BACKGROUND: In the years to come, artificial intelligence will become an indispensable tool in medical practice. The digital transformation will undoubtedly affect today\'s medical students. This study focuses on trust from the perspective of three groups of medical students - students from Croatia, students from Slovakia, and international students studying in Slovakia.
METHODS: A paper-pen survey was conducted using a non-probabilistic convenience sample. In the second half of 2022, 1715 students were surveyed at five faculties in Croatia and three in Slovakia.
RESULTS: Specifically, 38.2% of students indicated familiarity with the concept of AI, while 44.8% believed they would use AI in the future. Patient readiness for the implementation of technologies was mostly assessed as being low. More than half of the students, 59.1%, believe that the implementation of digital technology (AI) will negatively impact the patient-physician relationship and 51,3% of students believe that patients will trust physicians less. The least agreement with the statement was observed among international students, while a higher agreement was expressed by Slovak and Croatian students 40.9% of Croatian students believe that users do not trust the healthcare system, 56.9% of Slovak students agree with this view, while only 17.3% of international students share this opinion. The ability to explain to patients how AI works if they were asked was statistically significantly different for the different student groups, international students expressed the lowest agreement, while the Slovak and Croatian students showed a higher agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into medical students\' attitudes from Croatia, Slovakia, and international students regarding the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the future healthcare system, with a particular emphasis on the concept of trust. A notable difference was observed between the three groups of students, with international students differing from their Croatian and Slovak colleagues. This study also highlights the importance of integrating AI topics into the medical curriculum, taking into account national social & cultural specificities that could negatively impact AI implementation if not carefully addressed.

BACKGROUND: Poor communication about serious injury in older adults can lead to treatment that is inconsistent with patient preferences, create conflict and strain healthcare resources. We developed a communication intervention called Best Case/Worst Case-intensive care unit (ICU) that uses daily scenario planning, that is, a narrative description of plausible futures, to support prognostication and facilitate dialogue among patients, their families and the trauma ICU team. This article describes a protocol for a multisite, randomised, stepped-wedge study to test the effectiveness of the intervention on the quality of communication (QOC) in the ICU.
METHODS: We will follow all patients aged 50 and older admitted to the trauma ICU for 3 or more days after a serious injury at eight high-volume level 1 trauma centres. We aim to survey one family or \'like family\' member per eligible patient 5-7 days following their loved ones\' admission and clinicians providing care in the trauma ICU. Using a stepped-wedge design, we will use permuted block randomisation to assign the timing for each site to begin implementation of the intervention and routine use of the Best Case/Worst Case-ICU tool. We will use a linear mixed-effects model to test the effect of the tool on family-reported QOC (using the QOC scale) as compared with usual care. Secondary outcomes include the effect of the tool on reducing clinician moral distress (using the Measure of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals scale) and patients\' length of stay in the ICU.
BACKGROUND: Institutional review board (IRB) approval was granted at the University of Wisconsin, and all study sites ceded review to the primary IRB. We plan to report results in peer-reviewed publications and national meetings.
BACKGROUND: NCT05780918.

