Search

Rational Methods Results Conclusions Low‐value radiological imaging threatens patient safety and efficient use of limited health resources. It is important to evaluate measures for reducing low‐value utilisation, to learn and to improve. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to qualitatively evaluate a pilot intervention for reducing low‐value imaging in Norway.Semi‐structured interviews were conducted aimed at describing stakeholders' experience with a multicomponent pilot intervention consisting of a standardised procedure for referral assessment, a standardised return letter, and information about the value and possible risks of magnetic resonance imaging‐examinations to the public. Data were analysed in line with qualitative content analysis with a deductive approach.Seven healthcare providers were interviewed, including two radiologists, two radiographers, one manual therapist, one practice consultant and one general practitioner. Data analysis yielded four categories: (1) information and reception, (2) referral‐ and assessment processes, (3) suggestions for improvement and facilitation and (4) outcomes of the pilot intervention.The pilot intervention was deemed acceptable, feasible, engaging and relevant. Specific training in the use of the new procedure was suggested to improve the intervention. The simple design, as well as the positive acceptance demonstrated and the few resources needed, make the pilot intervention and methodology highly relevant for other settings or when aiming to reduce the number of other low‐value radiology examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unwarranted temporal and geographical variations are acknowledged as a profound problem for equal access and justice in the provision of health services. Even more, they challenge the quality, safety, and efficiency of such services. This is highly relevant for imaging services. Objective: To analyse the temporal and geographical variation in the number of diagnostic images in Norway from 2013 to 2021. Methods: Data on outpatient imaging provided by the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO) and inpatient data afforded by fourteen hospital trusts and hospitals in Norway. Data include the total number of imaging examinations according to the Norwegian Classification of Radiological Procedures (NCRP). Analyses were performed with descriptive statistics. Results: More than 37 million examinations were performed in Norway during 2013–2021 giving an average of 4.2 million examinations per year. In 2021 there was performed and average of 0.8 examinations per person and 2.2 examinations per person for the age group > 80. There was a 9% increase in the total number of examinations from 2013 to 2015 and a small and stable decrease of 0.5% per year from 2015 to 2021 (with the exception of 2020 due to the pandemic). On average 71% of all examinations were outpatient examinations and 32% were conducted at private imaging centres. There were substantial variations between the health regions, with Region South-East having 53.1% more examinations per inhabitant than Region West. The geographical variation was even more outspoken when comparing catchment areas, where Oslo University Hospital Trust had twice as many examinations per inhabitant than Finnmark Hospital Trust. Conclusion: As the population in Norway is homogeneous it is difficult to attribute the variations to socio-economic or demographic factors. Unwarranted and supply-sensitive variations are challenging for healthcare systems where equal access and justice traditionally are core values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The National Insurance Act administrates an important part of the welfare system in Norway by entitlements to benefits. Disease is an absolute requirement for many benefits, but the Act does not provide any definition of disease. The National Insurance Court is the normative body in management of the Act. In 1994, a consensus report was written on the concept of disease on behalf of the National Insurance Court, which subsequently became a guideline in the management of decisions. This study examined how the concept of disease has been interpretated in recent decisions in the National Insurance Court compared to the interpretation in the consensus report. Methods: The material consisted of anonymous decisions from the National Insurance Court in the period from September 2018 to August 2019. It was analysed by systematic text condensation and compared to the consensus report by a theory-driven content analysis. Results: The consensus report described disease as a value-laden condition with personal resources and external environment as decisive context, while the decisions express disease as a process with causal relationship to personal resources and external environment. Conclusions: The analysis of recent decisions showed that the interpretation of the concept of disease has moved in a value-neutral direction compared to the consensus report. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on organoids has undergone significant advances during the last decade. However, outcomes from the use of organoids in clinical trials have not yet been documented. Therefore, there is an urgent need to assess the reporting of clinically relevant outcomes from organoid research in the scientific literature. This article presents a systematic review and appraisal of the published literature in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, together with a synopsis of recent relevant reviews. Surprisingly, no randomized controlled trials have reported clinical outcomes with any types of organoids. We found very few ongoing and registered studies that may provide clinically relevant results within this decade. Our screening and interpretation of the literature, including review articles, indicate a focus on technical and preclinical aspects of organoid research. This is the first systematic review of clinical trials involving organoids. Few clinical studies are planned or already underway, and, so far, no high-quality evidence relating to the clinical outcomes of organoid research has been published. The many promises of organoid research still need to be translated from bench to bed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While the number of medical images has increased substantially, the demand has outpaced access, resulting in long wait times in many countries. Long wait times are a key problem for patient safety and quality of care as they can result in prolonged suffering, delayed diagnosis and treatment, as well as poorer prognosis and loss of lives. Surprisingly, little is known about wait times for imaging services. Objective: Investigate wait times for specific imaging services in Norway and to compare wait times with the total number of examinations and their development over time. Methods: Data from the wait time registry at the Norwegian Directorate of Health from 2018 to 2021 as well as data on outpatient imaging provided by the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO) and in-patient data afforded by fourteen hospital trusts and hospitals in Norway were analysed. Data include the total number of imaging examinations according to the Norwegian Classification of Radiological Procedures (NCRP). Analyses were performed with descriptive statistics. Results: Wait times vary through the months of the year. Conventional X-ray (XR) had the shortest wait times (3.0-4.4 weeks), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) had the lengthiest (8.7–12.0 and 7.9–11.4 weeks respectively). The wait times were lengthiest during the summer and winter holidays. Variations in wait times were also found for specific examination types between Norway's four public health regions. In addition, there was variation over time within the health regions. The wait times with the private health providers were substantially lower than with the public health providers. From 2018 to 2021, the wait time for MRIs increased by 6.6%, while the number of examinations (per 10,000) increased by 8.6%. Those regions with the highest number of examinations per 1,000 inhabitants per year had the lowest wait times. Conclusion: Wait times for diagnostic imaging procedures varied with time, region, and modality in Norway from 2018 to 2021. Long wait times may entail many negative consequences for patients, professionals, and the healthcare system. Reducing long wait times is an obvious way to improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is disease demotion more important than health promotion? The question is crucial for the ethos of medicine and for priority setting in healthcare. When things get tough, where should our attention and resources go: to health or disease? This study investigates two general perspectives on health and disease to address whether there is a stronger moral appeal from people's