Search

Objective: Although shared decision making (SDM) has become increasingly important in bioethical discussions and clinical practice, it is not clear in which treatment situations SDM is suitable. We address this question by investigating social norms on the appropriateness of SDM in different situations., Methods: We conducted qualitative expert interviews with patients, general practitioners, and health administration and research professionals., Results: SDM was considered to be most important in severe illness and chronic condition. Furthermore, SDM was indicated to be required if there is more than one therapeutic option, especially if it is not clear which option is best. Interviewees classified end-of-life decisions and decisions about prevention as those that primarily should be made by informed patients. On the other hand a paternalistic decision was considered most appropriate in emergency situations and when the patient does not want to participate in decision making., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that multiple situational factors and their interactions must be considered regarding the scope of SDM in medical consultation., Practice Implications: Research addressing this question will help physicians adjust their consultation style and allow implementations of SDM and decision aids to be tailored more appropriately to complex treatment situations., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In Switzerland there is a strong movement at a national policy level towards strengthening patient rights and patient involvement in health care decisions. Yet, there is no national programme promoting shared decision making. First decision support tools (prenatal diagnosis and screening) for the counselling process have been developed and implemented. Although Swiss doctors acknowledge that shared decision making is important, hierarchical structures and asymmetric physician-patient relationships are still prevailing. The last years have seen some promising activities regarding the training of medical students and the development of patient support programmes. Swiss direct democracy and the habit of consensual decision making and citizen involvement in general may provide a fertile ground for SDM development in the primary care setting., (2011. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the healthcare professional and the patient. SDM is the essential element of patient-centered care, a core concept of primary care. However, SDM is seldom translated into primary practice. Continuing professional development (CPD) is the principal means by which healthcare professionals continue to gain, improve, and broaden the knowledge and skills required for patient-centered care. Our international collaboration seeks to improve the knowledge base of CPD that targets translating SDM into the clinical practice of primary care in diverse healthcare systems., Methods: Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), our project is to form an international, interdisciplinary research team composed of health services researchers, physicians, nurses, psychologists, dietitians, CPD decision makers and others who will study how CPD causes SDM to be practiced in primary care. We will perform an environmental scan to create an inventory of CPD programs and related activities for translating SDM into clinical practice. These programs will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths and limitations. We will use the empirical data that results from the environmental scan and the critical appraisal to identify knowledge gaps and generate a research agenda during a two-day workshop to be held in Quebec City. We will ask CPD stakeholders to validate these knowledge gaps and the research agenda., Discussion: This project will analyse existing CPD programs and related activities for translating SDM into the practice of primary care. Because this international collaboration will develop and identify various factors influencing SDM, the project could shed new light on how SDM is implemented in primary care.

Satisfaction with treatment is regarded as an important outcome measure, but its suitability has not been thoroughly investigated in the context of shared decision making (SDM). The authors evaluated whether both patients' and physicians' satisfaction ratings differ between an intervention group and a control group within a structured tool for cardiovascular prevention (ARRIBA-Herz). In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, 44 family physicians in the intervention group consecutively recruited 550 patients whereas 47 physicians in the control group included 582 patients. Main findings were high satisfaction ratings independent of group allocation in patients and physicians. Significant differences had only negligible effect sizes. Compared to global satisfaction ratings, the effects of the shared decision-making process are better measured by a more concrete approach representing different steps of this process. Further research should refine behaviorally oriented questionnaires that measure SDM and a version for physicians should also be created.

The debate about adequate research methods for obtaining relevant results in clinical medicine and health care does not take place in a vacuum. In the present paper the longstanding debate about the epistemological underpinnings and methodological perspectives of qualitative and quantitative research methods in the social sciences is outlined and fructified for evidence-based medicine and health care. By using examples from research practice we will demonstrate that both the utilisation of qualitative methods and the use of a "mixed methods" design may contribute to the current methodological debate and improve research practice in evidence-based health care., (Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

The legal status of stem cell research in Germany has most recently been debated at the highest political level. Stakeholders have argued referring to the situation of stem cell researchers in past debates; however, a survey of the views and attitudes of German stem cell researchers is currently being performed by the University of Marburg also involving a team at Exeter University. Here, we present some of the first findings from this study on the basis of 14 qualitative interviews and 117 responses to the quantitative survey. The data suggest that the motives for engaging in particular areas of research are multilayered. Respondents take a critical view towards the way in which research on human embryonic stem cells has been regulated. The majority of interviewees rejected a change in legislation involving the amendment of the cut-off date for the import of human embryonic stem cells lines. Also, the recent changes in the German regulation of stem cell research that, among other changes, include a change of the cut off date for the production of lines which could become used in the country from January 2002 to May 2007 appear not to be received as a satisfactory solution of the constraints experienced by science through the law in Germany.