BACKGROUND: Informed decisions to enrol in the clinical investigations of Alzheimer\'s disease and related dementias (ADRD) require careful consideration of complex risks and uncertain benefits. Decisions regarding whether to receive information about biomarker status are complicated by lack of scientific consensus regarding biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for Alzheimer\'s disease and how information about individual risk should be evaluated and shared with research participants. This study aims to establish stakeholder consensus regarding ethically optimal approaches to sharing individual results with ADRD research participants.
METHODS: This Delphi consensus-building study consists of multiple online surveys conducted with Alzheimer\'s disease research experts, including neurologists, neuropsychologists, ethicists, research oversight specialists and clinical trialists. Panellists will be administered questionnaires developed from a synthesis of researcher- and participant-endorsed considerations and decisional needs identified in published literature and a decisional needs assessment conducted with support from an Alzheimer\'s Association Research Grant. Panellists will also be asked their views on the content and implementation of processes for sharing individual research results. ≥75% agreement will be required to achieve consensus. Response rates, level of agreement, medians, interquartile ranges and group rankings will be analysed. Following each round of data collection, our research team will undertake qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval will be obtained from the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board (Study Number 22-766). Delphi panellists will receive participant information sheets describing the study before agreeing to participate in the Delphi process. Results from the data we anticipate will be generated through this research and will be submitted for peer-reviewed journal publication and presentation at international conferences.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of bioethics awareness among healthcare professionals in Pakistan, focusing on the associations with sociodemographic characteristics, training and teaching of ethics, medical ethics practice and specific ethical issues.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Public and private hospitals in Haripur, Pakistan.
METHODS: A total of 647 healthcare professionals participated in this study.
METHODS: This study was conducted between March and May 2023, following Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist criterion, involving healthcare professionals with at least 6 months of experience in patient care practice. Providers under close supervision are advised not to respond to the bioethics knowledge, attitudes and practices survey form due to potential ethical dilemmas.
RESULTS: Both physicians and non-physicians need to know more about bioethics. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in ethical training and teaching based on job categories/designations, with ethical views differing greatly by job designation. Specific ethical issues, such as accepting gifts from patients and pharmaceutical companies, referral fees, advising specific products, disclosure of medical errors, patient confidentiality, not informing patients fully about treatment and performing tasks for financial gain, showed significant associations (p<0.05) with healthcare professional\'s designation. Ethical awareness scores also showed significant differences (p<0.05) based on age, ethnicity, place of posting, professional experience and the organisation\'s ethical guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted a notable gap in the understanding of certain ethical concerns among healthcare professionals, with nurses showing relatively lower awareness of healthcare practice compared with other professionals. Addressing these issues through targeted training and robust ethical guidelines is critical to improving patient care in Pakistan\'s healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the FERN feasibility study, this qualitative research aimed to explore parents\' and clinicians\' views on the acceptability, feasibility and design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of active intervention versus expectant management in monochorionic (MC) diamniotic twin pregnancies with early-onset (prior to 24 weeks) selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR). Interventions could include laser treatment or selective termination which could lead to the death or serious disability of one or both twins.
METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with parents and clinicians. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and considered against the Principles of Biomedical Ethics.
METHODS: We interviewed 19 UK parents experiencing (six mothers, two partners) or had recently experienced (eight mothers, three partners) early-onset sFGR in MC twin pregnancy and 14 specialist clinicians from the UK and Europe.
RESULTS: Participants viewed the proposed RCT as \'ethically murky\' because they believed that the management of sFGR in MC twin pregnancy should be individualised according to the type and severity of sFGR. Clinicians prioritised the gestational age, size, decrease in growth velocity, access to the placental vessels and acceptability of intervention for parents. Discussions and decision-making about selective termination appeared to cause long-term harm (maleficence). The most important outcome for parents and clinicians was \'live birth\'. For clinicians, this was the live birth of at least one twin. For parents, this meant the live birth of both twins, even if this meant that their babies had neurodevelopmental impairment or disabilities.
CONCLUSIONS: All three pregnancy management approaches for sFGR in MC twin pregnancy carry risks and benefits, and the ultimate goal for parents is to receive individualised care to achieve the best possible outcome for both twins. An RCT was not acceptable to parents or clinicians or seen as ethically appropriate. Alternative study designs should be considered to answer this important research question.