disease than from their health. While naturalist conceptions of health and disease are mute on moral appeal, normativist conceptions give diverse answers. Classical utilitarianism provides a symmetrical view of health and disease, according to which we have an equally strong moral appeal to further health as we have to reduce disease. Other normativist positions argue that there is an asymmetry between health and disease providing substantial support for a stronger moral appeal from disease than from health. This has a wide range of radical implications, especially within priority setting. In particular, treatment, palliation, and prevention of disease should have priority to the promotion and enhancement of health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We need to address the paradox that health expansion threatens sustainable healthcare as anti-aging drugs are on the trail from trial to the market and come together with health enhancement measures changing demography and the health of populations. This poses global, social, and professional problems, and challenges clinical medicine as well as health policy. To handle the emerging challenges, we need to address four crucial issues: (1) injustice (access), (2) sustainability, (3) basic human rights, and (4) eugenics. To do so we need to differentiate between health improvements and health enhancements and reinforce medicine's strongest moral appeal: to reduce suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Increased attention to cancer care has instigated altered systems for screening, diagnosis, and management of various types of cancer, such as in the prostate. While such systems very likely have improved the quality of cancer care, they also result in the altered use of specific services, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Aims and Objective: To study the change in the use of prostate MRI in the Norwegian health care system from 2013 to 2021 and to investigate some reasons for and potential implications of this change. Method: Data from the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO), The Cancer Registry of Norway and Cause‐of‐death registry at the Norwegian Institute of public health and the health registry of Vestfold Hospital Trust were used for descriptive statistical analysis. Results: The number of MRIs of the prostate increased threefold from 2013 to 2021, representing an extra cost of 2 million USD in 2020. The incidence of prostate cancer was stable at about 5000 cases per year, corresponding to 178 per 100,000 men, indicating no increased overdiagnosis. However, the clinical staging has changed substantially during this period, indicating stage and grade migration. The number of negative biopsies was reduced, and there are three MRIs per reduced negative biopsy. The number of persons on active surveillance increased during the period. However, these changes are partly independent of the increase in the number of MRIs. Conclusion: There was a substantial increase in the number of prostate MRIs and thus an increase in costs. This appears to have contributed to the reduction of negative biopsies, improved staging and increased active surveillance. However, as these effects are partly independent of the increase in MRIs, we need to document the outcomes for patients from prostate MRIs as their opportunity costs are substantial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of diagnoses and the number of persons having diagnoses have increased substantially, and studies indicate that diagnoses are given or upheld even if they are unwarranted, that is, that they do not satisfy professionally accepted diagnostic criteria. In this article, the authors investigate the ethics of withholding and withdrawing unwarranted diagnoses. First, they investigate ethical aspects that make it difficult to withhold and to withdraw such diagnoses. Second, they scrutinize whether there are psychological factors, both in persons/patients and healthcare professionals, making it difficult to withdraw and withhold unwarranted diagnoses. Lastly, they use recent elements of the withholding-versus-withdrawing treatment debate in medical ethics to investigate whether there are any differences between withholding and withdrawing treatment and withdrawing and withholding unwarranted diagnoses. The authors conclude that it is crucial to acknowledge and address all these issues to reduce and avoid unwarranted diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Novel biotechnologies produce new person-related biological entities, such as cell lines, organoids, and synthetic organisms, that tend to disrupt existing concepts, taxonomies, modes of evidence production, as well as moral norms and values. This raises the question of how we can manage these new person-related biological entities. This article identifies and analyzes key conceptual, ontological, epistemological, and ethical aspects of such entities in order to suggest how to make, manage, and regulate them. It argues that in order to avoid conceptual vagueness and taxonomic confusion, it is important to clarify how person-related biological entities relate to existing concepts and to make new concepts where necessary. Ontologically, we need to determine the thing- and person-likeness of such entities. Epistemically, we must provide measures to verify the characteristics of person-related biological entities and to provide high-quality knowledge of their implications (outcomes). And ethically, we must clarify the moral status, rights, and responsibility for and of the entities, and how they will change our norms and values. Addressing these issues up front may improve our making and managing of person-related biological entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Root‐filled teeth presenting with signs of post‐treatment disease is a common finding in virtually every dental practice. There is both empirical and experimental evidence that, as long as the condition is asymptomatic, it is often left untreated. Professional judgements and decision making in endodontics as in any medical discipline are based on qualified estimations of the probability and the value of relevant outcomes. In this paper we describe various aspects of clinical decision making in general, from a descriptive as well as a normative point of view, but with a particular focus on the condition of the root‐filled tooth with post‐treatment disease. We review how attention to various types of uncertainties are relevant for the decision‐making process. Additionally, we discuss the nature of value judgements and different concepts of health and disease which are important for understanding the complexity of the clinical decision‐making process. We also refer to a set of principal rules that can guide the clinician's decision making in every‐day practice in front of a case with endodontic post‐treatment disease. Finally, we provide some aspects on the sometime cumbersome decision whether to go for a non‐surgical or surgical method, whenever a decision on retreatment has been made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research integrity has obtained much attention in research communities, but also in the general public. To improve research integrity is difficult as it involves complex systems of knowledge, attitudes, and practices. The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cohorts of PhD candidates at one faculty (of medicine) over time and compare this to finished PhDs of the same cohorts. Material and method: Researchers (n = 186) awarded the degree PhD at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes and actions related to scientific dishonesty. 94 responded (50.5%). The results were compared with results among first-year PhD candidates who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010–20 (n = 536) and to those who finished PhDs in 2016 (n = 86). Results: For the years 2010–2020 1.1% of the PhD candidates report to have engaged in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 0.9% report to have presented results in a misleading way. 2.3% report that they know of persons at their department who have engaged in FFP the last 12 months. In total 1.5% report to have experienced pressure to engage in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 2.1% report to have experienced pressure to present results in a misleading way. On average 12.8% report to have been exposed to unethical pressure concerning inclusion or ordering of authors during the last 12 months, and 28.8% report to have knowledge about their department's written policies about research integrity. While some attitudes improve over the years, attitudes in general are not much changed from 2010–2020. None of the PhDs that received a PhD from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 reported to have engaged in FFT or having experienced pressure to do so.1.1% experienced pressure to present results in other misleading ways, while 26.6% of respondents had experienced unethical pressure in relation to authorship during the course of the PhD fellowship. 