Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543543›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

"I think all of us should have […] much better training in ethics." Ethical challenges in policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from an interview study with Swiss policy makers and scientists.

Caroline Brall, Felix Gille, Caroline Schlaufer, Rouven Porz, Ralf J Jox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Caroline BrallEthics and Policy Lab, Multidisciplinary Center for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 49a, Bern, 3012, Switzerland. caroline.brall@unibe.ch.
Felix GilleDigital Society Initiative, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Caroline SchlauferEthics and Policy Lab, Multidisciplinary Center for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 49a, Bern, 3012, Switzerland.
Rouven PorzMedical Ethics, Medical Directorate, Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern, Insel Gruppe, Bern, Switzerland.
Ralf J JoxInstitute of Humanities in Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

Käthe-Zingg-Schwichtenberg-Fund of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences KZS 02/20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic posed many unprecedented challenges to health care systems and public health efforts worldwide. Policy making and science were deeply intertwined, in particular with regard to the justification of health policy measures. In this context, ethical considerations were often at the core of decision-making trade-offs. However, not much is known about the actual ethical challenges encountered by policy makers and scientists involved in policy advice. With this study, we therefore aim to explore the ethical challenges during COVID-19-related political decision-making in Switzerland as perceived by policy makers and scientists involved in policy making. We also explore the role ethics advice had during the pandemic response and what can be learned for future public health crises.

methodsWe conducted thirteen qualitative expert interviews with policy makers and scientists involved in decision-making on COVID-19 policy responses in Switzerland on the regional and national level. We used inductive content analysis to analyse the interviews.

resultsAmong the multitude of ethical challenges highlighted, interviewees perceived making trade-offs between the common good vs. the individual good and between economic welfare vs. health of the population, as well as proportionality of the policy measures, and the capacity of the public to accept uncertainty as central. Interviewees had diverging opinions on whether ethical considerations were sufficiently raised and discussed on the Swiss policy level during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the reasons why ethics was not sufficiently discussed, they mentioned a lack of time in the fast-paced dynamic of the pandemic, ethics as a complex subject area, the interconnectedness between ethics and law, too much focus on few topics (mostly on vaccination-related ethical questions), and power relationships, such as dominance of medical professionals over ethicists. They evaluated ethics support to have been adequately present in the decision-making process, but wished for ethics training, involvement of the public in the discourse and for accompanying communication to build trust among the population for the future.

conclusionsThe study provides empirical insights into the ethical considerations of COVID-19 policy making in practice in Switzerland. It can help to develop ethics assistance for future crises and inform ethical health policy and decision-making not only in Switzerland, but also in other countries.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health PolicyPolicy MakingSARS-CoV-2Administrative PersonnelDecision MakingHumansInterviews as TopicPandemicsQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelSwitzerlandCOVID-19 pandemicDecision-makingEthicsPolicy advicePolicy making

Identifiers

PMID39543543
PMCPMC11566081

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.