decisional process. Secondly, exploring the underlying motivation for treatment wishes can give insights into patient's wishes, values and needs. Lastly, healthcare professionals who demonstrated an adaptive, curious and engaged attitude throughout the ACP process achieved more person-centred ACP conversations. This coincided with elaborating on the patient's emotions, fears and worries. CONCLUSION: Person-centred and treatment-centred focus varied within the ACP conversations in the MUTUAL intervention. Certain strategies by healthcare professionals facilitated a more person-centred focus.

Building a Sustainable Learning Health Care System for Pregnant and Lactating People: Interview Study Among Data Access Providers.

BACKGROUND: In many areas of health care, learning health care systems (LHSs) are seen as promising ways to accelerate research and outcomes for patients by reusing health and research data. For example, considering pregnant and lactating people, for whom there is still a poor evidence base for medication safety and efficacy, an LHS presents an interesting way forward. Combining unique data sources across Europe in an LHS could help clarify how medications affect pregnancy outcomes and lactation exposures. In general, a remaining challenge of data-intensive health research, which is at the core of an LHS, has been obtaining meaningful access to data. These unique data sources, also called data access providers (DAPs), are both public and private organizations and are important stakeholders in the development of a sustainable and ethically responsible LHS. Sustainability is often discussed as a challenge in LHS development. Moreover, DAPs are increasingly expected to move beyond regulatory compliance and are seen as moral agents tasked with upholding ethical principles, such as transparency, trustworthiness, responsibility, and community engagement. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the views of people working for DAPs who participate in a public-private partnership to build a sustainable and ethically responsible LHS. METHODS: Using a qualitative interview design, we interviewed 14 people involved in the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) ConcePTION (Continuum of Evidence from Pregnancy Exposures, Reproductive Toxicology and Breastfeeding to Improve Outcomes Now) project, a public-private collaboration with the goal of building an LHS for pregnant and lactating people. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 3 themes were identified: opportunities and responsibilities, conditions for participation and commitment, and challenges for a knowledge-generating ecosystem. The respondents generally regarded the collaboration as an opportunity for various reasons beyond the primary goal of generating knowledge about medication safety during pregnancy and lactation. Respondents had different interpretations of responsibility in the context of data-intensive research in a public-private network. Respondents explained that resources (financial and other), scientific output, motivation, agreements collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry, trust, and transparency are important conditions for participating in and committing to the ConcePTION LHS. Respondents also discussed the challenges of an LHS, including the limitations to (real-world) data analyses and governance procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents were motivated by diverse opportunities to contribute to an LHS for pregnant and lactating people, primarily centered on advancing knowledge on medication safety. Although a shared responsibility for enabling real-world data analyses is acknowledged, their focus remains on their work and contribution to the project rather than on safeguarding ethical data handling. The results of our interviews underline the importance of a transparent governance structure, emphasizing the trust between DAPs and the public for the success and sustainability of an LHS.

Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research?

Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization of research benefits, based on the types of benefits that can be distinguished from the literature and ethical guidelines. Secondly, we will reconsider the position of collateral benefits. We argue that these benefits are not fundamentally different from other benefits of research and can therefore be included in risk-benefit assessments of DCTs.

Specific measures for data-intensive health research without consent: a systematic review of soft law instruments and academic literature.

It is a common misunderstanding of current European data protection law that when consent is not being used as lawful basis, the processing of personal data is prohibited. Article 9(2)(j) of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) permits Member States to establish a legal basis in national law that allows for the processing of personal data for scientific research purposes without consent. However, the European legislator has formulated this "research exemption" as an opening clause, rendering the GDPR not specific as to what measures exactly are required to comply with the research exemption. This may have significant implications for both the protection of personal data and the advancement of data-intensive health research. We performed a systematic review of relevant soft law instruments and academic literature to identify what measures are mentioned in those documents. Our analysis resulted in the identification of four overarching themes of suggested measures: organizational measures; technical measures; oversight and review mechanisms; and public engagement and participation. Some of the suggested measures do not substantially contribute to the clarification of the GDPR's "suitable and specific measures" requirement because they remain vague or broad in nature and encompass all types of data processing. However, the themes oversight and review mechanisms and public engagement and participation provide valuable insights which can be put to practice. Nevertheless, further clarification of the measures and safeguards that should be installed when invoking the research exemption remains necessary.

