Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is increasingly funded and undertaken as part of health system strengthening efforts worldwide. HPSR ethics is also a relatively new and emerging field, with numerous normative and descriptive questions that have largely not been considered. Normative questions include what ethical principles and values should guide HPSR. Descriptive questions include what ethical concerns arise when conducting HPSR. A small but growing body of scholarly work characterizes the various ethics issues inherent in HPSR. Towards informing the future development of ethics guidance for HPSR, a scoping review was undertaken to: (1) identify the range of ethics issues relevant to the conduct of HPSR—with a deliberate (though not exclusive) focus on low- and middle-income country settings and (2) describe existing guidance on key ethics issues relevant to HPSR. Using the Cochrane methods as a basis, the review identified formal and informal literature on HPSR ethics by searching the following databases: PubMed’s Medline, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, WHO Global Health Regional Libraries, LILACs, OpenDOAR and Bielefeld Academic Search Engine. In total, 11 062 documents were identified from the formal (10 519) and informal (543) literature. One hundred and seven of these documents (formal 99 and informal 8) met at least one inclusion criterion and underwent thematic analysis. Ethical issues in four main categories were identified: upholding autonomy, identifying and balancing risks and benefits, justice and determination of ethical review requirements. The review indicated that the ethical values behind HPSR place an emphasis on its contributing to the reduction of health disparities. Unsurprisingly then, numerous ethical concerns relating to justice arise in HPSR. However, the majority of existing guidance focuses on obtaining or waiving informed consent and, thus, appears to be insufficient for HPSR. A list of priority ethics issues in HPSR in need of guidance development is provided.

/pdf/ethics-of-health-policy-and-systems-research-a-scoping-3tlxhasw4m.pdf

Ethics of health policy and systems research: a scoping review of the literature.

Normative and conceptual ELSI research: what it is, and why it's important.

BACKGROUND On the morning of June 12, 2016, an armed assailant entered the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and initiated an assault that killed 49 people and injured 53. The regional Level I trauma center and two community hospitals responded to this mass casualty incident. A detailed analysis was performed to guide hospitals who strive to prepare for future similar events. METHODS A retrospective review of all victim charts and/or autopsy reports was performed to identify victim presentation patterns, injuries sustained, and surgical resources required. Patients were stratified into three groups: survivors who received care at the regional Level I trauma center, survivors who received care at one of two local community hospitals, and decedents. RESULTS Of the 102 victims, 40 died at the scene and 9 died upon arrival to the Level I trauma center. The remaining 53 victims received definitive medical care and survived. Twenty-nine victims were admitted to the trauma center and five victims to a community hospital. The remaining 19 victims were treated and discharged that day. Decedents sustained significantly more bullet impacts than survivors (4 ± 3 vs. 2 ± 1; p = 0.008) and body regions injured (3 ± 1 vs. 2 ± 1; p = 0.0002). Gunshots to the head, chest, and abdominal body regions were significantly more common among decedents than survivors (p < 0.0001). Eighty-two percent of admitted patients required surgery in the first 24 hours. Essential resources in the first 24 hours included trauma surgeons, emergency room physicians, orthopedic/hand surgeons, anesthesiologists, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, intensivists, and hospitalists. CONCLUSION Mass shooting events are associated with high mortality. Survivors commonly sustain multiple, life-threatening ballistic injuries requiring emergent surgery and extensive hospital resources. Given the increasing frequency of mass shootings, all hospitals must have a coordinated plan to respond to a mass casualty event. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiological Study, level V.

Injury characteristics of the Pulse Nightclub shooting: Lessons for mass casualty incident preparation.

What is good bioethics? Addressing this question is key for reinforcing and developing the field. In particular, a discussion of potential quality criteria can heighten awareness and contribute to the quality of bioethics publications. Accordingly, the objective of this article is threefold: first, we want to identify a set of criteria for quality in bioethics. Second, we want to illustrate the added value of a novel method: in-depth analysis of a single article with the aim of deriving quality criteria. The third and ultimate goal is to stimulate a broad and vivid debate on goodness in bioethics. An initial literature search reveals a range of diverse quality criteria. In order to expand on the realm of such quality criteria, we perform an in-depth analysis of an article that is acclaimed for being exemplary. The analysis results in eleven specific quality criteria for good bioethics in three categories: argumentative, empirical, and dialectic. Although we do not claim that the identified criteria are universal or absolute, we argue that they are fruitful for fueling a continuous constitutive debate on what is “good bioethics.” Identifying, debating, refining, and applying such criteria is an important part of defining and improving bioethics.

