Applicability of European Society of Cardiology guidelines according to gross national income.

AIMS: To assess the feasibility to comply with the recommended actions of ESC guidelines on general cardiology areas in 102 countries and assess how compliance relates to the country's income level. METHODS AND RESULTS: All recommendations from seven ESC guidelines on general cardiology areas were extracted and labelled on recommended actions. A survey was sent to all 102 ESC national and affiliated cardiac societies (NCSs). Respondents were asked to score recommended actions on their availability in clinical practice on a four-point Likert scale (fully available, mostly/often available, mostly/often unavailable, fully unavailable), and select the top three barriers perceived as being responsible for limiting their national availability. Applicability was assessed overall, per World Bank gross national income (GNI) level, and per guideline.A total of 875 guideline recommendations on general cardiology was extracted. Responses were received from 64 of 102 (62.7%) NCSs. On average, 71·6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 68.6-74.6] of the actions were fully available, 9.9% (95% CI: 8.7-11.1) mostly/often available, 6.7% (95% CI: 5.4-8.0) mostly/often unavailable, and 11·8% (95% CI: 9.5-14.1) fully unavailable. In low-income countries (LICs), substantially more actions were fully unavailable [29·4% (95% CI: 22.6-36.3)] compared with high-income countries [HICs, countries 2.4% (95% CI: 1.2-3.7); P < 0.05]. Nevertheless, a proportion of actions with the lowest availability scores were often fully or mostly unavailable independent of GNIs. Actions were most often not available due to lack of reimbursement and other financial barriers. CONCLUSION: Local implementation of ESC guidelines on general cardiology is high in HICs and low in LICs , being inversely correlated with country gross national incomes.

When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of biomedical research with human subjects. Research ethics committees may allow for a modification or a waiver of consent when the research has social value, involves minimal risk, and if consent is impractical to obtain. While the conditions of social value and minimal risk have received ample attention in research ethics literature, the impractical condition remains unclear. There seem to be different interpretations of the meaning of impractical within academic literature. To address this lack of clarity, we performed a systematic review on the interpretation of impractical. METHODS: First, we examined international research ethics guidelines on their usage and interpretation of impractical. Next, we used international ethical guidelines to identify synonyms of the term "impractical." Accordingly, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles that included "informed consent" and "impractical" or one of its synonyms. RESULTS: We found that there were only a few international ethics guidelines that described what could be considered impractical. Out of 2329 identified academic articles, 42 were included. Impractical was used to describe four different conditions: (1) obtaining informed consent becomes too demanding for researchers, (2) obtaining informed consent leads to invalid study outcomes, (3) obtaining informed consent harms the participant, and (4) obtaining informed consent is meaningless for the participant. CONCLUSION: There are conditions that render conventional informed consent truly impractical, such as untraceable participants or harm for participants. At the same time, researchers have a moral responsibility to design an infrastructure in which consent can be obtained, even if they face hardship in obtaining consent. In addition, researchers should seek to minimize harm inflicted upon participants when harm may occur as a result of the consent procedure. Invalidity of research due to consent issues should not be regarded as impractical but as a condition that limits the social value of research. Further research is essential for when a waiver of informed consent based on impractical is also reasonable.

Learning healthcare systems in cardiology: A qualitative interview study on ethical dilemmas of a learning healthcare system.

Background: Implementation of an LHS in cardiology departments presents itself with ethical challenges, including ethical review and informed consent. In this qualitative study, we investigated stakeholders' attitudes toward ethical issues regarding the implementation of an LHS in the cardiology department. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using 35 semi-structured interviews and 5 focus group interviews with 34 individuals. We interviewed cardiologists, research nurses, cardiovascular patients, ethicists, health lawyers, epidemiologists/statisticians and insurance spokespersons. Results: Respondents identified different ethical obstacles for the implementation of an LHS within the cardiology department. These obstacles were mainly on ethical oversight in LHSs; in particular, informed con sent and data ownership were discussed. In addition, respondents reported on the role of patients in LHS. Respondents described the LHS as a possibility for patients to engage in both research and care. While the LHS can promote patient engagement, patients might also be reduced to their data and are therefore at risk, according to respondents. Conclusions: Views on the ethical dilemmas of a LHSs within cardiology are diverse. Similar to the literary debate on oversight, there are different views on how ethical oversight should be regulated. This study adds to the literary debate on oversight by highlighting that patients wish to be informed about the learning activities within the LHS they participate in, and that they wish to actively contribute by sharing their data and identifying learning goals, provided that informed consent is obtained.