Consent as a compositional act - a framework that provides clarity for the retention and use of data.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is one of the key principles of conducting research involving humans. When research participants give consent, they perform an act in which they utter, write or otherwise provide an authorisation to somebody to do something. This paper proposes a new understanding of the informed consent as a compositional act. This conceptualisation departs from a modular conceptualisation of informed consent procedures. METHODS: This paper is a conceptual analysis that explores what consent is and what it does or does not do. It presents a framework that explores the basic elements of consent and breaks it down into its component parts. It analyses the consent act by first identifying its basic elements, namely: a) data subjects or legal representative that provides the authorisation of consent; b) a specific thing that is being consented to; and c) specific agent(s) to whom the consent is given. RESULTS: This paper presents a framework that explores the basic elements of consent and breaks it down into its component parts. It goes beyond only providing choices to potential research participants; it explains the rationale of those choices or consenting acts that are taking place when speaking or writing an authorisation to do something to somebody. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that by clearly differentiating the goals, the procedures of implementation, and what is being done or undone when one consent, one can better face the challenges of contemporary data-intensive biomedical research, particularly regarding the retention and use of data. Conceptualising consent as a compositional act enhances more efficient communication and accountability and, therefore, could enable more trustworthy acts of consent in biomedical science.

Assessing the implementation of user-centred design standards on assistive technology for persons with visual impairments: a systematic review.

Despite scientific and technological advances in the field of assistive technology (AT) for people with visual impairment (VI), technological designs are frequently based on a poor understanding of the physical and social context of use, resulting in devices that are less than optimal for their intended beneficiaries. To resolve this situation, user-centred approaches in the development process of AT have been widely adopted in recent years. However, there is a lack of systematization on the application of this approach. This systematic review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022307466), assesses the application of the ISO 9241-210 human-centred design principles in allegedly "user-centred designed" AT developments for persons with VI (see Supplementary PROSPERO Protocol). The results point to a wide variation of the depth of understanding of user needs, a poor characterization of the application of the User Centred Design (UCD) approach in the initial design phases or in the early prototyping, and a vague description of user feedback and device iteration. Among the principles set out in ISO 9241-210, the application of 5.6: "the design team includes multidisciplinary skills and perspectives" is the one for which the least evidence is found. The results show there is not enough evidence to fully assess the impact of UCD in (1) promoting innovation regarding AT products and practices, and (2) Judging if AT produced following such standards is leading to better user access, wellbeing outcomes and satisfaction. To address this gap it is necessary to, first, generate better implementation of UCD in AT development and second, to strengthen evidence regarding the implementation and outcomes of using UCD for AT. To better engage with the realities of persons with VI, we propose capacity building across development teams regarding UCD, its principles and components; better planning for UCD implementation; and cross-fertilization across engineering disciplines and social and clinical science. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=307466 PROSPERO (CRD42022307466).

Existential suffering as a motive for assisted suicide: Difficulties, acceptability, management and roles from the perspectives of Swiss professionals.

BACKGROUND: Existential suffering is often a part of the requests for assisted suicide (AS). Its definitions have gained in clarity recently and refer to a distress arising from an inner realization that life has lost its meaning. There is however a lack of consensus on how to manage existential suffering, especially in a country where AS is legal and little is known about the difficulties faced by professionals confronted with these situations. OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspectives of Swiss professionals involved in end-of-life care and AS on the management of existential suffering when it is part of AS requests, taking into account the question of roles, as well as on the difficulties they encounter along the way and their views on the acceptability of existential suffering as a motive for AS. METHODS: A qualitative study based on face-to-face interviews was performed among twenty-five participants from the fields of palliative and primary care as well as from EXIT right-to-die organization. A semi-structured interview guide exploring four themes was used. Elements from the grounded theory approach were applied. RESULTS: Almost all participants reported experiencing difficulties when facing existential suffering. Opinions regarding the acceptability of existential suffering in accessing AS were divided. Concerning its management, participants referred to the notion of being present, showing respect, seeking to understand the causes of suffering, helping give meaning, working together, psychological support, spiritual support, relieving physical symptoms and palliative sedation. CONCLUSION: This study offers a unique opportunity to reflect on what are desirable responses to existential suffering when it is part of AS requests. Existential suffering is plural and implies a multiplicity of responses as well. These situations remain however difficult and controversial according to Swiss professionals. Clinicians' education should further address these issues and give professionals the tools to better take care of these people.

