Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39916376›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Identifying High-Priority Ethical Challenges for Precision Emergency Medicine: Nominal Group Study.

Christian Rose, Emily Shearer, Isabela Woller, Ashley Foster, Nicholas Ashenburg, Ireh Kim, Jennifer Newberry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. 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

7 authors.

Christian RoseDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 500 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA, 94305, United States, 1 (650) 723-5111.ORCID 0000-0002-5115-649X
Emily ShearerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5020-8016
Isabela WollerLoyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8155-7641
Ashley FosterDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3059-6218
Nicholas AshenburgDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 500 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA, 94305, United States, 1 (650) 723-5111.ORCID 0000-0002-9996-6248
Ireh KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 500 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA, 94305, United States, 1 (650) 723-5111.ORCID 0009-0008-2273-2727
Jennifer NewberryDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 500 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA, 94305, United States, 1 (650) 723-5111.ORCID 0000-0002-2948-0111

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Precision medicine promises to revolutionize health care by providing the right care to the right patient at the right time. However, the emergency department's unique mandate to treat "anyone, anywhere, anytime" creates critical tensions with precision medicine's requirements for comprehensive patient data and computational analysis. As emergency departments serve as health care's safety net and provide a growing proportion of acute care in America, identifying and addressing the ethical challenges of implementing precision medicine in this setting is crucial to prevent exacerbation of existing health care disparities. The rapid advancement of precision medicine technologies makes it imperative to understand these challenges before widespread implementation in emergency care settings. Objective: This study aimed to identify high priority ethical concerns facing the implementation of precision medicine in the emergency department. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using a modified nominal group technique (NGT) with emergency physicians who had previous knowledge of precision medicine concepts. The NGT process consisted of four phases: (1) silent generation of ideas, (2) round-robin sharing of ideas, (3) structured discussion and clarification, and (4) thematic grouping of priorities. Participants represented diverse practice settings (county hospital, community hospital, academic center, and integrated managed care consortium) and subspecialties (education, ethics, pediatrics, diversity, equity, inclusion, and informatics) across various career stages from residents to late-career physicians. Results: A total of 12 emergency physicians identified 82 initial challenges during individual ideation, which were consolidated to 48 unique challenges after removing duplicates and combining related items. The average participant contributed 6.8 (SD 2.9) challenges. These challenges were organized into a framework with 3 themes: values, privacy, and justice. The framework identified the need to address these themes across 3 time points of the precision medicine process: acquisition of data, actualization in the care setting, and the after effects of its use. This systematic organization revealed interrelated concerns spanning from data collection and bias to implementation challenges and long-term consequences for health care equity. Conclusions: Our study developed a novel framework that maps critical ethical challenges across 3 domains (values, privacy, and justice) and 3 temporal stages of precision medicine implementation. This framework identifies high-priority areas for future research and policy development, particularly around data representation, privacy protection, and equitable access. Successfully addressing these challenges is essential to realize precision medicine's potential while preserving emergency medicine's core mission as health care's safety net.

Indexed as

Emergency MedicinePrecision MedicineEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleQualitative Researchconsensus frameworkemergency medicineethical considerationsnominal group studyprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID39916376
PMCPMC11825900

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.