Dataset Information

The ethics of unlinked anonymous testing of blood: views from in-depth interviews with key informants in four countries.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

In this study we explore the ethical issues around unlinked anonymous testing (UAT) of blood, a method of seroprevalence surveillance for infectious diseases. Our study focused on UAT for HIV, although UAT can be used for other infectious diseases. The objectives of the research were to gain a better understanding of the views of key informants in countries adopting different UAT testing strategies, and to use the findings of the research to inform health policy.

Design

Qualitative study using in-depth interviews and ethical analysis.

Setting

Four countries using different strategies around UAT of blood for HIV (the UK, the USA, the Netherlands and Norway).

Participants

Twenty-three key informants in the four countries.

Results

Participants from the four countries have different views on UAT of blood, and the approaches and policies on UAT adopted by different countries have been historically and culturally determined. We use our findings to explore the relationship between public health policy and ethics, framing our discussion in relation to two important contemporary debates: informed consent for participation in medical and public health research; and the balance between the individual good and the public good.

Conclusions

Qualitative research and ethical analysis of UAT of blood in different countries has yielded important findings for consideration by policy makers. The policy of UAT of blood for HIV and other diseases in the UK needs reconsideration in the light of these findings.

SUBMITTER: Kessel AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3532979 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers.MethodsThis was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist.ResultsThirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging.ConclusionKey informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.

Project description:IntroductionUnlike issues in biomedical research ethics, ethical challenges arising in daily clinical care in Sub-Saharan African countries have not yet been studied in a systematic manner. However this has to be seen as a distinct entity as we argue in this paper. Our aim was to give an overview of the spectrum of clinical ethical issues and to understand what influences clinical ethics in the Sub-Saharan country of Gabon.Materials and methodsIn-depth interviews with 18 health care professionals were conducted at three hospital sites in Gabon. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach (open and axial coding), giving a qualitative spectrum of categories for clinical ethical issues. Validity was checked at a meeting with study participants and other health care experts in Gabon after analysis of the data.ResultsTwelve main categories (with 28 further-specified subcategories) for clinical ethical issues were identified and grouped under three core categories: A) micro level: "confidentiality and information", "interpersonal, relational and behavioral issues", "psychological strain of individuals", and "scarce resources"; B) meso level: "structural issues of medical institutions", "issues with private clinics", "challenges connected to the family", and "issues of education, training and competence"; and C) macro level: "influence of society, culture, religion and superstition", "applicability of western medicine", "structural issues on the political level", and "legal issues".DiscussionInterviewees reported a broad spectrum of clinical ethical issues that go beyond challenges related to scarce financial and human resources. Specific socio-cultural, historical and educational backgrounds also played an important role. In fact these influences are central to an understanding of clinical ethics in the studied local context. Further research in the region is necessary to put our study into perspective. As many participants reported a lack of awareness of ethical issues amongst other health care professionals in daily clinical practice, we suggest that international organizations and national medical schools should consider infrastructure and tools to improve context-sensitive capacity building in clinical ethics for Sub-Saharan African countries like Gabon.

Project description:BackgroundIntersectoral collaboration is critical to the successful implementation of many public health interventions (PHIs). Little attention has been paid to whether and how processes at the stage of evaluation can promote intersectoral collaboration. The objective of this study was to examine European experiences and views on whether and how the evaluation of PHIs promote intersectoral collaboration.MethodsA qualitative study design was used. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 individuals centrally involved in the evaluation of PHIs in 6 European countries (Austria, Denmark, England, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland). Questions pertained to current processes for evaluating PHIs in the country and current and potential strategies for promoting intersectoral collaboration. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes responding to our primary objective.ResultsExperiences with promoting intersectoral collaboration through the evaluation of PHIs could be summarized in 4 themes: (1) Early involvement of non-health sectors in the evaluative process and inclusion of non-health benefits can promote intersectoral collaboration, but should be combined with greater influence of these sectors in shaping PHIs; (2) Harmonization of methodological approaches may enable comparison of results and facilitate intersectoral collaboration, but should not be an overriding goal; (3) Involvement in health impact assessments (HIAs) can promote intersectoral collaboration, but needs to be incentivized and be conducted without putting overwhelming demands on non-health sectors; (4) A designated body for evaluating PHIs may promote intersectoral collaboration, but its design needs to take account of realities of policy-making.ConclusionThe full potential for promoting intersectoral collaboration through the evaluation of PHIs appears currently unrealized in the settings we studied. To further promote intersectoral collaboration, evaluators and decision-makers may consider the full range of strategies characterized in this study. This may be most effective if the strategies are deployed so that they reinforce each other, value outcomes beyond health, and are tailored to maximize political priority for PHIs across sectors.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, tensions between IRBs and principal investigators (PIs) have risen, posing the needs to understand these conflicts, their underlying causes, and possible solutions. Researchers frequently complain about IRBs, but how IRBs perceive and respond to these criticisms is unclear.MethodsI conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of two hours each with 46 chairs, administrators, and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs around the country (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding) and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%).ResultsInterviewees suggest that IRBs and PIs may view the nature and causes of these conflicts very differently and misunderstand each other, exacerbating tensions. Interviewees often recognized that they were seen by PIs as having power, but many IRBs saw themselves as not having it (e.g., because they are "merely following the regulations," and their process is "open," impersonal and unbiased, and they are themselves subject to higher administrative agencies), or as having it, but feeling it is small, and/or justified (e.g., because it is based on overriding goals and "the community values," and IRBs are trying to help PIs). Questions emerge as to whether IRBs do or should have power, and if so, what kind, how much, and when. Several factors may affect these tensions.ConclusionsThis study, the first to explore how IRBs perceive and understand conflicts and power relationships with PIs, suggests how IRBs and PIs may differ in viewing their respective roles and relationships, exacerbating tensions. These issues have critical implications for IRBs and PIs--to enhance their awareness and understanding of these conflicts (e.g., that IRBs may have discretionary power) and the underlying causes involved, and for increasing attention to research, practice, and policy concerning these areas of IRB functioning and interactions with PIs.