Obstacles to patient inclusion in CPR/DNAR decisions and challenging conversations: A qualitative study with internal medicine physicians in Southern Switzerland.

Despite cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) decisions are increasingly considered an essential component of hospital practice and patient inclusion in these conversations an ethical imperative in most cases, there is evidence that such discussions between physicians and patients/surrogate decision-makers (the person or people providing direction in decision making if a person is unable to make decisions about personal health care, e.g., family members or friends) are often inadequate, excessively delayed, or absent. We conducted a study to qualitatively explore physician-reported CPR/DNAR decision-making approaches and CPR/DNAR conversations with patients hospitalized in the internal medicine wards of the four main hospitals in Ticino, Southern Switzerland. We conducted four focus groups with 19 resident and staff physicians employed in the internal medicine unit of the four public hospitals in Ticino. Questions aimed to elicit participants' specific experiences in deciding on and discussing CPR/DNAR with patients and their families, the stakeholders (ideally) involved in the discussion, and their responsibilities. We found that participants experienced two main tensions. On the one side, CPR/DNAR decisions were dominated by the belief that patient involvement is often pointless, even though participants favored a shared decision-making approach. On the other, despite aiming at a non-manipulative conversation, participants were aware that most CPR/DNAR conversations are characterized by a nudging communicative approach where the physician gently pushes patients towards his/her recommendation. Participants identified structural cause to the previous two tensions that go beyond the patient-physician relationship. CPR/DNAR decisions are examples of best interests assessments at the end of life. Such assessments represent value judgments that cannot be validly ascertained without patient input. CPR/DNAR conversations should be regarded as complex interventions that need to be thoroughly and regularly taught, in a manner similar to technical interventions.

Dementia prevention in memory clinics: recommendations from the European task force for brain health services.

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. Population aging in the coming decades requires deliberate efforts to further decrease its prevalence and societal burden. Increasing evidence supports the efficacy of preventive interventions on persons with intact cognition and high dementia risk. We report recommendations for the deployment of second-generation memory clinics (Brain Health Services) whose mission is evidence-based and ethical dementia prevention in at-risk individuals. The cornerstone interventions consist of (i) assessment of genetic and potentially modifiable risk factors including brain pathology, and risk stratification, (ii) risk communication with ad-hoc protocols, (iii) risk reduction with multi-domain interventions, and (iv) cognitive enhancement with cognitive and physical training. A roadmap is proposed for concept validation and ensuing clinical deployment.

Anonymity in Kidney Paired Donation: A Systematic Review of Reasons.

The objective of this study was to investigate reasons for or against anonymity that are pertinent to kidney paired donations (KPD). We conducted a systematic review of reasons using PubMed and Google Scholar until May 2022 and through snowballing. Inclusion criteria were publications that: 1) discussed organ donation anonymity; 2) was peer-reviewed; 3) presented at least one reason on anonymity. Exclusion criteria: 1) not published in a scientific journal; 2) grey literature and dissertations. Four researchers independently reviewed and selected papers based on the criteria, extracted text passages and coded them into narrow and broad reason types, selected reasons that were valid for kidney paired donations. 50 articles were included, 62 narrow reasons (n = 24 for; n = 38 against) and 13 broad reasons were coded. Broad reasons were: protection against harm, general benefits, gratitude, curiosity, unrealistic to implement, fundamental rights, respect people's wishes, professional neutrality, timing is important, information disclosure, altruism, reciprocity and donation pool. We did not find reasons that justify legal prohibition of donor-recipient interactions for KPD, if they consented to meet. Professional counselling, follow-up and careful evaluations to prevent potential harm.