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life: a qualitative interview-study among health care providers on an evolving practice.

BACKGROUND: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients' homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. RESULTS: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19-435/C).

Experiences and perceptions of continuous deep sedation: An interview study among Dutch patients and relatives.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS. OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves. RESULTS: The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end-of-life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death. CONCLUSION: The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision-making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome.

Dynamic consent, communication and return of results in large-scale health data reuse: Survey of public preferences.

Dynamic consent forms a comprehensive, tailored approach for interacting with research participants. We conducted a survey study to inquire how research participants evaluate the elements of consent, information provision, communication and return of results within dynamic consent in a hypothetical health data reuse scenario. We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patient panel members. Data were analysed using descriptive and nonparametric inferential statistics. Respondents favoured the potential to manage changing consent preferences over time. There was much agreement between people favouring closer and more specific control over data reuse approval and those in favour of broader approval, facilitated by an opt-out system or an independent data reuse committee. People want to receive more information about reuse, outcomes and return of results. Respondents supported an interactive model of research participation, welcoming regular, diverse and interactive forms of communication, like a digital communication platform. Approval for reuse and providing meaningful information, including meaningful return of results, are intricately related to facilitating better communication. Respondents favoured return of actionable research results. These findings emphasize the potential of dynamic consent for enabling participants to maintain control over how their data are being used for which purposes by whom. Allowing different options to shape a dynamic consent interface in health data reuse in a personalized manner is pivotal to accommodate plurality in a flexible though robust manner. Interaction via dynamic consent enables participants to tailor the elements of participation they deem relevant to their own preferences, engaging diverse perspectives, interests and preferences.

Should we all die asleep? The problem of the normalization of palliative sedation.

Palliative sedation is a medical intervention to manage distress in dying patients, by reducing consciousness when symptom-directed therapies fail. Continuous deep sedation is ethically sensitive because it may shorten life and completely prevents communication. But sedation short of this is also common. There has been a steady increase in the use of sedation over recent decades. Sedation may have become a means to die while sleeping, rather than a method of last resort to alleviate suffering. Sedation may be requested or expected by patients, families or staff. The need for sedation may be being interpreted more loosely. The acceptance of a 'tolerable amount of discomfort' may have lost ground to a desire to get the final phase over with quickly. Sedation is not always a bad thing. Medical care is otherwise unable to completely control all distressing symptoms in every patient. Sedation may result from other necessary symptom control drugs. Dying when sedated can be seen by as 'peaceful'. We feel it is necessary, however, to highlight three caveats: the need to manage expectations, the cost in terms of loss of communication, and the grey area between continuous deep sedation and euthanasia. We conclude that there may be good grounds for sedation in palliative care, and in some cases, continuous deep sedation may be used as a last resort. But the criteria of necessary and proportionate drug treatment should remain. The normalisation of sedation into dying while sleeping should be resisted.

Self-efficacy of advanced cancer patients for participation in treatment-related decision-making in six European countries: the ACTION study.

PURPOSE: Many patients prefer an active role in making decisions about their care and treatment, but participating in such decision-making is challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether patient-reported outcomes (quality of life and patient satisfaction), patients' coping strategies, and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We used baseline data from the ACTION trial of patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer from six European countries, including scores on the decision-making participation self-efficacy (DEPS) scale, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire, and the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to examine associations with self-efficacy scores. RESULTS: The sample included 660 patients with a mean age of 66 years (SD 10). Patients had a mean score of 73 (SD 24) for self-efficacy. Problem-focused coping (B 1.41 (95% CI 0.77 to 2.06)), better quality of life (B 2.34 (95% CI 0.89 to 3.80)), and more patient satisfaction (B 7.59 (95% CI 5.61 to 9.56)) were associated with a higher level of self-efficacy. Patients in the Netherlands had a higher level of self-efficacy than patients in Belgium ((B 7.85 (95% CI 2.28 to 13.42)), whereas Italian patients had a lower level ((B -7.50 (95% CI -13.04 to -1.96)) than those in Belgium. CONCLUSION: Coping style, quality of life, and patient satisfaction with care were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. These factors are important to consider for healthcare professionals when supporting patients in decision-making processes.