4.3% knew about someone at their department who had presented results in a misleading manner. Some attitudes were not in line with traditional conceptions of research integrity, but most agreed that their research environment displayed research integrity. Conclusion: This long-term follow up study shows that few PhD-candidates report to engage in severe scientific misconduct, that they experience little pressure to do so, and with some exceptions, attitudes in in line with good research integrity. However, pressure in relation to authorship is relatively common. There is some improvement in research integrity from PhD candidates to recently finished PhDs, but in general research integrity is stable over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Aims: Precision medicine (PM) raises a key question: How do we know what works when the number of people with a health problem becomes small or one (n = 1)? We here present a formative case from Norway. The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision was faced with a cancer patient, who had improved after treatment with a drug in the private health sector but was refused continued treatment in the public health service due to lack of clinical trial evidence. The Board overturned this decision, arguing that the drug had been unambiguously documented to work in the individual case. We aim to provide an in‐depth analysis of this case and The Board's decision and thereby to illustrate and elucidate key epistemological and ethical issues and developments in PM. Method: We provide our analysis and discussion using tools of critical thinking and concepts from philosophy of science and medicine, such as uncertainty, evidence, forms of inference and causation. We also examine the case in light of the history of evidence‐based medicine (EBM). Results and Discussion: The case reflects an epistemological shift in medicine where PM puts greater emphasis on evidence that arises in individual patients after the treatment is provided over pre‐existing population‐based evidence. PM may rely more heavily on abduction to decide what works and qualitative, rather than quantitative judgements. The case also illustrates a possible shift in the concept of causation from regularity accounts to mechanistic and process accounts. We discuss the ethical implications of a shift from more 'traditional' to 'personalised EBM'. Conclusion: A framework that is more based on abductions and evidence arising in the individual case has problems in creating quantifiable, reliable and generalisable evidence, and in promoting transparency and accountability. PM currently lacks clear criteria for deciding what works in an individual, posing ethical challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overuse, underuse, and significant variation in the utilisation of radiological services are well documented in the literature. Several radiological examinations are identified as low-value examinations as they do not lead to a change in diagnosis or course of treatment. Even so, such examinations are frequently performed. Many measures for reducing low-value imaging have been carried out with variable outcomes. While there is little evidence as to why some measures work and others do not, adjusting to the context seems important for success. The objective of this study was to investigate which measures stakeholders consider appropriate for reducing the use of low-value imaging and what it takes to make them work. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among radiographers, radiologists, radiological department managers, hospital clinicians, general practitioners, and health government/authorities' representatives. The interview guide covered two broad areas: Experience with low-value services, and possible future measures deemed appropriate for reducing low-value services. Data were analysed in line with a qualitative framework analysis. Results: The analysis included information from 27 participants. All participants acknowledged that low-value imaging was a problem, but few had very specific suggestions on reducing this in practice. Suggested measures were to stop referrals from being sent, provide support in assessing referrals, or change the healthcare system. Identified facilitators were categorised as management and resources, evidence, and experienced value. In general, appropriate measures should be practical, well-founded, and valuable. Conclusions: This study provides insight into various stakeholders' perceptions of suitable interventions to reduce low-value imaging. While many measures for reducing low-value imaging are available, contextual sensitivity is crucial to make them work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overuse, underuse, and significant variation in the utilisation of radiological services are well documented in the literature. Several radiological examinations are identified as low-value examinations as they do not lead to a change in diagnosis or course of treatment. Even so, such examinations are frequently performed. Many measures for reducing low-value imaging have been carried out with variable outcomes. While there is little evidence as to why some measures work and others do not, adjusting to the context seems important for success. The objective of this study was to investigate which measures stakeholders consider appropriate for reducing the use of low-value imaging and what it takes to make them work.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among radiographers, radiologists, radiological department managers, hospital clinicians, general practitioners, and health government/authorities' representatives. The interview guide covered two broad areas: Experience with low-value services, and possible future measures deemed appropriate for reducing low-value services. Data were analysed in line with a qualitative framework analysis.Results: The analysis included information from 27 participants. All participants acknowledged that low-value imaging was a problem, but few had very specific suggestions on reducing this in practice. Suggested measures were to stop referrals from being sent, provide support in assessing referrals, or change the healthcare system. Identified facilitators were categorised as management and resources, evidence, and experienced value. In general, appropriate measures should be practical, well-founded, and valuable.Conclusions: This study provides insight into various stakeholders' perceptions of suitable interventions to reduce low-value imaging. While many measures for reducing low-value imaging are available, contextual sensitivity is crucial to make them work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diseases change the life of individuals, the social status of groups, the obligations of professionals, and the welfare of nations. Disease classifications function as a demarcation of access to care, rights, and duties. Disease also fosters social stigmatization and discrimination, and is a personal, professional, and political matter. It raises a wide range of ethical issues that are of utmost importance in patient communication and education. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to present and discuss a range of basic ethical aspects of this core concept of medicine and health care. First and foremost, disease evokes compassion for the person suffering and induces a moral impetus to health professionals and health policy makers to avoid, eliminate or ameliorate disease. The concept of disease has many moral functions, especially with respect to attributing rights and obligations. Classifying something as disease also has implications for the status and prestige of the condition as well as for the attitudes and behavior towards people with the condition. Acknowledging such effects is crucial for avoiding discrimination and good communication. Moreover, different perspectives on disease can create conflicts between patients, professionals and policy makers. While expanding the concept of disease makes it possible to treat many more people for more conditions - earlier, it also poses ethical challenges of doing more harm than good, e.g., in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and medicalization. Understanding these ethical issues can be difficult even for health professionals, and communicating them to patients is challenging, but crucial for making informed consent. Accordingly, acknowledging and addressing the many specific ethical aspects of disease is crucial for patient communication and education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Geographical variations in the use of outpatient imaging can reveal inappropriate use of radiological services. Knowledge about these variations is