Attitudes of university hospital staff towards in-house assisted suicide.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate staff attitudes toward assisted suicide in the hospital setting in Switzerland. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two University Hospitals in French speaking regions of Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: 13'834 health care professionals, including all personnel caring for patients, were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND OTHER VARIABLES: Attitudes towards the participation of hospital health care professionals in assisted suicide were investigated with an online questionnaire. RESULTS: Among all invited professionals, 5'127 responded by filling in the survey at least partially (response rate 37.0%), and 3'683 completed the entire survey (26.6%). 73.0% of participants approved that this practice should be authorized in their hospital and saw more positive than negative effects. 57.6% would consider assisted suicide for themselves. Non-medical professionals were 1.28 to 5.25 times more likely to approve assisted suicide than physicians (p<0.001). 70.7% of respondents indicated that each professional should have the choice of whether to assist in suicide. CONCLUSIONS: This multiprofessional survey sheds light on hospital staff perceptions of assisted suicide happening within hospital walls, which may inform the development of rules considering their wishes but also their reluctances. Further research using a mixed-methods approach could help reach an in-depth understanding of staff's attitudes and considerations towards assisted suicide practices.

How is physicians' implicit prejudice against the obese and mentally ill moderated by specialty and experience?

BACKGROUND: Implicit prejudice can lead to disparities in treatment. The effects of specialty and experience on implicit obesity and mental illness prejudice had not been explored. The main objective was to examine how specializing in psychiatry/general medicine and years of experience moderated implicit obesity and mental illness prejudice among Swiss physicians. Secondary outcomes included examining the malleability of implicit bias via two video interventions and a condition of cognitive load, correlations of implicit bias with responses to a clinical vignette, and correlations with explicit prejudice. METHODS: In stage 1, participants completed an online questionnaire including a clinical vignette. In stage 2, implicit prejudice pre- and post- intervention was tested using a 4 × 4 between-subject design including a control group. In stage 3, explicit prejudice was tested with feeling thermometers and participants were debriefed. Participants were 133 psychiatrists and internists working in Geneva, hospital-based and private practice. Implicit prejudice was assessed using a Weight IAT (Implicit Association Test) and a Mental Illness IAT. Explicit feelings towards the obese and the mentally ill were measured using Feeling Thermometers. A clinical vignette assessed the level of concern felt for a fictional patient under four conditions: control, obese, depression, obese and depression. Linear regression was conducted to test for association of gender, experience, and specialty with responses to vignettes, pre-intervention IATs and explicit attitudes, and to test for association of interventions (or control) with post-intervention IATs and explicit attitudes. Reported effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d. Two-tailed p < 0.05 was selected as the significance threshold. RESULTS: Compared to internists, psychiatrists showed significantly less implicit bias against mentally vs. physically ill people than internists and warmer explicit feelings towards the mentally ill. More experienced physicians displayed warmer explicit feelings towards the mentally ill and a greater level of concern for the fictional patients in the vignette than the less experienced, except when the patient was described as obese. CONCLUSIONS: Specialty moderates both implicit and explicit mental illness prejudice. Experience moderates explicit mental illness bias and concern for patients. The effect of specialty on implicit prejudice seems to be based principally on self-selection.

Physicians' decision-making when managing pediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advances in medicine have resulted in treatments that can extend the survival of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC) for several years. However, several diagnostic and prognostic uncertainties remain, particularly in the care of pediatric patients. In the absence of international guidelines, we aimed to explore physicians' decision-making when managing pediatric patients with PDOC. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured, individual interviews and employed an inductive thematic analytical approach to explore physicians' subjective experiences and decision-making when managing pediatric patients with PDOC. We recruited a purposive sample of 19 Italian-speaking physicians currently or previously employed in intensive care units or pediatric, internal medicine, or neurology departments in Switzerland. RESULTS: Participants stated that making clinical decisions involving pediatric patients with PDOC is extremely challenging, because the decisional process requires finding a balance between several contending factors. We found that physicians experienced ambivalence in three domains of care (time, goals of care, and target of care), and that they were aware of the risk of self-fulfilling prophecies for both prognosis and main clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed that experienced clinicians acknowledge the complex nature and challenge of clinical decision-making in the care of pediatric patients with PDOC. More research is warranted to improve and expand existing guidelines aimed at assisting and facilitating clinical and ethical decision-making, and improving physicians' awareness of the factors affecting their decisions when dealing with patients with PDOC.

