The concept of vulnerability plays a central role in research ethics in signaling that certain research participants warrant more careful consideration because their risk of harm is heightened due to their participation in research. Despite scholarly debates, the descriptive and normative meanings ascribed to the concept have remained disengaged from the perspective of users of the concept and those concerned by its use. In this study, we report a survey- and interview-based investigation of mental health researcher perspectives on vulnerability. We found that autonomy-based understandings of vulnerability were predominant but that other understandings coexisted, reflecting considerable pluralism. A wide range of challenges were associated with this concept, and further training was recommended by researchers.

Introduction: There has been a proliferation of initiatives targeted towards improving psychological wellbeing among medical learners. Yet many learners do not seek assistance due to stigma against help seeking. Understanding the prevailing discourses on the effects of mental health stigma in the context of medical education will improve insight on how to address stigma and improve wellbeing. In this study, the authors sought to explore discourses on stigma in medical education through a Foucauldian Critical Discourse Analysis. Methods:The authors assembled several sets of texts related to stigma in medical education. The initial archive consisted of social media discourse and was expanded to include digital news media. Next, the authors conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with medical students, residents and faculty. Using principles of Critical Discourse Analysis informed by the writings of Michel Foucault, the authors analysed the archive to identify truth statements, representative statements and discursive effects.Results: Analysis revealed an emancipatory discourse of disclosure that normalised help-seeking, which conflicted with a discourse of performance. Results suggested that public disclosure remains challenging in private contexts due to a medical culture that rewards perfectionism and lauds heroism. Discourses on performance positioned disclosure as disruptive to the system's need to maintain its own hegemony. Overall, stigma was perceived as rooted within the structural power of the medical education system and society at large. Conclusion:Discourses on stigma in medical education hold implications for the teaching, learning and overall wellbeing of medical learners. The tensions between discourses on disclosure and performance have the potential to perpetuate further distress for learners and worsen asymmetries in power. Interventions to address stigma would benefit from understanding and addressing the role of power and hierarchy in maintaining and dismantling stigma.

Introduction. Prognosis is an essential component of informed consent for medical decision making. Research shows that physicians display discrepancies in their prognostication, leading to variable, inaccurate, optimistic, or pessimistic prognosis. Factors driving these discrepancies and the supporting evidence have not been reviewed systematically. Methods. We undertook a scoping review to explore the literature on the factors leading to discrepancies in medical prognosis. We searched Medline (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases for peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2017. We included articles that discussed prognosis variation or discrepancy and where factors influencing prognosis were evaluated. We extracted data outlining the participants, methodology, and prognosis discrepancy information and measured factors influencing prognosis. Results. Of 4,723 articles, 73 were included in the final analysis. There was significant variability in research methodologies. Most articles showed that physicians were pessimistic regarding patient outcomes, particularly in early trainees and acute care specialties. Accuracy rates were similar across all time periods. Factors influencing prognosis were clustered in 4 categories: patient-related factors (such as age, gender, race, diagnosis), physician-related factors (such as age, race, gender, specialty, training and experience, attitudes and values), clinical situation-related factors (such as physician-patient relationship, patient location, and clinical context), and environmental-related factors (such as country or hospital size). Discussion. Obtaining accurate prognostic information is one of the highest priorities for seriously ill patients. The literature shows trends toward pessimism, especially in early trainees and acute care specialties. While some factors may prove difficult to change, the physician’s personality and psychology influence prognosis accuracy and could be tackled using debiasing strategies. Exposure to long-term patient outcomes and a multidisciplinary practice setting are environmental debiasing strategies that may warrant further research. Highlights Literature on discrepancies in physician’s prognostication is heterogeneous and sparse. Literature shows that physicians are mostly pessimistic regarding patient outcomes. Literature shows that a physician’s personality and psychology influence prognostic accuracy and could be improved with evidence-based debiasing strategies. Medical specialty strongly influences prognosis, with specialties exposed to acutely ill patients being more pessimistic, whereas specialties following patients longitudinally being more optimistic. Physicians early in their training were more pessimist than more experienced physicians.