crucial in the strive for appropriate and improved services. Purpose: To investigate the geographical variations in outpatient diagnostic imaging and analyze variations for main groups of examinations and for specific examinations. Material and methods: Data on outpatient radiological procedures registered at the Norwegian Health Economics Administration in Norway for 2019 were accessed with county-based population rates for age adjustment accessed through Statistics Norway. Age-adjusted rates were used to calculate high/low ratios, means, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation were calculated per 10,000 inhabitants. Results: There is high geographical variation for PET/CT and PET/MRI and moderate variation for neuroradiological outpatient examinations in Norway in 2019. Variations for the musculoskeletal systems and of thorax, abdomen, and vessels are almost 50%. We find high high-to-low ratios in CT—face (9.7), MRI—elbow joint (8.5), CT of the neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis (6.5) as well as MRI—prostate (6.2). Comparing with data from 2012–5, we find a reduction in variation for some examinations, such as MRI of the hip and MRI of the entire spine, and an increase in variations for others, such as CT of the face and MRI of the elbow joint. Conclusion: Despite much attention to the problem, we demonstrate substantial variations in radiological services in Norway raising concern with respect to appropriateness, quality of care, equity, and justice. The findings provide important input for quality improvement in radiological services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Diagnosing constitutes a substantial part of healthcare work and triggers a wide range of actions. • Dediagnosing is proposed as a novel framework for removing diagnoses that do not contribute to reducing the persons' suffering and should be introduced to make people less ill. • Dediagnosing comes together with other efforts to reduce overuse, such as deimplementation and deprescribing. • As diagnoses may influence identity construction and social rights, dediagnosing must be conducted in close collaboration with the patient and through shared decision making. Diagnosing constitutes a substantial part of healthcare work and triggers a wide range of actions including the prescription of medicines. Dediagnosing is proposed as a novel framework for removing diagnoses that do not contribute to the reduction of persons' suffering and should be introduced to make people less ill. Dediagnosing comes together with other efforts to reduce overuse, such as deimplementation, deprescribing, decommissioning, and disinvestment. Because diagnoses may influence identity construction and social rights, dediagnosing must be conducted in close collaboration with the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The edge metaphor is ubiquitous in describing the present situation in the world, and nowhere is this as clearly visible as in medicine. "The edge of medicine" has become the title of books, scholarly articles, media headlines, and lecture series and seems to be imbued with hype, hope, and aversion. In order better to understand what is at stake at "the edge of medicine" this article addresses three questions: What does "the edge of medicine" mean in contemporary debates on modern medicine? What are the challenges "on the edge of medicine" (in these various meanings of "on the edge")? How can philosophy and ethics contribute with addressing these challenges?Methods: Literature searches in PubMed and Google Scholar are used to identify uses of the phrase "the edge of medicine" while conventional content analysis is used to analyze meanings of and challenges with "the edge of medicine." These results are then investigated with respect to how philosophy and ethics can address the identified challenges.Results: The literature reveals that "the edge of medicine" has many meanings, such as: Border; Margin (of life); Frontier; Forefront; Fringes; Plunge (abyss); Brink (verge); Conflict; and Balancing. In general, the various meanings address four basic challenges: setting limits, keeping control, make meaning, and handling conflicts or aporias. The analysis of each of the meanings of "the edge of medicine" identifies a wide range of important and urgent tasks for the humanities in general, and for philosophy and ethics in particular: 1) clarifying concepts; 2) clarifying assumptions and premises of arguments, methods, advice, and decisions; 3) elaborate new concepts and new theories; 4) conceptualize and handle uncertainty, moral regret, and residue; 5) reveal "the emperor's new clothes;" 6) identify trends and reflect on their implications; 7) demarcation; and 8) reflecting on goodness in medicine.Conclusion: The phrase "the edge of medicine" expresses a wide range of challenges for modern health care. Together with other disciplines philosophy and ethics can and should make crucial contributions at "the edge of medicine," which is where the future of human beings and societies is created and formed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SARS-COV-2 pandemic provides a natural intervention to assess practical priority setting and internal evaluation of specific health services, such as radiological services. Norway makes an excellent case as it had a very low infection rate and very few cases of COVID-19. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to use the changes in performed outpatient radiological examinations during the first stages of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic to assess the practical evaluation of specific radiological examinations in Norway. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO) in the years 2015–2020. Data included the number of performed outpatient imaging examinations at public hospitals and private imaging centers in Norway and was divided in to three periods based on the level of restrictions on elective health services. Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: In the first period there was a 45% reduction in outpatient radiology compared to the same time period in 2015–2019 while in period 2 and 3 there was a 25 and 6% reduction respectively. The study identified a list of specific potential low-value radiological examinations. While some of these are covered by the Choosing Wisely campaign, others are not. Conclusion: By studying the priority setting practice during the initial phases of the pandemic this study identifies a set of potential low value radiological examinations during the initial phases of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. These examinations are candidates for closer assessments for health services quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SARS-COV-2 pandemic provides a natural intervention to assess practical priority setting and internal evaluation of specific health services, such as radiological services. Norway makes an excellent case as it had a very low infection rate and very few cases of COVID-19. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to use the changes in performed outpatient radiological examinations during the first stages of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic to assess the practical evaluation of specific radiological examinations in Norway.Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO) in the years 2015-2020. Data included the number of performed outpatient imaging examinations at public hospitals and private imaging centers in Norway and was divided in to three periods based on the level of restrictions on elective health services. Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics.Results: In the first period there was a 45% reduction in outpatient radiology compared to the same time period in 2015-2019 while in period 2 and 3 there was a 25 and 6% reduction respectively. The study identified a list of specific potential low-value radiological examinations. While some of these are covered by the Choosing Wisely campaign, others are not.Conclusion: By studying the priority setting practice during the initial phases of the pandemic this study identifies a set of potential low value radiological examinations during the initial phases of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. These examinations are candidates for closer assessments for health services quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates research integrity among PhD students in health sciences at three universities in Scandinavia (Stockholm, Oslo, Odense). A questionnaire with questions on knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and behavior was distributed to PhD students and obtained a response rate of 77.7%. About 10% of the respondents agreed that research misconduct strictly defined (such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, FFP) is common in their area of research, while slightly more agreed that other forms of misconduct is common. A nonnegligible segment of the respondents was willing to fabricate, falsify, or omit contradicting data if they believe that they are right in their overall conclusions. Up to one third reported to have added one or more authors unmerited. Results showed a negative correlation between "good attitudes" and self-reported misconduct and a positive correlation between how frequent respondents thought that misconduct occurs and whether they reported misconduct themselves. This reveals that existing educational and research systems partly fail to foster research integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fifteen years ago, Ruth Macklin shook the medical community with her claim in the BMJ that dignity is a useless concept. Her essay provoked a storm of reactions. What have we learned from the debate? In this article I analyse the responses to her essay and the following debate to investigate whether she was right that "[d]ignity is a useless concept in medical ethics and can be eliminated without any loss of content." While some of the commentaries misconstrued her claim and argue against strawmen, others forcefully maintained that the concept of dignity has functions beyond "respect for persons and their autonomy." One important point that came out of the debate is that dignity is a generic concept that covers more ground than "respect for persons or their autonomy." In particular, dignity seems to have a wide range of protective functions as well as having reciprocal, relational, and social aspects. Dignity appears more attributional and norm‐formative than respect for persons and autonomy. While the claim that dignity is unclear, vague, and can be used sloganistically seems highly relevant, it is argued that this vagueness fulfils important functions in ethics. Moreover, dismissing dignity because of its lack of clarity has implications for "respect for persons" and "autonomy," which are also used vaguely and sloganistically. No doubt medical ethics should use as a clear concept as the context requires. Nonetheless, dignity still seems to be a widely used generic concept in ethical debates and doing as much ethical work as "respect for persons" or "respect for autonomy." Therefore, the death of dignity seems to be greatly exaggerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing high quality and user oriented information about mammographic screening is no easy task, as screening has been subject to heated professional and public debates. Although the information has to be developed and provided in context for each screening program, the basic challenges are very much the same for all programs. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to analyze key ethical challenges in informing about mammographic screening, and based on these, to suggest some guiding principles for practical solutions. A literature review identifies five crucial issues with respect to informing women about mammographic screening. By analyzing and addressing these issues, five guiding principles are suggested: the content and the form of information should be developed through open and transparent processes with strong stakeholder involvement. Facts should be presented in a balanced way and uncertainties should be acknowledged, e.g., by presenting outcomes in ranges. Information should be layered without attempts to frame information. Attending mammographic screening should be as easy as not attending. Although apparently trivial, the suggested principles can be useful for elaborating specific information material about mammographic screening in a field of great ethical controversy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How should we handle ethical issues related to emerging science and technology in a rational way? This is a crucial issue in our time. On the one hand, there is great optimism with respect to technology. On the other, there is pessimism. As both perspectives are based on scarce evidence, they may appear speculative and irrational. Against the pessimistic perspective to emerging technology, it has been forcefully argued that there is a status quo bias (SQB) fuelling irrational attitudes to emergent science and technology and greatly hampering useful development and implementation. Therefore, this article starts by analysing the SQB using human enhancement as a case study. It reveals that SQB may not be as prominent in restricting the implementation of emergent technologies as claimed in the ethics literature, because SQB (a) is fuelled by other and weaker drivers than those addressed in the literature, (b) is at best one amongst many drivers of attitudes towards emergent science and technology, and (c) may not be a particularly prominent driver of irrational decision‐making. While recognizing that SQB can be one driver behind pessimism, this article investigates other and counteracting forces that may be as strong as SQB. Progress bias is suggested as a generic term for the various drivers of unwarranted science and technology optimism. Based on this analysis, a test for avoiding or reducing this progress bias is proposed. Accordingly, we should recognize and avoid a broad range of biases in the assessment of emerging and existing science and technology in order to promote an open and transparent deliberation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research integrity has gained attention in the general public as well as in the research community. We wanted to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and practices amongst researchers that have recently finished their PhD and compare this to their responses during their PhD fellowship. In particular, we wanted to investigate whether their attitudes are related to their experiences of their immediate research environment. Material and method: Researchers (n = 86) awarded the PhD degree at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2016 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes, and actions related to scientific dishonesty. Seventy-two responded (83.7%). The results were compared with results among first-year doctoral students who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010–2017. Results: Overall, 13% of PhDs reported that they knew of people in their immediate research environment who had committed serious forms of scientific dishonesty. A small percentage of PhDs (1.4%) indicated that they themselves had committed such acts. About 3% of the candidates had experienced pressure to commit serious forms of dishonesty and nearly a third of respondents had experienced unethical pressure with respect to authorship during the course of their fellowship. Thirteen percent reported that they had experienced unethical pressure in relation to other forms of dishonesty and 11% had experienced the consequences of some form of scientific dishonesty. Eighteen percent of the respondents believed that one or more actions, which in the literature were perceived as scientific misconduct, were not wrong. We find a connection between attitudes and the perceived research integrity of their research environment. The results also show a difference between PhD students and graduated PhDs in terms of scientific dishonesty. In some areas, the PhDs' norms are stricter, such as for the use of statistical analysis methods, while there is little change in others, such as in misconduct in order to expedite publications. Conclusion: Many PhDs knew about serious forms of scientific misconduct from the research environment in which they are trained, and some also report misconduct themselves. Some experienced pressure to serious forms of misconduct and a large proportion of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure with respect to authorship during their fellowship. Attitudes change during the PhD studies, but ambiguously. Scientific misconduct seems to be an environmental issue as much as a matter of personal integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human enhancement (HE) is ontologically, epistemologically, and ethically challenging and has stirred a wide range of scholarly and public debates. This article focuses on some conceptual issues with HE that have important ethical implications. In particular it scrutinizes how the concept of human enhancement relates to and challenges the concept of health. In order to do so, it addresses three specific questions: Q1. What do conceptions of HE say about health? Q2. Does HE challenge traditional conceptions of health? Q3. Do concepts of health set limits to or direct HE? Addressing Q1 reveals that HE tends to frame and form our conception of health. Thereby it challenges traditional conceptions of health (Q2). Accordingly, health does not provide strong sources for setting limits to HE (Q3). On the contrary HE seems to define and expand the concept of health. Common to the concepts of HE and health is that