Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35047973›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2021

Patient and Citizen Participation in the Identification of Ethical Considerations Aiming to Address Uncertainty in the Evaluation of Promising Interventions in a Pandemic Context.

Catherine Olivier, Isabelle Ganache, Olivier Demers-Payette, Louis Lochhead, Sandra Pelaez, Michèle de Guise, Marie-Pascale Pomey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine OlivierInstitut national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux, Bureau - Méthodologies et éthique, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Isabelle GanacheInstitut national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux, Bureau - Méthodologies et éthique, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Olivier Demers-PayetteInstitut national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux, Bureau - Méthodologies et éthique, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Louis LochheadInstitut national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux, Bureau - Méthodologies et éthique, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Sandra PelaezInstitut national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux, Bureau - Méthodologies et éthique, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Michèle de GuiseInstitut national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux, Bureau - Méthodologies et éthique, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Marie-Pascale PomeyInstitut national d'excellence en santé et services sociaux, Bureau - Méthodologies et éthique, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Institut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have been conducted to identify interventions that could contribute to alleviating the burden it has caused. The Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) has played a key role in informing the government of Québec regarding the evaluation of specific pandemic-related interventions. This process took place in a context characterized by a sense of urgency to assess and recommend potential interventions that could save lives and reduce the effects of the disease on populations and healthcare systems, which increased the pressure on the regulatory agencies leading these evaluations. While some of the interventions examined were considered promising, results from COVID-19 studies often led to uncertainty regarding their efficacy or safety. Regulatory agencies evaluating the value of promising interventions thus face challenges in deciding whether these should be made available to the population, particularly when assessing their benefit-risk balance. To shed light on these challenges, we identified underlying ethical considerations that can influence such an assessment. A rapid literature review was conducted in February 2021, to identify the main challenges associated with the benefit-risk balance assessment of promising interventions. To reinforce our understanding of the underlying ethical considerations, we initiated a discussion among various social actors involved in critical thinking surrounding the evaluation of promising interventions, including ethicists, clinicians and researchers involved in clinical or public health practice, as well as patients and citizens. This discussion allowed us to create a space for exchange and mutual understanding among these various actors who contributed equally to the identification of ethical considerations. The knowledge and perspectives stemming from the scientific literature and those consulted were integrated in a common reflection on these ethical considerations. This allowed patients and citizens, directly affected by the evaluation of pandemic-related interventions and the resulting social choices, to contribute to the identification of the relevant ethical considerations. It also allowed for reflection on the responsibilities of the various actors involved in the development, evaluation, and distribution of promising interventions in a setting of urgency and uncertainty, such as that brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

benefit-risk assessmentcitizen participationCOVID-19pandemicpatient participationpromising interventionsuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID35047973
PMCPMC8757856
OpenAlexW4200397032

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.