Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29475437›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

Ethical implications of digital communication for the patient-clinician relationship: analysis of interviews with clinicians and young adults with long term conditions (the LYNC study).

Agnieszka Ignatowicz, Anne-Marie Slowther, Patrick Elder, Carol Bryce, Kathryn Hamilton, Caroline Huxley, Vera Forjaz, Jackie Sturt, Frances Griffiths

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Agnieszka IgnatowiczWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Anne-Marie SlowtherWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. a-m.slowther@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3338-8457
Patrick ElderWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Carol BryceWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Kathryn HamiltonFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Caroline HuxleyWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Vera ForjazFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Jackie SturtFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Frances GriffithsWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
University of Warwick · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/209/51
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital communication between a patient and their clinician offers the potential for improved patient care, particularly for young people with long term conditions who are at risk of service disengagement. However, its use raises a number of ethical questions which have not been explored in empirical studies. The objective of this study was to examine, from the patient and clinician perspective, the ethical implications of the use of digital clinical communication in the context of young people living with long-term conditions.

methodsA total of 129 semi-structured interviews, 59 with young people and 70 with healthcare professionals, from 20 United Kingdom (UK)-based specialist clinics were conducted as part of the LYNC study. Transcripts from five sites (cancer, liver, renal, cystic fibrosis and mental health) were read by a core team to identify explicit and implicit ethical issues and develop descriptive ethical codes. Our subsequent thematic analysis was developed iteratively with reference to professional and ethical norms.

resultsClinician participants saw digital clinical communication as potentially increasing patient empowerment and autonomy; improving trust between patient and healthcare professional; and reducing harm because of rapid access to clinical advice. However, they also described ethical challenges, including: difficulty with defining and maintaining boundaries of confidentiality; uncertainty regarding the level of consent required; and blurring of the limits of a clinician's duty of care when unlimited access is possible. Paradoxically, the use of digital clinical communication can create dependence rather than promote autonomy in some patients. Patient participants varied in their understanding of, and concern about, confidentiality in the context of digital communication. An overarching theme emerging from the data was a shifting of the boundaries of the patient-clinician relationship and the professional duty of care in the context of use of clinical digital communication.

conclusionsThe ethical implications of clinical digital communication are complex and go beyond concerns about confidentiality and consent. Any development of this form of communication should consider its impact on the patient-clinician-relationship, and include appropriate safeguards to ensure that professional ethical obligations are adhered to.

Indexed as

AttitudeBioethical IssuesCommunicationAdolescentAdultChronic DiseaseComprehensionConfidentialityElectronic MailFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInformed ConsentLong-Term CareMaleMoral ObligationsDigital communicationEthical issuesYoung people

Identifiers

PMID29475437
PMCPMC5824603
OpenAlexW2792487787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.