both depend on vague value concepts, such as happiness, well-being, or goodness. There seems to be a tendency in the HE literature to define the goal of human life in terms of what is bigger, stronger, faster, more intelligent, and more resilient. However, this is confusing "goodness" with "more" and quality with quantity. Until HE more appropriately defines happiness, HE will fail to provide a relevant compass for improving the life of human beings. On the contrary, if we let simplified conceptions of "enhancement" come to define goodness or health, we may do more harm than good. Until doing so, we may well learn from Tithonus, listen to Douglas Adams' Wowbagger, and pay attention to Virginia Woolf's Orlando. Enhanced life may not be better. The same goes for health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: How can overdiagnosis be defined, explained, and estimated on an individual level? The answers to this question are essential for persons to be able to make informed choices and give valid consents for tests. Traditional conceptions of overdiagnosis tend to depend on counterfactual thinking and prophetic abilities as you would have to know what would happen in the future if you did not test now. To avoid this, overdiagnosis can be defined in terms of the chance of diagnosing a person with a disease when this does not avoid or reduce manifest disease. To be able to relate this to 1's own life and deliberation, I argue that we need answers to specific questions such as the following: If I am tested, and the test and subsequent test results are positive, but I am not treated, what is the chance that I would not experience and suffer from manifest disease? A definition of overdiagnosis that aims at providing answers to this question is as follows: Prospectively overdiagnosis (of an individual person) is given by the estimated chance that a person having a positive test result would not experience and suffer from manifest disease if not treated or followed up in any way. Getting personal on overdiagnosis directs the attention of overdiagnosis estimates towards what matters in medicine: the experience of individual persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Novel tests give great opportunities for earlier and more precise diagnostics. At the same time, new tests expand disease, produce patients, and cause unnecessary harm in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. How can we evaluate diagnostics to obtain the benefits and avoid harm? One way is to pay close attention to the diagnostic process and its core concepts. Doing so reveals 3 errors that expand disease and increase overdiagnosis. The first error is to decouple diagnostics from harm, eg, by diagnosing insignificant conditions. The second error is to bypass proper validation of the relationship between test indicator and disease, eg, by introducing biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease before the tests are properly validated. The third error is to couple the name of disease to insignificant or indecisive indicators, eg, by lending the cancer name to preconditions, such as ductal carcinoma in situ. We need to avoid these errors to promote beneficial testing, bar harmful diagnostics, and evade unwarranted expansion of disease. Accordingly, we must stop identifying and testing for conditions that are only remotely associated with harm. We need more stringent verification of tests, and we must avoid naming indicators and indicative conditions after diseases. If not, we will end like ancient tragic heroes, succumbing because of our very best abilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Health technology assessment (HTA) is an evaluation of health technologies in terms of facts and evidence. However, the relationship between facts and values is still not clear in HTA. This is problematic in an era of “fake facts” and “truth production.” Accordingly, the objective of this study is to clarify the relationship between facts and values in HTA. We start with the perspectives of the traditional positivist account of “evaluating facts” and the social‐constructivist account of “facting values.” Our analysis reveals diverse relationships between facts and a spectrum of values, ranging from basic human values, to the values of health professionals, and values of and in HTA, as well as for decision making. We argue for sensitivity to the relationship between facts and values on all levels of HTA, for being open and transparent about the values guiding the production of facts, and for a primacy for the values close to the principal goals of health care, ie, relieving suffering. We maintain that philosophy (in particular ethics) may have an important role in addressing the relationship between facts and values in HTA. Philosophy may help us to avoid fallacies of inferring values from facts; to disentangle the normative assumptions in the production or presentation of facts and to tease out implicit value judgements in HTA; to analyse evaluative argumentation relating to facts about technologies; to address conceptual issues of normative importance; and to promote reflection on HTA's own value system. In this we argue for a(n Aristotelian) middle way between the traditional positivist account of “evaluating facts” and the social‐constructivist account of “facting values,” which we call “factuation.” We conclude that HTA is unique in bringing together facts and values and that being conscious and explicit about this “factuation” is key to making HTA valuable to both individual decision makers and society as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Nudging is the purposeful alteration of choices presented to people that aims to make them choose in predicted ways. While nudging has been used to assure high uptake and good outcome of screening programs, it has been criticized for being paternalistic, undermining free choice, and shared decision making. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to explore a) nudging strategies identified in screening, b) arguments for and against nudging; and on basis of this, to c) suggest a tentative conclusion on how to handle nudging in screening.Methods: Literature searches in Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO for combinations of screening and nudging. Screening based on content analysis of titles, abstracts, and articles.Results: 239 references were identified and 109 were included. Several forms of nudging were identified: framed information, default bias, or authority bias. Uptake and public health outcome were the most important goals. Arguments for nudging were bounded rationality, unavoidability, and beneficence, while lack of transparency, crowding out of intrinsic values, and paternalism were arguments against it. The analysis indicates that nudging can be acceptable for screenings with (high quality) evidence for high benefit-harm ratio (beneficence), where nudging does not infringe other ethical principles, such as justice and non-maleficence. In particular, nudging should not only focus on attendance rates, but also on making people "better choosers."Practice Implications: Four specific recommendations follow from the review and the analysis: 1) Nudging should be addressed in an explicit and transparent manner. 2) The means of nudging have to be in proportion to the benefit-harm ratio. 3) Disagreement on the evidence for either benefits or harms warrants special care. 4) Assessing and assuring the intended outcome of nudging appears to be crucial, as it can be context dependent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 has posed a wide range of urgent questions: about the disease, testing, immunity, treatments, and outcomes. Extreme situations, such as pandemics, call for exceptional measures. However, this threatens the production and application of evidence. Methods: This article applies standard categories in epistemology to analyse the pandemic in terms of four kinds of uncertainty: Risk, Fundamental uncertainty, Ignorance, and Ambiguity. Results: Mapping the uncertainties of the pandemic onto the four types of uncertainty directs evidence production towards specific tasks in order to address the challenges of the pandemic: Eliminating ambiguity, being alert to the unknown, and gathering data to estimate risks are crucial to preserve evidence and save lives. Conclusion: In order to avoid fake facts and to provide sustainable solutions, we need to pay attention to the various kinds of uncertainty. Producing high‐quality evidence is the solution, not the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study related to pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs). Topics discussed include information on ethical challenges with "collateral findings of pragmatic clinical trials" (PCT-CFs); preferences for disclosure of information based on how the information came to be known; and quality criteria for PCTs.