/pdf/in-pursuit-of-goodness-in-bioethics-analysis-of-an-exemplary-38u0etgruh.pdf

In pursuit of goodness in bioethics: analysis of an exemplary article

Introduction Value and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonetheless, bioethical research should not go unquestioned regarding its scientific or social value. What exactly constitutes the value of bioethical research, however, remains widely unclear so far. Methods This explorative study investigated possible value dimensions for bioethical research by conducting a qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements about the value of their studies. 40 bioethics articles published 2015 in four relevant journals (The American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMC Medical Ethics and Journal of Medical Ethics) were analyzed. The value dimensions of "advancing knowledge" (e.g. research results that are relevant for science itself and for further research) and "application" (e.g. increasing applicability of research results in practice) were used as main deductive categories for the analysis. Further subcategories were inductively generated. Results The analysis resulted in 62 subcategories representing a wide range of value dimensions for bioethical research. Of these, 45 were subcategories of "advancing knowledge" and 17 of "application". In 21 articles, no value dimensions related to "application" was found; the remaining 19 articles mentioned "advancing knowledge" as well as "application". The value dimensions related to "advancing knowledge" were, in general, more fine-grained. Conclusions Even though limitations arise regarding the sample, the study revealed a plethora of value dimensions that can inform further debates about what makes bioethical research valuable for science and society. Besides theoretical reflections on the value of bioethics more meta-research in bioethics is needed.

/pdf/the-value-of-bioethical-research-a-qualitative-literature-305aspehr0.pdf

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements

While the bioethics literature demonstrates that the field has spent substantial time and thought over the last four decades on the goals, methods, and desired outcomes for service and training in bioethics, there has been less progress defining the nature and goals of bioethics research and scholarship. This gap makes it difficult both to describe the breadth and depth of these areas of bioethics and, importantly, to gauge their success. However, the gap also presents us with an opportunity to define this scope of work for ourselves and to help shape the broader conversation about the impact of academic research. Because of growing constraints on academic funding, researchers and scholars in many fields are being asked to demonstrate and also forecast the value and impact of their work. To do that, and also to satisfy ourselves that our work has meaningful effect, we must understand how our work can motivate change and how that change can be meaningfully measured. In a field as diverse as bioethics, the pathways to and metrics of change will likewise be diverse. It is therefore critical that any assessment of the impact of bioethics research and scholarship be informed by an understanding of the nature of the work, its goals, and how those goals can and ought to be furthered. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model that connects individual bioethics projects to the broader goals of scholarship, describing the translation of research and scholarly output into changes in thinking, practice, and policy. One of the key implications of the model is that impact in bioethics is generally the result of a collection of projects rather than of any single piece of research or scholarship. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for a thoroughgoing conversation about bioethics research and scholarship that will advance and shape the important conversation about their impact.

A Conceptual Model for the Translation of Bioethics Research and Scholarship

In the wake of the Stoneman Douglas School shooting, Republican and Democratic leaders-like the American electorate they represent-remain sharply divided in their responses to gun violence. They are united in their condemnation of these mass shootings, but they disagree about whether stricter or looser gun control laws are the answer. Those on the right side of the political aisle suggest that the issue is one of mental illness rather than gun control. Conversely, those who are more liberal or progressive in their political learnings are quick to condemn attempts to reframe the issue of mass shootings as a mental health problem. Both sides are wrong. Mass shootings are indeed partially a mental health problem, albeit one poorly addressed by our current laws and policies. But the solution to mass shootings also needs to consider strategies that may reduce gun violence in general.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hast.832

Sean Philpott-Jones

Papers

A Conceptual Model for the Translation of Bioethics Research and Scholarship

Mass Shootings, Mental Illness, and Gun Control.