Daniel Strech

The Impact of Social Media on Medical Professionalism: A Systematic Qualitative Review of Challenges and Opportunities

Background The rising impact of social media on the private and working lives of health care professionals has made researchers and health care institutions study and rethink the concept and content of medical professionalism in the digital age. In the last decade, several specific policies, original research studies, and comments have been published on the responsible use of social media by health care professionals. However, there is no systematic literature review that analyzes the full spectrum of (1) social media–related challenges imposed on medical professionalism and (2) social media–related opportunities to both undermine and improve medical professionalism. Objective The aim of this systematic qualitative review is to present this full spectrum of social media–related challenges and opportunities. Methods We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed (restricted to English and German literature published between 2002 and 2011) for papers that address social media–related challenges and opportunities for medical professionalism. To operationalize “medical professionalism”, we refer to the 10 commitments presented in the physicians’ charter “Medical professionalism in the new millennium” published by the ABIM Foundation. We applied qualitative text analysis to categorize the spectrum of social media–related challenges and opportunities for medical professionalism. Results The literature review retrieved 108 references, consisting of 46 original research studies and 62 commentaries, editorials, or opinion papers. All references together mentioned a spectrum of 23 broad and 12 further-specified, narrow categories for social media–related opportunities (n=10) and challenges (n=13) for medical professionalism, grouped under the 10 commitments of the physicians’ charter. Conclusions The accommodation of the traditional core values of medicine to the characteristics of social media presents opportunities as well as challenges for medical professionalism. As a profession that is entitled to self-regulation, health care professionals should proactively approach these challenges and seize the opportunities. There should be room to foster interprofessional and intergenerational dialogue (and eventually guidelines and policies) on both challenges and opportunities of social media in modern health care. This review builds a unique source of information that can inform further research and policy development in this regard.

Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence

OBJECTIVE To describe the principal role of value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence as they are involved in systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessments. METHOD Using the tools of conceptual analysis, we characterize three main types of value judgments and propose an outline of how to enhance the appropriate role of value judgments in the process of analyzing and synthesizing evidence. RESULTS The production, analysis, and synthesis of evidence involve value judgments characterized as preferences of persons or groups that cannot be validated by appeal to facts alone. Because preferences across individuals can vary, value judgments can be a source of bias in science and unwarranted variation in the application of scientific evidence. However, it is not possible or desirable to eliminate all value judgments in the process from production to synthesis of evidence. CONCLUSION With respect to the value judgments that shape the analysis and synthesis of evidence, review authors should disclose and justify choices related to the three key value judgments outlined in this paper. Authors should also highlight how their value judgments differ from the stated or implicit value judgments of previously published reviews on the same topic.

The representation of patient experience and satisfaction in physician rating sites. A criteria-based analysis of English- and German-language sites

BackgroundInformation on patient experience and satisfaction with individual physicians could play an important role for performance measures, improved health care and health literacy. Physician rating sites (PRSs) bear the potential to be a widely available source for this kind of information. However, patient experience and satisfaction are complex constructs operationalized by multiple dimensions. The way in which PRSs allow users to express and rate patient experience and satisfaction could likely influence the image of doctors in society and the self-understanding of both doctors and patients. This study examines the extent to which PRSs currently represent the constructs of patient experience and satisfaction.MethodsFirst, a systematic review of research instruments for measuring patient experience and satisfaction was conducted. The content of these instruments was analyzed qualitatively to create a comprehensive set of dimensions for patient experience and patient satisfaction. Second, PRSs were searched for systematically in English-language and German-language search engines of Google and Yahoo. Finally, we classified every structured question asked by the different PRS using the set of dimensions of patient experience and satisfaction.ResultsThe qualitative content analysis of the measurement instruments produced 13 dimensions of patient experience and satisfaction. We identified a total of 21 PRSs. No PRSs represented all 13 dimensions of patient satisfaction and experience with its structured questions. The 3 most trafficked English-language PRS represent between 5 and 6 dimensions and the 3 most trafficked German language PRSs between 8 and 11 dimensions The dimensions for patient experience and satisfaction most frequently represented in PRSs included diversely operationalized ones such as professional competence and doctor-patient relationship/support. However, other less complex but nevertheless important dimensions such as communication skills and information/advice were rarely represented, especially in English-language PRSs.ConclusionsConcerning the potential impact of PRSs on health systems, further research is needed to show which of the current operationalizations of patient experience and satisfaction presented in our study are establishing themselves in PRSs. Independently of this factual development, the question also arises whether and to what extent health policy can and should influence the operationalization of patient experience and satisfaction in PRSs. Here, the challenge would be to produce a set of dimensions capable of consensus from among the wide range of operationalizations found by this study.