Stimulating solidarity to improve knowledge on medications used during pregnancy : A contribution from the ConcePTION project.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant people have been overlooked or excluded from clinical research, resulting in a lack of scientific knowledge on medication safety and efficacy during pregnancy. Thus far, both the opportunities to generate evidence-based knowledge beyond clinical trials and the role of pregnant people in changing their status quo have not been discussed. Some scholars have argued that for rare disease patients, for whom, just like pregnant people, a poor evidence base exists regarding treatments, solidarity has played an important role in addressing the evidence gap. This paper explores whether and how the enactment of solidarity among pregnant people can be stimulated to help address the poor evidence base on medications used during pregnancy. METHOD: We use the concept of solidarity formulated by Prainsack and Buyx and enrich their concept by providing an account for stimulating the enactment of solidarity. Then we apply this account to the case of pregnant people who use medication. RESULTS: Solidarity means enacted commitment on the part of an individual to assisting others with whom the person recognizes a similarity in a relevant respect. Although solidarity cannot be imposed, we argue that the empowerment of people is a crucial concept in understanding how solidarity can be stimulated. Empowerment in the context of pregnant people means creating awareness about their status quo, explaining how scientific research can help close the knowledge gap, and how pregnant people can themselves contribute. In particular, how pregnant people can contribute to the collection of health data to strengthen the evidence base for medications used during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that acting in solidarity can help change the status quo for pregnant people. Furthermore, we argue that the empowerment of pregnant people and other relevant stakeholders is a way to stimulate the enactment of solidarity. The process of empowerment starts by raising awareness about the lack of evidence on medications used during prengnacy and by explaining to pregnant people how they can contribute to changing the way knowledge is being generated by, for example, sharing data on the health effects of medications.

Impacts of an advance care planning intervention on close relationships.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how an advance care planning (ACP) intervention based on structured conversations impacts the relationship between patients with advanced cancer and their nominated Personal Representatives (PRs). METHODS: Within the ACTION research project, a qualitative study was carried out in 4 countries (Italy, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Slovenia) to explore the lived experience of engagement with the ACTION Respecting Choices® ACP intervention from the perspectives of patients and their PRs. A phenomenological approach was undertaken. RESULTS: Our findings show that taking part in the ACTION ACP intervention provides a communicative space for patients and their PRs to share their understanding and concerns about the illness and its consequences. In some cases, this may strengthen relationships by realigning patients' and PRs' understanding and expectations and affirming their mutual commitment and support. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The most significant consequence of the ACP process in our study was the deepening of mutual understanding and relationship between some patients and PRs and the enhancement of their sense of mutuality and connectedness in the present. However, being a relational intervention, ACP may raise some challenging and distressing issues. The interpersonal dynamics of the discussion require skilled and careful professional facilitation.

Commitments for Ethically Responsible Sourcing, Use, and Reuse of Patient Data in the Digital Age: Cocreation Process.

