Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36397032›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

Ethical preparedness in health research and care: the role of behavioural approaches.

G Samuel, L M Ballard, H Carley, A M Lucassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

G Samuel *Clinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.
L M Ballard *Clinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Room AB 209, MP 801, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, South Academic Block, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. l.ballard@soton.ac.uk.
H CarleyClinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Room AB 209, MP 801, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, South Academic Block, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
A M LucassenClinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic health scholars have long called for preparedness to help better negotiate ethical issues that emerge during public health emergencies. In this paper we argue that the concept of ethical preparedness has much to offer other areas of health beyond pandemic emergencies, particularly in areas where rapid technological developments have the potential to transform aspects of health research and care, as well as the relationship between them. We do this by viewing the ethical decision-making process as a behaviour, and conceptualising ethical preparedness as providing a health research/care setting that can facilitate the promotion of this behaviour. We draw on an implementation science and behaviour change model, COM-B, to demonstrate that to be ethically prepared requires having the capability (ability), opportunity, and motivation (willingness) to work in an ethically prepared way.

methodsWe use two case examples from our empirical research-one pandemic and one non-pandemic related-to illustrate how our conceptualisation of ethical preparedness can be applied in practice. The first case study was of the UK NHSX COVID-19 contact tracing application case study involved eight in-depth interviews with people involved with the development/governance of this application. The second case involved a complex case regarding familial communication discussed at the UK Genethics Forum. We used deductive qualitative analysis based on the COM-B model categories to analyse the transcripbed data from each case study.

resultsOur analysis highlighted that being ethically prepared needs to go beyond merely equipping health professionals with skills and knowledge, or providing research governance actors with ethical principles and/or frameworks. To allow or support these different actors to utilise their skills and knowledge (or principles and frameworks), a focus on the physical and social opportunity is important, as is a better understanding the role of motivation.

conclusionsTo understand ethical preparedness, we need to view the process of ethical decision-making as a behaviour. We have provided insight into the specific factors that are needed to promote this behaviour-using examples from both in the pandemic context as well as in areas of health research and medicine where there have been rapid technological developments. This offers a useful starting point for further conceptual work around the notion of being ethically prepared.

Indexed as

COVID-19EmergenciesHumansMoralsPandemicsPublic HealthBehavioural scienceCOM-B modelCOVID-appEthical preparednessGenomicsHealth psychologyImplementation science

Identifiers

PMID36397032
PMCPMC9672545

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.