How to write a systematic review of reasons

Systematic reviews, which were developed to improve policy-making and clinical decision-making, answer an empirical question based on a minimally biased appraisal of all the relevant empirical studies. A model is presented here for writing systematic reviews of argument-based literature: literature that uses arguments to address conceptual questions, such as whether abortion is morally permissible or whether research participants should be legally entitled to compensation for sustaining research-related injury. Such reviews aim to improve ethically relevant decisions in healthcare, research or policy. They are better tools than informal reviews or samples of literature with respect to the identification of the reasons relevant to a conceptual question, and they enable the setting of agendas for conceptual and empirical research necessary for sound policy-making. This model comprises prescriptions for writing the systematic reviews review question and eligibility criteria, the identification of the relevant literature, the type of data to extract on reasons and publications, and the derivation and presentation of results. This paper explains how to adapt the model to the review question, literature reviewed and intended readers, who may be decision-makers or academics. Obstacles to the models application are described and addressed, and limitations of the model are identified.

Reasons Why Post-Trial Access to Trial Drugs Should, or Need not be Ensured to Research Participants: A Systematic Review.

Background: researchers and sponsors increasingly confront the issue of whether participants in a clinical trial should have post-trial access (PTA) to the trial drug. Legislation and guidelines are inconsistent, ambiguous or silent about many aspects of PTA. Recent research highlights the potential importance of systematic reviews (SRs) of reason-based literatures in informing decision-making in medicine, medical research and health policy. Purpose: to systematically review reasons why drug trial participants should, or need not be ensured PTA to the trial drug and the uses of such reasons. Data sources: databases in science/medicine, law and ethics, thesis databases, bibliographies, research ethics books and included publications’ notes/bibliographies. Publication selection: a publication was included if it included a reason as above. See article for detailed inclusion conditions. Data extraction and analysis: two reviewers extracted and analyzed data on publications and reasons. Results: of 2060 publications identified, 75 were included. These mentioned reasons based on morality, legality, interests/incentives, or practicality, comprising 36 broad (235 narrow) types of reason. None of the included publications, which included informal reviews and reports by official bodies, mentioned more than 22 broad (59 narrow) types. For many reasons, publications differed about the reason’s interpretation, implications and/or persuasiveness. Publications differed also regarding costs, feasibility and legality of PTA. Limitations: reason types could be applied differently. The quality of reasons was not measured. Conclusion: this review captured a greater variety of reasons and of their uses than any included publication. Decisions based on informal reviews or sub-sets of literature are likely to be biased. Research is needed on PTA ethics, costs, feasibility and legality and on assessing the quality of reason-based literature.