BACKGROUND: Personal information, including health-related data, may be used in ways we did not intend when it was originally shared. However, the organizations that collect these data do not always have the necessary social license to use and share it. Although some technology companies have published principles on the ethical use of artificial intelligence, the foundational issue of what is and is not acceptable to do with data, not just the analytical tools to manage it, has not been fully considered. Furthermore, it is unclear whether input from the public or patients has been included. In 2017, the leadership at a web-based patient research network began to envision a new kind of community compact that laid out what the company believed, how the company should behave, and what it promised both to the individuals who engaged with them and to the community at large. While having already earned a social license from patient members as a trusted data steward with strong privacy, transparency, and openness policies, the company sought to protect and strengthen that social license by creating a socially and ethically responsible data contract. Going beyond regulatory and legislative requirements, this contract considered the ethical use of multiomics and phenotypic data in addition to patient-reported and generated data. OBJECTIVE: A multistakeholder working group sought to develop easy-to-understand commitments that established expectations for data stewardship, governance, and accountability from those who seek to collect, use, and share personal data. The working group cocreated a framework that was radically patient-first in its thinking and collaborative in the process of its codevelopment; it reflected the values, ideas, opinions, and perspectives of the cocreators, inclusive of patients and the public. METHODS: Leveraging the conceptual frameworks of cocreation and participatory action research, a mixed methods approach was used that included a landscape analysis, listening sessions, and a 12-question survey. The methodological approaches used by the working group were guided by the combined principles of biomedical ethics and social license and shaped through a collaborative and reflective process with similarities to reflective equilibrium, a method well known in ethics. RESULTS: Commitments for the Digital Age are the output of this work. The six commitments in order of priority are (1) continuous and shared learning; (2) respect and empower individual choice; (3) informed and understood consent; (4) people-first governance; (5) open communication and accountable conduct; and (6) inclusivity, diversity, and equity. CONCLUSIONS: These 6 commitments-and the development process itself-have broad applicability as models for (1) other organizations that rely on digitized data sources from individuals and (2) patients who seek to strengthen operational policies for the ethical and responsible collection, use, and reuse of that data.

Questioning the value of present life: The lived experience of older people who see no future for themselves.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the lived experience of older people who see no future for oneself in the context of aging and the possible development of a wish to die. METHODS: Data were collected from 34 interviews with people of 55-92 years. A phenomenological hermeneutical analysis was performed using crafted stories as an analytical device. RESULTS: Four intertwined constituents together with the essence of the phenomenon provide a layered description of what it means to see no future for oneself. In all constituents: 1) not sharing everyday life, 2) looking for new commitments, 3) facing present losses and future fears and 4) imagining not waking up in the morning, the essence losing zest for life seeped through their daily experiences. CONCLUSIONS: As their horizon of future possibilities is shrinking, older people in our study experience a loss of zest for life and start to questioning the value of their present lives. And although a certain languishing mood can be discovered, the phenomenon 'seeing no future for oneself' does not entail a wish to die.

Barriers and facilitators for healthcare professionals to the implementation of Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning conversations at the outpatient clinic (the MUTUAL intervention): a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning (ACP) enables patients to define and discuss their goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. However, the structural implementation of ACP interventions remains challenging. The Multidisciplinary Timely Undertaken Advance Care Planning (MUTUAL) intervention has recently been developed which takes into account existing barriers and facilitators. We aimed to evaluate the MUTUAL intervention and identify the barriers and facilitators healthcare professionals experience in the implementation of the MUTUAL intervention and also to identify suggestions for improvement. METHODS: We performed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study at five outpatient clinics of one, 300-bed, non-academic hospital. Firstly, semi-structured interviews were performed with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals. The content of these interviews was used to specify the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI). The MIDI was sent to all healthcare professionals. The interviews and questionnaires were used to clarify the results. RESULTS: Eleven healthcare professionals participated in the interviews and 37 responded to the questionnaire. Eight barriers and 20 facilitators were identified. Healthcare professionals agreed that the elements of the MUTUAL intervention are clear, correct, complete, and simple - and the intervention is relevant for patients and their proxies. The main barriers are found within the user and the organisational domain. Barriers related to the organisation include: inadequate replacement of staff, insufficient staff, and insufficient time to introduce and invite patients. Several suggestions for improvement were made. CONCLUSION: Our results show that healthcare professionals positively evaluate the MUTUAL intervention and are very receptive to implementing the MUTUAL intervention. Taking into account the suggestions for improvement may enhance further implementation.