Connecting the circulatory system of old and young mice (parabiosis) is documented to have rejuvenating effects on cells, tissues, organs, and functions. A wide range of benefits are envisioned. Blood-based rejuvenation can come to totally change population health and aging. The first blood rejuvenation studies on humans with Alzheimer's disease have started. It puts blood at the center of therapy and revitalizes the historical line of humoral pathology from Hippocrates and Harvey, creating a new type of ‘bloodletting.' However, moving from mice to men requires careful consideration. Parabiosis actualizes well-known ethical challenges, such as just distribution of health care, avoiding disparities, and providing equal access to health care resources, as well as issues of human enhancement. However, it also poses new problems. Using internal substances in some persons as means to rejuvenate others calls for ethical reflection. New type of ‘blood bonds' may result from the continuous demand for specific types of blood. Even if rejuvenating substances from blood may be artificially and cheaply produced and justly distributed, problems arise: survival may have to be balanced against reproduction, as reproductive age increases. Eternal youth and endless bliss have always been vital human dreams. Although parabiosis may bring us closer to the fountain of youth than ever, it is still too early to provide full-fledged assessments of its implications or to foresee how it will change health, aging, medicine, and society. However, in order to bring our reflective abilities on par with our technical skills, we need to start reflection now. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A precondition for reducing scientific misconduct is evidence about scientists’ attitudes. We need reliable survey instruments, and this study investigates the reliability of Kalichman’s “Survey 2: research misconduct” questionnaire. The study is a post hoc analysis of data from three surveys among biomedical doctoral students in Scandinavia (2010-2015). We perform reliability analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using a split-sample design as a partial validation. The results indicate that a reliable 13-item scale can be formed (Cronbach’s α = .705), and factor analysis indicates that there are four reliable subscales each tapping a different construct: (a) general attitude to misconduct (α = .768), (b) attitude to personal misconduct (α = .784), (c) attitude to whistleblowing (α = .841), and (d) attitude to blameworthiness/punishment (α = .877). A full validation of the questionnaire requires further research. We, nevertheless, hope that the results will facilitate the increased use of the questionnaire in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health and disease are core concepts in health care and have attracted substantial interest and controversy. In recent and interesting contributions to the debate it has been argued that the challenges with the concept of disease can be resolved by a prototype concept of disease. As a robin is a more prototypical of a bird than a penguin, some diseases are more prototypical than others. If disease is a prototype concept, it would change nosology, but also health care and the study of health and disease. However, the statement that "disease is a prototype concept" forms an empirically testable hypothesis. Therefore, this study aims to test the hypothesis that health professionals have a prototype concept of disease.Methods: Two hundred twenty-three health care professionals in Norway were invited to participate in a survey where they were asked to rank a wide range of diseases according to how typical they considered them to be as diseases. Results were analysed with descriptive statistics.Results: The response rate was 90%. Lung cancer, leukemia, colon cancer, myocardial infarction, and AIDS are the diseases ranged to be most typical, while homosexuality, pregnancy, drapetomania, dissidence, and nostalgia are considered to be the least typical diseases. The results also show that the answers to how typical various diseases are vary greatly, even amongst a relatively homogenous group of health professionals.Conclusion: This study falsifies the hypothesis that disease is a prototype concept for health professionals. This has implications for the debate on core concepts for health care. If health professionals do not have a prototype concept of disease, it is unlikely that there is a prototype concept of disease in general. Consequently, nosologies should not be based on prototypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the expressivist argument the choice to use biotechnologies to prevent the birth of individuals with specific disabilities is an expression of disvalue for existing people with this disability. The argument has stirred a lively debate and has recently received renewed attention. This article starts with presenting the expressivist argument and its core elements. It then goes on to present and examine the counter-arguments before it addresses some aspects that have gained surprisingly little attention. The analysis demonstrates that the expressivist argument has a wide range of underpinnings and that counter-arguments tend to focus on only a few of these. It also reveals an important aspect that appears to have been ignored, i.e., that people do not select foetuses based on chromosomes or other biological traits, but based on characteristics of living persons with specific disabilities. This makes it more difficult to undermine the claim that negative selection of foetuses expresses a disvaluing of persons with such disabilities. It leaves the expressivist argument with a strong bite still. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims, and objectives Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended and implemented. However, sometimes CRC screening is not implemented despite good evidence, and some types of CRC screening are implemented despite lack of evidence. The objective of this article is to expose and elucidate relevant ethical issues in the literature on CRC screening that are important for open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening. Methods An axiological question-based method is used for exposing and elucidating ethical issues relevant in HTA. A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed Bioethics subset, ISI Web of Knowledge, Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), Ethics in Medicine (ETHMED), SIBIL Base dati di bioetica, LEWI Bibliographic Database on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, and EUROETHICS identified 870 references of which 114 were found relevant according to title and abstract. The content of the included papers were subject to ethical analysis to highlight the ethical issues, concerns, and arguments. Results A wide range of important ethical issues were identified. The main benefits are reduced relative CRC mortality rate, and potentially incidence rate, but there is no evidence of reduced absolute mortality rate. Potential harms are bleeding, perforation, false test results, overdetection, overdiagnosis, overtreatment (including unnecessary removal of polyps), and (rarely) death. Other important issues are related to autonomy and informed choice equity, justice, medicalization, and expanding disease. Conclusion A series of important ethical issues have been identified and need to be addressed in open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study is to provide an overview over the ethical issues relevant to the assessment, implementation, and use of smart-glasses. The purpose of the overview is to facilitate deliberation, decision making, and the formation of knowledge and norms for this emerging technology. An axiological question-based method for human cognitive enhancement including an extensive literature search on smart-glasses is used to identify relevant ethical issues. The search is supplemented with relevant ethical issues identified in the literature on human cognitive enhancement (in general) and in the study of the technical aspects of smart-glasses. Identified papers were subject to traditional content analysis: 739 references were identified of which 247 were regarded as relevant for full text examinations, and 155 were included in the study. A wide variety of ethical issues with smart-glasses have been identified, such as issues related to privacy, safety, justice, change in human agency, accountability, responsibility, social interaction, power and ideology. Smart-glasses are envisioned to change individual human identity and behavior as well as social interaction. Taking these issues into account appears to be relevant when developing, deliberating, deciding on, implementing, and using smart-glasses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To develop a method for exposing and elucidating ethical issues with human cognitive enhancement (HCE). The intended use of the method is to support and facilitate open and transparent deliberation and decision making with respect to this emerging technology with great potential formative implications for individuals and society. Literature search to identify relevant approaches. Conventional content analysis of the identified papers and methods in order to assess their suitability for assessing HCE according to four selection criteria. Method development. Amendment after pilot testing on smart-glasses. Based on three existing approaches in health technology assessment a method for exposing and elucidating ethical issues in the assessment of HCE technologies was developed. Based on a pilot test for smart-glasses, the method was amended. The method consists of six steps and a guiding list of 43 questions. A method for exposing and elucidating ethical issues in the assessment of HCE was developed. The method provides the ground work for context specific ethical assessment and analysis. Widespread use, amendments, and further developments of the method are encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the mistakes and moral biases that are made in withholding and withdrawal of medical treatment. It notes the reasons for not accepting Equivalence Thesis (ET) in bioethics which include differences in withdrawal and withholding treatment, professional responsibility of medical care providers, and to continue ongoing treatment for the patient than to embarking on a new treatment.

