Search

Abstract: Health disparities are, to a large extent, the result of socio-economic factors that cannot be entirely mitigated through the health care system. While an array of social services are thought to be necessary to address the social determinants of health, budget constraints, particularly in difficult economic times, limit the availability of such services. It is therefore necessary to prioritize interventions through some fair process. While it might be appropriate to engage in public deliberation to set priorities, doing so requires that the public accept such a deliberative process and appreciate the social determinants of health. We therefore analyzed the results of a study in which groups deliberated to prioritize socio-economic interventions to examine whether these two requirements can possibly be met and to explore the basis for their priorities. A total of 431 residents of Washington, D.C. with incomes under 200% of the federal poverty threshold participated in 43 groups to engage in a hypothetical exercise to prioritize interventions designed to ameliorate the social determinants of health within the constraints of a limited budget. Findings from pre- and post-exercise questionnaires demonstrate that the priority setting exercise was perceived as a fair deliberative process, and that following the deliberation, participants became more likely to agree that a broad number of determinants contribute to their health. Qualitative analysis of the group discussions indicate that participants prioritized interventions that would provide for basic necessities and improve community conditions, while at the same time addressing more macro-structural factors such as homelessness and unemployment. We conclude that engaging small groups in deliberation about ways to address the social determinants of health can both change participant attitudes and yield informed priorities that might guide public policy aimed at most affordably reducing health disparities. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Quickly finding a safe and effective vaccine against SARS Co-V-2 would be of great value. • Collecting rigorous safety and efficacy data without compromising ethical and scientific norms is critical. • The best approach is accelerated individually randomized controlled trials. • Premature distribution could hamper public health and finding safe, effective SARS CoV-2 vaccines. A sense of urgency exists to develop vaccines against SARS CoV-2, responsible for numerous global cases and deaths, as well as widespread social and economic disruption. Multiple approaches have been proposed to speed up vaccine development, including accelerated randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled human challenge trials (CHI), and wide distribution through an emergency use authorization after collecting initial data. There is a need to examine how best to accelerate vaccine development in the setting of a pandemic, without compromising ethical and scientific norms. Trade-offs in scientific and social value between generating reliable evidence about safety and efficacy while promoting rapid vaccine availability are examined along five ethically relevant dimensions: (1) confidence in and generalizability of data, (2) feasibility, (3) speed and cost, (4) participant risks, and (5) social risks. Accelerated individually randomized RCTs permit expeditious evaluation of vaccine candidates using established methods, expertise, and infrastructure. RCTs are more likely than other approaches to be feasible, increase speed and reduce cost, and generate reliable data about safety and efficacy without significantly increasing risks to participants or undermining societal trust. Ethical analysis suggests that accelerated RCTs are the best approach to accelerating vaccine development in a pandemic, and more likely than other approaches to enhance social value without compromising ethics or science. RCTs can expeditiously collect rigorous data about vaccine safety and efficacy. Innovative and flexible designs and implementation strategies to respond to shifting incidence and test vaccine candidates in parallel or sequentially would add value, as will coordinated data sharing across vaccine trials. CHI studies may be an important complementary strategy when more is known. Widely disseminating a vaccine candidate without efficacy data will not serve the public health nor achieve the goal of identifying safe and effective SARS Co-V-2 vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Nurses and social workers are fundamental to the delivery of quality health care across the continuum of care. As health care becomes increasingly complex, these providers encounter difficult ethical issues in patient care, perceive limited respect in their work, and are increasingly dissatisfied. However, the link between ethics-related work factors and job satisfaction and intent-to-leave one''s job has rarely been considered. In this paper, we describe how nurses and social workers in the US view the ethical climate in which they work, including the degree of ethics stress they feel, and the adequacy of organizational resources to address their ethical concerns. Controlling for socio-demographics, we examined the extent to which these factors affect nurses and social workers’ job satisfaction and their interest in leaving their current position. Data were from self-administered mail questionnaires of 1215 randomly selected nurses and social workers in four census regions of the US. Respondents reported feeling powerless (32.5%) and overwhelmed (34.7%) with ethical issues in the workplace and frustration (52.8%) and fatigue (40%) when they cannot resolve ethical issues. In multivariate models, a positive ethical climate and job satisfaction protected against respondents’ intentions to leave as did perceptions of adequate or extensive institutional support for dealing with ethical issues. Black nurses were 3.21 times more likely than white nurses to want to leave their position. We suggest several strategies to reduce ethics stress and improve the ethical climate of the workplace for nurses and social workers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We applied a decision tool for rationing choices, with a predetermined budget of about US$11 per household per year, to identify priorities of poor people regarding health insurance benefits in India in late 2005. A total of 302 individuals, organized in 24 groups, participated from a number of villages and neighborhoods of towns in Karnataka and Maharashtra. Many individuals were illiterate, innumerate and without insurance experience. Involving clients in insurance package design is based on an implied assumption that people can make judicious rationing decisions. Judiciousness was assessed by examining the association between the frequency of choosing a package and its perceived effectiveness. Perceived effectiveness was evaluated by comparing respondents’ choices to the costs registered in 2049 illness episodes among a comparable cohort, using three criteria: ‘reimbursement’ (reimbursement regardless of the absolute level of expenditure), ‘fairness’ (higher reimbursement rate for higher expenses) and ‘catastrophic coverage’ (insurance for catastrophic exposure). The most frequently chosen packages scored highly on all three criteria; thus, rationing choices were confirmed as judicious. Fully 88.4% of the respondents selected at least three of the following benefits: outpatient, inpatient, drugs and tests, with a clear preference to cover high aggregate costs regardless of their probability. The results show that involving prospective clients in benefit package design can be done without compromising the judiciousness of rationing choices, even with people who have low education, low-income and no previous experience in similar exercises. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]