BACKGROUND: Medical research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased recently, raising ethical concerns about the moral status of CAM. Medical academic journals are responsible for conducting ethical review (ER) of manuscripts to protect the interests of human subjects and to make ethical results available before deciding to publish. However, there has been no systematic analysis of the ER in CAM journals. This study is aim to evaluate the current status of ethical requirements and compliance in CAM journals.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. We reviewed instructions for authors (IFAs) of CAM journals included in the Journal Citation Reports (2021) ( https://jcr.clarivate.com ) for general information and requirements for ER. We also browsed the manuscripts regarding randomized controlled trials published by CAM journals in Q1 and Q2 section from January to June, 2023, to check the actual situation of ethical requirement. Descriptive statistics and Fisher\'s exact test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: 27 journals and 68 manuscripts were ultimately included. 92.6% (25/27) IFAs included keywords of ER, indicating the presence of ethical considerations. However, no specific ER was required for CAM (n = 0). We categorized journals by Geographic origin, JCR section, Year of electronic JCR, Types of studies, % of OA Gold to explore the factors that could influence CAM journals to have certain ethical review policies. The results showed there was no statistical significance in certain ethical review policy in any classification of journals (p > 0.05). All RCT manuscripts included in the study generally met the requirements of the published journals for ethical review.
CONCLUSIONS: All IFAs discussed ER, but the content was scattered, unfocused, and there were no specific ER requirements regarding CAM. Although the manuscripts basically met the requirements of the journal, it was not possible to get closer to the process of ER in the manuscript. To ensure full implementation of these policies in the future, CAM journals should require authors to provide more details, or to form a list of items necessary for CAM ethical review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and compare physicians\' reported moral distress in 2004 and 2021 and identify factors that could be related to these responses.
METHODS: Longitudinal survey.
METHODS: Data were gathered from the Norwegian Physician Panel Study, a representative sample of Norwegian physicians, conducted in 2004 and 2021.
METHODS: 1499 physicians in 2004 and 2316 physicians in 2021.
METHODS: The same survey instrument was used to measure change in moral distress from 2004 to 2021. Logistic regression analyses examined the role of gender, age and place of work.
RESULTS: Response rates were 67% (1004/1499) in 2004 and 71% (1639/2316) in 2021. That patient care is deprived due to time constraints is the most severe dimension of moral distress among physicians, and it has increased as 68.3% reported this \'somewhat\' or \'very morally distressing\' in 2004 compared with 75.1% in 2021. Moral distress also increased concerning that patients who \'cry the loudest\' get better and faster treatment than others. Moral distress was reduced on statements about long waiting times, treatment not provided due to economic limitations, deprioritisation of older patients and acting against one\'s conscience. Women reported higher moral distress than men at both time points, and there were significant gender differences for six statements in 2021 and one in 2004. Age and workplace influenced reported moral distress, though not consistently for all statements.
CONCLUSIONS: In 2004 and 2021 physicians\' moral distress related to scarcity of time or unfair distribution of resources was high. Moral distress associated with resource scarcity and acting against one\'s conscience decreased, which might indicate improvements in the healthcare system. On the other hand, it might suggest that physicians have reduced their ideals or expectations or are morally fatigued.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience and challenges health professionals face during breaking bad news (BBN) to patients with cancer in the oncology centre of Black Lion Specialized Hospital (BLSH), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2019.
METHODS: An exploratory qualitative phenominological study using in-depth interviews was carried out in the only radiotherapy integrated oncology centre in Ethiopia during March 2019. Purposeful maximum variation sampling was used to select participants. OpenCode (V.4.02) assisted thematic analysis approach was employed to analyse the data.
METHODS: Eleven oncology health practitioners (oncologists, residents and nurses) working at the oncology centre were interviewed. Repeated interviews and analysis were done until theoretical saturation.
RESULTS: All participants were cognisant of the positive outcome of proper and effective practice of BBN. However, they were practicing it empirically, no standardised protocols or guidelines were in place. Four dimensions of challenges were mentioned: (1) setup centric: unconducive environment, lack of protocols or guidelines, inaccessible treatment, and psychotherapy or counselling services; (2) health care centric, such as inadequate expertise, inadequate time due to patient load,treatment backlog, and referral system; (3) patients/family centric: poor medical literacy level, poor compliance, and family interference; and (4) sociocultural: wrong perception of families on BBN and treatment modalities, and opposition from religious leaders.
CONCLUSIONS: BBN is challenging for professionals caring for patients in the oncology centre of BLSH. Hence, there is a critical need to improve practices. Change efforts may focus on the development of contextualised, content and context specific practice oriented training programmes and curriculum interventions. Raising awareness of the community and religious leaders regarding the nature and treatment of cancer may also be a helpful adjunct.

Tumor mutation profiling (MP) is often conducted on tissue from biopsies conducted for clinical purposes (diagnostic tissue). We aimed to explore the views of patients with cancer on who should own tumor biopsy tissue, pay for its storage, and decide on its future use; and determine their attitudes to and predictors of undergoing additional biopsies if required for research purposes. In this mixed methods, cross-sectional study, patients with advanced solid cancers enrolled in the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics Program (n = 397) completed a questionnaire prior to undergoing MP (n = 356/397). A subset (n = 23) also completed a qualitative interview. Fifty percent of participants believed they and/or relatives should own and control access to diagnostic tissue. Most (65.5%) believed the government should pay for tissue preparation. Qualitative themes included (1) custodianship of diagnostic tissue, (2) changing value of tissue across time and between cultures, (3) equity regarding payment, and (4) cost-benefit considerations in deciding on additional biopsies. Policy and regulation should consider patient perspectives. Extension of publicly funded health care to include tissue retrieval for clinical trials should be considered.

暂无摘要。