The physician-patient relationship is of fundamental importance not only for individual patients but for the health care system in general and thus also for bioethical reflections. We give an overview on current research and analyses regarding the physician-patient relationship. A comprehensive ethical analysis takes conditions (historical and societal influences, norms and principles), the action itself and its consequences on the individual level (patient, physician) and societal level (health care system) into consideration. At present, two models of the physician-patient relationship are predominantly discussed, especially in terms of care ethics: evidence-based patient choice and shared decision making. These forms of relationships seem to be promising for several reasons, but might not fit all situations, and suitable for all preferences of patients and physicians in the same way. We conclude with a summary of the current debate and point out some of its shortcomings.

We present results from our 'bioethical field studies', which explore and compare the views of experts, patients and the general public on the beginning of human life and the status of the preimplantation embryo in Germany. Using a qualitative and quantitative multi-method approach, we found crucial differences in the categorization of the beginning of human life within the expert group (representative samples of human geneticists n=104, ethicists n=168, midwives n=294, obstetricians n=147, paediatricians n=166), and between expert and lay samples (IVF couples n=108, high genetic risk couples n=324, general population n=1017). The majority of lay respondents as well as paediatricians and obstetricians chose nidation, the moment when the implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus takes place, as the crucial boundary that marks the beginning of human life, whereas the majority of (female) human geneticists, ethicists and midwives voted for conception as the decisive point in time. The views of all groups on the status of the preimplantation embryo differed from the assumptions underlying German legislation (Embryo Protection Act). Religiousness and religious affiliation, gender, attitudes towards disabled people, post-material values and a present desire for a child were identified as independent factors influencing attitudes towards the preimplantation embryo in the population sample. The results are discussed within a broader philosophical and social science perspective of constructivism versus essentialism, proposing a truly interdisciplinary approach to such bioethical core issues as new reproductive technologies and the status of the preimplantation embryo.

Unlabelled: Definition of problem:, Background: Reproductive Biomedicine and new reproductive technologies (ART) belong to the fields of medicine that initiated most of the discussion on enhancement and desire fulfilling medicine in bioethics during the last years. One of the crucial questions to be answered is the definition of the right to procreate/right for a genetically related child. Closely connected are controversial opinions in regard to the definition of sterility as a disease/illness, or a mere fate, or malfunction, which does not have to be medically cured. Arguments: After a cursory description of the national and international debate, we introduce some results of our 'bioethical field studies', exploring and comparing the views of experts (human geneticists, ethicists, pediatricians, obstetricians and midwifes) and couples/patients (IVF couples, high genetic risk couples and couples with no known risk for an inherited disease or infertility problem) on sterility, the right to procreate, possibilities and appropriate limits of IVF in Germany., Conclusion: According to the WHO, sterility has to be defined as an illness, if the respective couples have a desire for a child. IVF can be a means for a cure. Since 2004, Germany does no longer supply a thoroughly insurer financed IVF treatment. Our surveys indicate that this change, though supported by many experts, is hard to accept for couples concerned. Only obstetricians share the WHO's view that sterility should count as an illness. Many ethicists see a proclaimed human right to procreate as merely negative right, although many support free IVF treatment for poor couples. We challenge the expert majority view on the basis of the capability approach (Amartya Sen) and functional liberalism (Herlinde Pauer Studer) and with a view to the international state of the art in IVF. The desire to have children cannot be reduced to a non-authoritative preference whose fulfillment is optional, but has to be conceptualized as a normative need that ought to be met.

The regulation of reproductive medicine technologies differs significantly among Western industrialized countries. In Germany, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is prohibited due to the Embryo Protection Act, which came into force in 1991. In the last 5 years, this prohibition has been vigorously debated. In the present studies, which are part of the German research programme on ethical implications of the Human Genome Project, representative surveys were undertaken to assess the attitudes on PGD in the general population (n = 1017), five relevant expert groups (n = 879), high genetic risk couples (n = 324) and couples undergoing IVF (n = 108). All groups surveyed clearly favoured allowing PGD in Germany. Compared with the results of recently conducted population surveys in the UK and the USA, where PGD is already carried out, public approval of PGD does not differ significantly. The influence of restrictive biopolitics on the apparently liberal public opinion towards new reproductive technology seems to be marginal according to the present data, which should carefully be considered in the ongoing legislation process on human reproduction.

This article gives an overview about the ethical dispute on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), its legal status and its practical usage in Europe. We provide a detailed description of the situation in Germany wherein prenatal diagnosis is routinely applied, but PGD is prohibited on the basis of the internationally unique embryo protection act (EPA) that was put into force in 1991. Both PGD and stem cell research were vigorously debated in Germany during the last four years. As regards the PGD debate specifically, the voices of the ones directly affected were not adequately taken into consideration. We describe the predominant lines of argumentation in this debate and some essential results of our "bioethical field study" of opinions on and usage of PGD in Germany and their implications for the German legislation and ethical theory.