Ärztliches Handeln bei Mittelknappheit

ZusammenfassungDie finanziellen Ressourcen im deutschen Gesundheitssystem sind begrenzt. Diese Mittelknappheit führt im Rahmen der ärztlichen Tätigkeit zu medizinischen, ökonomischen, juristischen und ethischen Problemen, welche sich in den kommenden Jahren weiter verschärfen dürften. Aus ethischer Perspektive sind die Probleme einer gerechten Verteilung knapper Ressourcen sowie mögliche Rollen- oder Gewissenskonflikte der ärztlichen Profession besonders relevant. Mit Hilfe von qualitativen Interviewstudien lässt sich der aktuelle ärztliche Umgang mit der Mittelknappheit in der klinischen Versorgung in seiner Komplexität und seinen ethisch relevanten Aspekten untersuchen. An fünf Kliniken mit unterschiedlichem Versorgungsauftrag wurden Tiefeninterviews mit fünfzehn leitenden Ärzten in den Bereichen Intensivmedizin und Kardiologie durchgeführt. Die auf Tonband aufgezeichneten Interviews wurden nach dem Verfahren der Grounded Theory ausgewertet. Die Ärzte berichten ein heterogenes Spektrum von Einflussfaktoren, Konsequenzen und Reaktionen im Zusammenhang mit ihrem Handeln bei Mittelknappheit. Zuteilungskriterien wie der medizinische Nutzen oder die Kosteneffektivität werden von den befragten Ärzten sehr unterschiedlich interpretiert und führen damit möglicherweise zu inkonsistenten Allokationsentscheidungen. Gleichzeitig bestätigen die Untersuchungen aber auch, dass die Ärzte nicht leichtfertig mit den Allokationsentscheidungen umgehen, im Gegenteil: Die Mittelknappheit und die dadurch hervorgerufenen Verteilungsprobleme können zu Gewissenskonflikten, emotionalem Stress und Gefühlen der Überforderung führen. Um Lösungskonzepte für ethische Probleme im Umgang mit der Mittelknappheit in der klinischen Praxis entwickeln und erfolgreich implementieren zu können, müssen die in dieser Arbeit systematisch zusammengestellten Verständnisweisen, Einflussfaktoren und Konsequenzen im Zusammenhang mit dem Kostendruck berücksichtigt werden.AbstractBackgroundFinancial resources in German and international health care systems are limited. Financial scarcity leads to medical, economical, judicial, and ethical problems in medical decision making. These problems will probably increase in the following years. From an ethical point of view the challenges of just allocation of scarce resources and moral conflicts of clinical decision makers are of special importance. Qualitative research allows the investigation of how different physicians deal with clinical decision making in the face of financial scarcity and what kind of ethical dilemmas occur.MethodWe conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with fifteen senior and chief clinicians in the fields of intensive care and cardiology at five German primary, secondary, and tertiary care hospitals. All interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using open and axial coding from the grounded theory approach.ResultsThe physicians reported a wide and heterogeneous range of influencing factors, strategies and consequences when explaining the daily practice of dealing with scarce resources. Prioritization criteria such as effectiveness or cost-effectiveness were interpreted differently between physicians and thus might lead to inconsistent allocation decisions. At the same time our research confirmed that physicians do not trifle with rationing decisions. In contrast, financial scarcity and the related practical and theoretical challenges of allocation can lead to moral conflicts, emotional distress and experiences of excessive demands.ConclusionPractical recommendations and ethical frameworks that aim to guide and change the clinical practice of decision making in the face of financial scarcity should acknowledge the influencing factors and consequences that are presented systematically in this article.

Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics

Background: Publications and discussions of survey research in empirical bioethics have steadily increased over the past two decades. However, findings often differ among studies with similar research questions. As a consequence, ethical reasoning that considers only parts of the existing literature and does not apply systematic reviews tends to be biased. To date, we lack a systematic review (SR) methodology that takes into account the specific conceptual and practical challenges of empirical bioethics. Methods: The steps of systematically reviewing empirical findings in bioethics are presented and critically discussed. In particular, (a) the limitations of traditional SR methodologies in the field of empirical bioethics are critically discussed, and (b) conceptual and practical recommendations for SRs in empirical bioethics that are (c) based on the authors’ review experiences in healthcare ethics are presented. Results: A 7-step approach for SRs of empirical bioethics is proposed: (1) careful definition of review question; (2) selection of relevant databases; (3) application of ancillary search strategies; (4) development of search algorithms; (5) relevance assessment of the retrieved references; (6) quality assessment of included studies; and (7) data analysis and presentation. Conceptual and practical challenges arise because of various peculiarities in reviewing empirical bioethics literature and can lead to biased results if they are not taken into account. Conclusions: If suitably adapted to the peculiarities of the field, SRs of empirical bioethics provide transparent information for ethical reasoning and decision-making that is less biased than single studies.