The Challenges of Big Data for Research Ethics Committees: A Qualitative Swiss Study.

Big data trends in health research challenge the oversight mechanism of the Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The traditional standards of research quality and the mandate of RECs illuminate deficits in facing the computational complexity, methodological novelty, and limited auditability of these approaches. To better understand the challenges facing RECs, we explored the perspectives and attitudes of the members of the seven Swiss Cantonal RECs via semi-structured qualitative interviews. Our interviews reveal limited experience among REC members with the review of big data research, insufficient expertise in data science, and uncertainty about how to mitigate big data research risks. Nonetheless, RECs could strengthen their oversight by training in data science and big data ethics, complementing their role with external experts and ad hoc boards, and introducing precise shared practices.

Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, risk factors for infection and associated symptoms in Geneva, Switzerland: a population-based study.

Aims: To assess SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence over the first epidemic wave in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, as well as risk factors for infection and symptoms associated with IgG seropositivity. Methods: Between April and June 2020, former participants of a representative survey of the 20-74-year-old population of canton Geneva were invited to participate in the study, along with household members aged over 5 years. Blood samples were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G. Questionnaires were self-administered. We estimated seroprevalence with a Bayesian model accounting for test performance and sampling design. Results: We included 8344 participants, with an overall adjusted seroprevalence of 7.8% (95% credible interval 6.8-8.9). Seroprevalence was highest among 18-49 year-olds (9.5%), and lowest in 5-9-year-old children (4.3%) and individuals >65 years (4.7-5.4%). Odds of seropositivity were significantly reduced for female retirees and unemployed men compared to employed individuals, and smokers compared to non-smokers. We found no significant association between occupation, level of education, neighborhood income and the risk of being seropositive. The symptom most strongly associated with seropositivity was anosmia/dysgeusia. Conclusions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 population seroprevalence remained low after the first wave in Geneva. Socioeconomic factors were not associated with seropositivity in this sample. The elderly, young children and smokers were less frequently seropositive, although it is not clear how biology and behaviours shape these differences.

Coercive Measures in Psychiatry: A Review of Ethical Arguments.

Introduction: Coercion is frequent in clinical practice, particularly in psychiatry. Since it overrides some fundamental rights of patients (notably their liberty of movement and decision-making), adequate use of coercion requires legal and ethical justifications. In this article, we map out the ethical elements used in the literature to justify or reject the use of coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (seclusion, restraint, involuntary hospitalization) and highlight some important issues. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Cairn.info databases with the keywords "coercive/compulsory measures/care/treatment, coercion, seclusion, restraint, mental health, psychiatry, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization/admission, ethics, legitimacy." We collected all ethically relevant elements used in the author's justifications for or against coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (e.g., values, rights, practical considerations, relevant feelings, expected attitudes, risks of side effects), and coded, and ordered them into categories. Results: Some reasons provided in the literature are presented as justifying an absolute prohibition on coercion; they rely on the view that some fundamental rights, such as autonomy, are non-negotiable. Most ethically relevant elements, however, can be used in a balanced weighting of reasons to favor or reject coercive measures in certain circumstances. Professionals mostly agree that coercion is only legitimate in exceptional circumstances, when the infringement of some values (e.g., freedom of movement, short-term autonomy) is the only means to fulfill other, more important values and goals (e.g., patient's safety, the long-term rebuilding of patient's identity and autonomy). The results of evaluations vary according to which moral elements are prioritized over others. Moreover, we found numerous considerations (e.g., conditions, procedural values) for how to ensure that clinicians apply fair decision-making procedures related to coercion. Based on this analysis, we highlight vital topics that need further development. Conclusion: Before using coercive measures limiting freedom of movement, clinicians should consider and weigh all ethically pertinent elements in the situation and actively search for alternatives that are more respectful of patient's well-being and rights. Coercive measures decided upon after a transparent, carefully balanced evaluation process are more likely to be adequate, understood, and accepted by patients and caregivers.

