Background Data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare such as health-related big data research (HBDR) implies that data from clinical routine, research and patient-reported data, but also non-medical social or demographic data, are aggregated and linked in order to optimize biomedical research. In this context, notions of patient participation and involvement are frequently invoked to legitimize this kind of research and improve its governance. The aim of this debate paper is to critically examine the specific use and ethical role of participatory concepts in the context of HBDR and data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare. Discussion We introduce basic conceptual distinctions for the understanding of participation by looking at relevant fields of application in politics, bioethics and medical research. Against this backdrop, we identify three paradigmatic participatory roles that patients/subjects are assigned within the field of HBDR: participants as providers of biomaterials and data, participants as administrators of their own research participation and participants as (co-)principal investigators. We further illustrate these roles by exemplary data-intensive research-initiatives. Our analysis of these initiatives and their respective participatory promises reveals specific ethical and practical shortcomings and challenges. Central problems affecting, amongst others, ethical and methodological research standards, as well as public trust in research, result from the negligence of essential political-ethical dimensions of genuine participation. Conclusions Based on the conceptual distinctions introduced, we formulate basic criteria for justified appeals to participatory approaches in HBDR and data-intensive research in medicine and healthcare in order to overcome these shortcomings. As we suggest, this is not only a matter of conceptual clarity, but a crucial requirement for maintaining ethical standards and trust in HBDR and related medical research.
Background: The thinking in health psychology is that patients’ willingness to adopt preventive health behavior is contingent on their perceiving an increased risk of disease and is influenced by accompanying psychological stress. In counseling women with a family history of breast cancer, physicians focus on encouraging the patient to undergo early detection examinations as recommended. Therefore, it is essential to examine how women in this risk group perceive their own chances of developing breast cancer and to assess the psychological effects of their situation. Material and Methods: 129 women with at least one first or second degree relative who had developed breast cancer were enrolled in a questionnaire study. The object was to ascertain the extent to which these women may be expected to realistically estimate their own probability of contracting the disease and what influence risk perception and psychological strain have on their willingness to make use of diagnostic opportunities for early detection. Additionally, the effects on their physical and mental well-being were analyzed. Results: Among the women of the study group, a family history of breast cancer did not always correlate with the subject’s perception of an increased risk of contracting the disease compared. On the whole, the majority of the women overestimated their personal risk despite prior genetic counseling. Only slightly less than one quarter of the study group correctly estimated their risk; another quarter underestimated it. The majority of those women who exhibited an increased risk perception were also those who overestimated their probability of personally contracting the disease. They underwent recommended screening examinations significantly less often than women with a low risk perception. However, women subjected to intense psychological strain showed above-average participation in screening programs. Conclusions: Women with a family history of breast cancer often find it difficult to realistically estimate their own risk of contracting the disease. Increased risk perception had a negative effect on participation in recommended breast cancer screening. Therefore, an effort should be made to correct the patient’s overestimation of her personal risk. Integrating psychological counseling in screening programs is essential considering that women from high-risk groups are subjected to increased psychological strain. Further studies are required to more precisely evaluate other psychosocial factors in the behavior of women in risk group toward screening.
Bioethicists tend to focus on the individual as the relevant moral subject. Yet, in highly complex and socially differentiated healthcare systems a number of social groups, each committed to a common cause, are involved in medical decisions and sometimes even try to influence bioethical discourses according to their own agenda. We argue that the significance of these collective actors is unjustifiably neglected in bioethics. The growing influence of collective actors in the fields of biopolitics and bioethics leads us to pursue the question as to how collective moral claims can be characterized and justified. We pay particular attention to elaborating the circumstances under which collective actors can claim 'collective agency.' Specifically, we develop four normative-practical criteria for collective agency in order to determine the conditions that must be given to reasonably speak of 'collective autonomy'. For this purpose, we analyze patient organizations and families, which represent two quite different kinds of groups and can both be conceived as collective actors of high relevance for bioethical practice. Finally, we discuss some practical implications and explain why the existence of a shared practice of trust is of immediate normative relevance in this respect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.