RESUMO
Participatory approaches to genomic research manifest along a continuum from bottom-up citizen-science initiatives designed to liberate scientific inquiry from the constraints of traditional research institutional contexts and professional practices to top-down investigator-initiated studies designed to expose the public to scientific research processes and build its support and enthusiasm for genomic research. With foundations as varied as open science, crowdsourcing, patient advocacy, social media, the digitization of health, and the neoliberalization of academic research, a range of ethical frameworks inform the modes of participatory genomic research. Using illustrations from citizen genomic science, patient advocacy, and investigator-led and government-initiated genomic research efforts, we argue that as participatory genomic research pushes the conventional research boundaries toward a more democratizing ethos, it challenges scientific practices and the ethical conduct of genomic research both within and outside of the traditional sites of biomedical innovation.
Assuntos
Genômica/ética , Crowdsourcing , Humanos , Defesa do Paciente , Mídias SociaisRESUMO
PURPOSE: The paradox of primary care is the observation that primary care is associated with apparently low levels of evidence-based care for individual diseases, but systems based on primary care have healthier populations, use fewer resources, and have less health inequality. The purpose of this article is to explore, from a complex systems perspective, mechanisms that might account for the effects of primary care beyond disease-specific care. METHODS: In an 8-session, participatory group model-building process, patient, caregiver, and primary care clinician community stakeholders worked with academic investigators to develop and refine an agent-based computer simulation model to test hypotheses about mechanisms by which features of primary care could affect health and health equity. RESULTS: In the resulting model, patients are at risk for acute illness, acute life-changing illness, chronic illness, and mental illness. Patients have changeable health behaviors and care-seeking tendencies that relate to their living in advantaged or disadvantaged neighborhoods. There are 2 types of care available to patients: primary and specialty. Primary care in the model is less effective than specialty care in treating single diseases, but it has the ability to treat multiple diseases at once. Primary care also can provide disease prevention visits, help patients improve their health behaviors, refer to specialty care, and develop relationships with patients that cause them to lower their threshold for seeking care. In a model run with primary care features turned off, primary care patients have poorer health. In a model run with all primary care features turned on, their conjoint effect leads to better population health for patients who seek primary care, with the primary care effect being particularly pronounced for patients who are disadvantaged and patients with multiple chronic conditions. Primary care leads to more total health care visits that are due to more disease prevention visits, but there are reduced illness visits among people in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Supplemental appendices provide a working version of the model and worksheets that allow readers to run their own experiments that vary model parameters. CONCLUSION: This simulation model provides insights into possible mechanisms for the paradox of primary care and shows how participatory group model building can be used to evaluate hypotheses about the behavior of such complex systems as primary health care and population health.
Assuntos
Simulação por Computador , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Modelos Econômicos , Modelos Estatísticos , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde , Atenção Primária à Saúde/organização & administração , Feminino , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Fatores SocioeconômicosRESUMO
To advance scientific knowledge about human diseases and effective therapeutic treatments, investigators need access to human biospecimens and associated data. However, regulatory and procedural requirements may impede investigators' efforts to share biospecimens and data within and across institutions. Although a number of studies have explored experiences and attitudes of study participants and others about biospecimen and data sharing, less is known about investigators' perspectives. We conducted an electronic survey to learn about investigators' experiences and attitudes about research with biospecimens and associated data. A total of 114 practicing scientists from a pool of 60 university medical schools with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) participated. We found a high degree of variability in investigators' experiences with institutional review boards (IRBs) when seeking approval to conduct biospecimen research, as well as differences in approaches to informed consent for the collection of specimens. Participants also expressed concerns that the risks of biospecimen research may be overestimated by IRBs. This research suggests that the current regulatory environment for human research protections may require reconsideration with regard to standards for collection, use, and sharing of biospecimens and data.
Assuntos
Atitude , Bancos de Espécimes Biológicos , Pesquisa Biomédica , Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa , Disseminação de Informação , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido , Pesquisadores , Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Pesquisa Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação/ética , Disseminação de Informação/legislação & jurisprudência , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Faculdades de Medicina , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados Unidos , UniversidadesAssuntos
Epilepsia , Hospitais Gerais , Boston , Epilepsia/diagnóstico , Epilepsia/genética , Epilepsia/terapia , HumanosAssuntos
Peso Corporal , Doenças Cardiovasculares , Hospitais Pediátricos , Doenças Metabólicas , Humanos , MississippiAssuntos
Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial/economia , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/economia , Cuidados de Saúde não Remunerados , Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial/organização & administração , Redes Comunitárias/economia , Redes Comunitárias/organização & administração , Recessão Econômica , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Humanos , Indigência Médica , Estados Unidos , VoluntáriosRESUMO
Boundaries, which are essential for the healthy functioning of individuals and organisations, can become problematic when they limit creative thought and action. In this article, we present a framework for promoting health across boundaries and summarise preliminary insights from experience, conversations and reflection on how the process of boundary spanning may affect health. Boundary spanning requires specific individual qualities and skills. It can be facilitated or thwarted by organisational context. Boundary spanning often involves risk, but may reap abundant rewards. Boundary spanning is necessary to optimise health and health care. Exploring the process, the landscape and resources that enable boundary spanning may yield new opportunities for advancing health. We invite boundary spanners to join in a learning community to advance understanding and health.