General public's view on opt-in, opt-out, and mandated choice organ donation policies: a qualitative study involving Swiss French-speaking citizens favourably disposed towards organ donation.

BACKGROUND: All over the world, patients die while waiting for a transplant. Facing this difficulty, countries struggle to find efficient procedures and policies. One policy that has recently been enforced in many countries is the presumed consent (opt-out) system for organ donation. In such a system, every individual is considered as a potential organ donor except in cases of expressed refusal during her or his lifetime. Based on the input of a citizen's initiative, the Swiss parliament has made a proposal for a soft presumed consent policy.It was accepted by both chambers at the national level, but will possibly be challenged by a referendum, and give rise to a public vote. OBJECTIVE: Ahead of the democratic debate, our aim was to sound out what issues are perceived as relevant by ordinary citizens when they evaluate different policies regulating organ donation. What are their main worries and decision criteria? METHODS: We conducted semi-structured taped interviews with ordinary citizens during which we asked their views on three different systems: the current opt-in system, the opt-out presumed consent system described in a soft and in a hard version, and the mandatory decision system. We analysed transcripts by coding, and grouping code families up to four levels. We achieved saturation with fifteenth interviews. RESULTS: All our participants happened to be favourably disposed towards organ donation. Participants considered it important to choose a policy that contributes to overcoming the current shortage of organs, but not by any means. They were mostly concerned about individual rights and liberties, and more specifically about the importance of respecting the deceased's will and to promote lifetime advanced directives on organ donation. The role and rights of relatives were recurrent topics on which participants expressed divergent opinions. Participants often concluded that no legal system is perfect and spent much time discussing elements that were relevant to organ donation in general but not specifically linked to a given legal system. CONCLUSION: This study provides useful information about citizens' concerns regarding organ donation. In preparation of public debates on an opt-out policy, our results reveal what issues are likely to tilt the public opinion.