Ethical Principles for Physician Rating Sites

During the last 5 years, an ethical debate has emerged, often in public media, about the potential positive and negative effects of physician rating sites and whether physician rating sites created by insurance companies or government agencies are ethical in their current states. Due to the lack of direct evidence of physician rating sites’ effects on physicians’ performance, patient outcomes, or the public’s trust in health care, most contributions refer to normative arguments, hypothetical effects, or indirect evidence. This paper aims, first, to structure the ethical debate about the basic concept of physician rating sites: allowing patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ performance, online and visible to everyone. Thus, it provides a more thorough and transparent starting point for further discussion and decision making on physician rating sites: what should physicians and health policy decision makers take into account when discussing the basic concept of physician rating sites and its possible implications on the physician–patient relationship? Second, it discusses where and how the preexisting evidence from the partly related field of public reporting of physician performance can serve as an indicator for specific needs of evaluative research in the field of physician rating sites. This paper defines the ethical principles of patient welfare, patient autonomy, physician welfare, and social justice in the context of physician rating sites. It also outlines basic conditions for a fair decision-making process concerning the implementation and regulation of physician rating sites, namely, transparency, justification, participation, minimization of conflicts of interest, and openness for revision. Besides other issues described in this paper, one trade-off presents a special challenge and will play an important role when deciding about more- or less-restrictive physician rating sites regulations: the potential psychological and financial harms for physicians that can result from physician rating sites need to be contained without limiting the potential benefits for patients with respect to health, health literacy, and equity.

Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting

Background Dissemination bias in clinical research severely impedes informed decision-making not only for healthcare professionals and patients, but also for funders, research ethics committees, regulatory bodies and other stakeholder groups that make health-related decisions. Decisions based on incomplete and biased evidence cannot only harm people, but may also have huge financial implications by wasting resources on ineffective or harmful diagnostic and therapeutic measures, and unnecessary research. Owing to involvement of multiple stakeholders, it remains easy for any single group to assign responsibility for resolving the problem to others. Objective To develop evidence-informed general and targeted recommendations addressing the various stakeholders involved in knowledge generation and dissemination to help overcome the problem of dissemination bias on the basis of previously collated evidence. Methods Based on findings from systematic reviews, document analyses and surveys, we developed general and targeted draft recommendations. During a 2-day workshop in summer 2013, these draft recommendations were discussed with external experts and key stakeholders, and refined following a rigorous and transparent methodological approach. Results Four general, overarching recommendations applicable to all or most stakeholder groups were formulated, addressing (1) awareness raising, (2) implementation of targeted recommendations, (3) trial registration and results posting, and (4) systematic approaches to evidence synthesis. These general recommendations are complemented and specified by 47 targeted recommendations tailored towards funding agencies, pharmaceutical and device companies, research institutions, researchers (systematic reviewers and trialists), research ethics committees, trial registries, journal editors and publishers, regulatory agencies, benefit (health technology) assessment institutions and legislators. Conclusions Despite various recent examples of dissemination bias and several initiatives to reduce it, the problem of dissemination bias has not been resolved. Tailored recommendations based on a comprehensive approach will hopefully help increase transparency in biomedical research by overcoming the failure to disseminate negative findings.

The full spectrum of ethical issues in dementia care: systematic qualitative review

BACKGROUND Integrating ethical issues in dementia-specific training material, clinical guidelines and national strategy plans requires an unbiased awareness of all the relevant ethical issues. AIMS To determine systematically and transparently the full spectrum of ethical issues in clinical dementia care. METHOD We conducted a systematic review in Medline (restricted to English and German literature published between 2000 and 2011) and Google books (with no restrictions). We applied qualitative text analysis and normative analysis to categorise the spectrum of ethical issues in clinical dementia care. RESULTS The literature review retrieved 92 references that together mentioned a spectrum of 56 ethical issues in clinical dementia care. The spectrum was structured into seven major categories that consist of first- and second-order categories for ethical issues. CONCLUSIONS The systematically derived spectrum of ethical issues in clinical dementia care presented in this paper can be used as training material for healthcare professionals, students and the public for raising awareness and understanding of the complexity of ethical issues in dementia care. It can also be used to identify ethical issues that should be addressed in dementia-specific training programmes, national strategy plans and clinical practice guidelines. Further research should evaluate whether this new genre of systematic reviews can be applied to the identification of ethical issues in other cognitive and somatic diseases. Also, the practical challenges in addressing ethical issues in training material, guidelines and policies need to be evaluated.