Since the introduction of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in 1992, the new technology has raised a series of basic moral issues. In this article, I present a brief review of this moral debate. I argue that even if we solve the moral problems of the debate, there is a residue of value issues. These value issues are crucial for the understanding of the dynamics of the health policy and the legislative process concerning ICSI. That is, values analyses are crucial to make viable moral judgments about new technologies such as ICSI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

As we need knowledge about the prevalence of scientific dishonesty, this study investigates the knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes toward various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD students at the main medical faculties in Sweden and Norway. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to all post-graduate research students attending basic PhD courses at the medical faculties in Stockholm and Oslo during the fall 2014. The responding doctoral students reported to know about various forms of scientific dishonesty from the literature, in their department, and for some also through their own experience. Some forms of scientific misconduct were considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was a high level of willingness to report misconduct but little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One kind of overutilization of diagnostic imaging is low-value imaging, i.e., imaging that does not lead to altered clinical pathways or improved health outcomes. Despite having well-documented extension and consequences, low-value imaging is still widespread. The objective of this study was to identify the drivers for the use of low-value imaging in the Norwegian healthcare services. Methods: We conducted individual, semi-structured interviews among representatives from the health authorities, general practitioners, specialists working in hospitals, radiologists, radiographers, and managers of imaging departments. Data analysis was carried out in line with framework analysis consisting of five steps: Familiarization, indexing, charting, mapping, and interpretation. Results: The analysis included 27 participants and resulted in two themes. The stakeholders identified drivers in the healthcare system and in the interaction between radiologists, referrers, and patients. The identified drivers were categorized in sub-themes, such as organization, communication, competence, expectations, defensive medicine, roles and responsibilities, and referral quality and time constraints. The drivers interact with each other and may strengthen the effect of other drivers. Conclusions: Several drivers for low-value imaging in Norway were identified at all levels of the healthcare system. The drivers work simultaneously and synergistically. To free resources for high-value imaging, drivers should be targeted by appropriate measures at several levels to reduce low-value imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Even though imaging is essential to modern medicine, some examinations are of low value as they do not lead to any change in the management of the patient. The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign aims to reduce the use of such services. In the Norwegian version of CW, specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head, lower back, and knee are amongst others identified as potential low-value examinations. However, referral practice and access to imaging may drive low-value utilisation. By using registry data from 2019 and descriptive analysis, this study aimed to examine the role of referral practice and access to imaging on the use of specific CW-examinations in one representative area in Norway. Results: A total of 237,554 examinations were performed by four public and two private imaging facilities located within the area. Forty-two percent (19,210/45,289) of all MRI examinations were related to CW. Private imaging centres performed most of the CW-imaging. A total of 3700 referrers were identified, and 2.3% were identified as "high-referrers," accounting for 33% of all CW-examinations. Referrers' experience did not influence imaging utilisation. A subset of referrers ("super-referrers," 0.5%) accounted for 10% of CW-examinations. Distance to service had no impact on the use of CW-examinations. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insight into the use of imaging and referral practice in one representative area in Norway. A great variation in referral practice was observed. Therefore, targeting referrers with high referral rates may be a promising strategy for reducing the use of low-value imaging. Key points: MRI is frequently used, and a substantial proportion of MRIs are potential of low value. A small number of referrers account for a large proportion of potential low-value imaging. The use of imaging is not associated with travel distance to imaging facilities or referrers' experience. Targeting "high-referrers" may be a promising strategy for reducing low-value imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To review the most important moral challenges following from the widespread use of bariatric surgery for type 2 diabetes for patients with BMI <35 kg/m2, although high quality evidence for its short and long term effectiveness and safety is limited. Methods: Extensive literature search to identify and analyze morally relevant issues. A question based method in ethics was applied to facilitate assessment and decision making. Results: Several important moral issues were identified: assessing and informing about safety, patient outcomes, and stakeholder interests; acquiring valid informed consent; defining and selecting outcome measures; stigmatization and discrimination of the patient group, as well as providing just distribution of health care. The main sources of these challenges are lack of high quality evidence, disagreement on clinical indications and endpoints, and the disciplining of human behavior by surgical interventions. Conclusion: A lack of high quality evidence on the effect of bariatric surgery for the treatment of T2DM in patients with BMI < 35/kg/m2 poses a wide variety of moral challenges, which are important for decisions on the individual patient level, on the management level, and on the health policy making level. Strong preferences among surgeons and patients may hamper high quality research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demographical changes in high income counties will increase the need of health care services but reduce the number of people to provide them. Welfare technology is launched as an important measure to meet this challenge. As with all types of technologies we must explore its ethical challenges. A literature review reveals that welfare technology is a generic term for a heterogeneous group of technologies and there are few studies documenting their efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency. Many kinds of welfare technology break with the traditional organization of health care. It introduces technology in new areas, such as in private homes, and it provides new functions, e.g. offering social stimuli and entertainment. At the same time welfare technology is developed for groups that traditionally have not been extensive technology users. This raises a series of ethical questions with regard to the development and use of welfare technologies, which are presented in this review. The main challenges identified are: (1) Alienation when advanced technology is used at home, (2) conflicting goals, as welfare technologies have many stakeholders with several ends, (3) respecting confidentiality and privacy when third-party actors are involved, (4) guaranteeing equal access and just distribution, and (5) handling conflicts between instrumental rationality and care in terms of respecting dignity and vulnerability. Addressing these issues is important for developing and implementing welfare technologies in a morally acceptable manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hofmann BM. Does Oral Infection Cause Cardiovascular Disease? Oral and moral challenges. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39: 385-392. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S Abstract - Objectives: To address three questions: (i) does oral infection cause cardiovascular disease (CVD)? (ii) what kind of uncertainty is there in the relationship between oral infection and CVD? and (iii) how do we handle this uncertainty in practice: what should we do? Methods: Conceptual analysis with basis in standard methods in philosophy of science and ethics. In particular, the study refers to theories of causality and uncertainty, as well as decision making theory. Results: Whether oral infections cause CVD deeply depends on what we mean by causality. An investigation of the most prominent conceptions of causality suggests that it is far from obvious that oral infection causes CVD. A further analysis reveals that uncertainty occurs as risk, specific uncertainty, ignorance, and indeterminacy, which has implications for how we should handle oral infections. One option is to apply the precautionary principle. Another option is to attribute a cause owing to the strong social commitment to prevent CVD. Conclusions: A conceptual analysis shows that it is not obvious that oral infections cause CVD and that the question of causality does not only involve descriptive issues of science but also moral matters of society. Hence, whether oral infections cause CVD is an ethical and not only a scientific issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]