Perceptions of vaccination certificates among the general population in Geneva, Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the public perception of COVID-19 vaccination certificates as well as potential differences between individuals. METHODS: Between 17 March and 1 April 2021, a self-administered online questionnaire was proposed to all persons aged 18 years and older participating in the longitudinal follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies in Geneva, Switzerland. The questionnaire covered aspects of individual and collective benefits, and allowed participants to select contexts in which vaccination certificates should be presented. Results were presented as the proportion of persons agreeing or disagreeing with the implementation of vaccination certificates, selecting specific contexts where certificates should be presented, and agreeing or disagreeing with the potential risks related to certificates. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for factors associated with certificate non-acceptance. RESULTS: Overall, 4067 individuals completed the questionnaire (response rate 77.4%; mean age 53.3 ± standard deviation 14.4 years; 56.1% were women). About 61.0% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that a vaccination certificate was necessary in certain contexts and 21.6% believed there was no context where vaccination certificates should be presented. Contexts where a majority of participants perceived a vaccination certificate should be presented included jobs where others would be at risk of COVID-related complications (60.7%), jobs where employees would be at risk of getting infected (58.7%), or to be exempt from quarantine when travelling abroad (56.0%). Contexts where fewer individuals perceived the need for vaccination certificates to be presented were participation in large gatherings (36.9%), access to social venues (35.5%), or sharing the same workspace (21.5%). Younger age, no intent for vaccination, and not believing vaccination to be an important step in surmounting the pandemic were factors associated with certificate non-acceptance. CONCLUSION: This large population-based study showed that the general adult population in Geneva, Switzerland, agreed with the implementation of vaccination certificates in work-related and travel-related contexts. However, this solution was perceived as unnecessary for access to large gatherings or social venues, or to share the same workspace. Differences were seen with age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and vaccination willingness and perception, highlighting the importance of taking personal and sociodemographic variation into consideration when predicting acceptance of such certificates.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint in old-age psychiatry inpatient units.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Coercion in psychiatry is legally tolerated as a last resort. The reduction of the use of coercion is a shared goal of hospital administrators, medical and nursing staff and representatives of patients and families but requires the identification of risk factors for coercion. These risk factors in geriatric psychiatric inpatient settings are not well known, especially regarding seclusion. Through examining the prevalence of coercion and patients' characteristics, this study aims to identify risk factors for coercion in elderly people. METHODS: The use of coercion in the geriatric psychiatry division of Geneva University Hospital in 2017 was retrospectively analyzed. The incidence rate ratios were estimated with multivariable Poisson regressions to assess risk factors for coercion. RESULTS: Eighty-one of 494 patients (16.4%) experienced at least one coercive measure during their stay (mainly seclusion). The risk factors for coercion were younger age, male gender, being divorced or married, cognitive disorders, high item 1 of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) score (overactive, aggressive, disruptive or agitated behavior) at admission, previous psychiatric hospitalizations and involuntary referrals from the emergency department. Other disorders and global HoNOS scores were not associated with the use of coercion. CONCLUSION: Higher risks of coercion were outlined in men with cognitive disorders, agitated behaviors, and previous psychiatric hospitalizations. They differed from those observed in younger adults in terms of age, civil status, disorders, global HoNOS scores and referrals. Therefore, geriatric psychiatric populations should be specifically investigated for the development of interventions aiming coercion reduction.

Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES: To explore prospective participants' preferences regarding the return of their individual-specific results from a dementia prevalence study (a probabilistic diagnosis of dementia). METHODS/DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study with 22 individuals aged 45 to 86 and resident in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland). Participants had previously joined the validation phase of an epidemiological study into dementia and its impact. RESULTS: We found that individuals welcome the return of their individual-specific results, provided these meet a number of validity, clinical, and personal utility criteria. They justify researchers' duty to return study findings with the principles of beneficence (eg, providing information that can help participants' medical decision-making) and justice (eg, acknowledging participants' efforts to help research by sharing their personal information). Furthermore, individuals anticipate societal benefits of the return of individual specific study findings, including improved interpersonal relationships among individuals and decreased dementia-related stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that researchers should address the return of individual-specific study results early on during study design and involve prospective participants in identifying both the conditions under which results should be offered and the perceived individual and societal benefits returning can have.

[Buyers' club†: an alternative for access to treatment†?] / Buyers' club†: une alternative pour l'accès au traitement†?

Rapid medication management for patients infected with HIV, HCV or HBV is key in optimizing a more favourable clinical response, in terms of morbidity, mortality, quality-of-life and reduced risk of transmission. If a drug is expensive, access to treatment for an uninsured patient with limited resources can be a hurdle that leads to forgoing healthcare for economic reasons. The buyers' club's objective is to provide logistics and/or financial assistance to a patient aiming to import qualitative generics for his personal use at an affordable price oversea. The drug is purchased on the internet.

La prise en charge médicamenteuse rapide pour les patients infectés par le VIH, le VHC ou le VHB est un élément clé pour obtenir une réponse clinique favorable en termes de morbidité, mortalité, et qualité de vie, et elle permet de diminuer les risques de transmission. Lorsqu'un médicament est cher, l'accès aux traitements pour un·e patient·e sans assurance avec des ressources limitées est une barrière qui peut conduire à renoncer aux soins pour des raisons économiques. Un buyers' club est une structure dont l'objectif est d'apporter une aide logistique et/ou financière à un·e patient·e qui souhaite importer à titre personnel un médicament de qualité et efficace à des conditions économiquement plus favorables. L'achat du médicament se fait par internet.