Dataset Information

What is a good health check? An interview study of health check providers' views and practices.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health checks identify (risk factors for) disease in people without symptoms. They may be offered by the government through population screenings and by other providers to individual users as 'personal health checks'. Health check providers' perspective of 'good' health checks may further the debate on the ethical evaluation and possible regulation of these personal health checks.

Methods

In 2015, we interviewed twenty Dutch health check providers on criteria for 'good' health checks, and the role these criteria play in their practices.

Results

Providers unanimously formulate a number of minimal criteria: Checks must focus on (risk factors for) treatable/preventable disease; Tests must be reliable and clinically valid; Participation must be informed and voluntary; Checks should provide more benefits than harms; Governmental screenings should be cost-effective. Aspirational criteria mentioned were: Follow-up care should be provided; Providers should be skilled and experienced professionals that put the benefit of (potential) users first; Providers should take time and attention. Some criteria were contested: People should be free to test on any (risk factor for) disease; Health checks should only be performed in people at high risk for disease that are likely to implement health advice; Follow up care of privately funded tests should not drain on collective resources. Providers do not always fulfil their own criteria. Their reasons reveal conflicts between criteria, conflicts between criteria and other ethical values, and point to components in the (Dutch) organisation of health care that hinder an ethical provision of health checks. Moreover, providers consider informed consent a criterion that is hard to establish in practice.

Conclusions

According to providers, personal health checks should meet the same criteria as population screenings, with the exception of cost-effectiveness. Providers do not always fulfil their own criteria. Results indicate that in thinking about the ethics of health checks potential conflicts between criteria and underlying values should be explicated, guidance in weighing of criteria should be provided and the larger context should be taken into account: other actors than providers need to take up responsibility, and ideally benefits and harms of health checks should be weighed against other measures targeting (risk factors for) disease.

SUBMITTER: Stol YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5625608 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What is a good health check? An interview study of health check providers' views and practices.

Stol Yrrah H YH Asscher Eva C A ECA Schermer Maartje H N MHN

BMC medical ethics 20171002 1

<h4>Background</h4>Health checks identify (risk factors for) disease in people without symptoms. They may be offered by the government through population screenings and by other providers to individual users as 'personal health checks'. Health check providers' perspective of 'good' health checks may further the debate on the ethical evaluation and possible regulation of these personal health checks.<h4>Methods</h4>In 2015, we interviewed twenty Dutch health check providers on criteria for 'good' ...[more]

PMID: 28969671

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 2020, the number of internet users surpassed 4.6 billion. Individuals who create and share digital data can leave a trail of information about their habits and preferences that collectively generate a digital footprint. Studies have shown that digital footprints can reveal important information regarding an individual's health status, ranging from diet and exercise to depression. Uses of digital applications have accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic where public health organizations have utilized technology to reduce the burden of transmission, ultimately leading to policy discussions about digital health privacy. Though US consumers report feeling concerned about the way their personal data is used, they continue to use digital technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand the extent to which consumers recognize possible health applications of their digital data and identify their most salient concerns around digital health privacy.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with a diverse national sample of US adults from November 2018 to January 2019. Participants were recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative panel. Participants were asked to reflect on their own use of digital technology, rate various sources of digital information, and consider several hypothetical scenarios with varying sources and health-related applications of personal digital information.ResultsThe final cohort included a diverse national sample of 45 US consumers. Participants were generally unaware what consumer digital data might reveal about their health. They also revealed limited knowledge of current data collection and aggregation practices. When responding to specific scenarios with health-related applications of data, they had difficulty weighing the benefits and harms but expressed a desire for privacy protection. They saw benefits in using digital data to improve health, but wanted limits to health programs' use of consumer digital data.ConclusionsCurrent privacy restrictions on health-related data are premised on the notion that these data are derived only from medical encounters. Given that an increasing amount of health-related data is derived from digital footprints in consumer settings, our findings suggest the need for greater transparency of data collection and uses, and broader health privacy protections.

Project description:Opioids (e.g. morphine) are affordable, effective interventions for cancer-related pain. However, equity of access to this key medication remains a global challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. We aimed to explore views of palliative care providers and public-representatives about opioid analgesia access in two States in India. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Transcribed audio-recordings were subjected to thematic analysis using a Framework Approach. Palliative care providers and public-representatives were purposively sampled from services reporting consistent opioid availability and prescribing (≥4kg per annum) from Karnataka and Kerala. Twenty participants (doctors (10), nurses (4), pharmacists (2), service managers (2) and public-representatives (2) were interviewed. Three themes were identified: 1) Attitudes and awareness: opioid treatments are perceived as end-of-life (last days/weeks) interventions; fears of addiction and misunderstanding of pain management goals limit access. 2) Expected and unexpected inequities: patients/carers from lower socioeconomic strata accept doctor recommendations if opioids are affordable, more educated patients/families have reservations about opioids, delay access and perceive expensive medicines as better. Non-palliative care specialist doctors have negative entrenched views and require specialist training. 3) Experiential learning-positive experiences can positively alter attitudes (e.g., participants in Kerala report improved attitudes, awareness and understanding influenced by exposure and community awareness, but experience can also reinforce perceptions as end-of-life care. Entrenched negative views are reinforced by poor experiences while positive experiences improve attitudes. To promote access, opioid prescribing must be needs-based rather than prognosis-based. Addressing the lack of training for non-palliative care workforce would help overcome a major barrier.

Project description:BackgroundAlmost all pregnant people in Sri Lanka receive antenatal care by public health midwives. While there is strong infrastructure in Sri Lanka for postpartum mental health care, the current practices within antenatal mental health care have not been externally evaluated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the current clinical guidelines and experiences of how public health midwives diagnose and treat antenatal depression.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 12 public health midwives from four antenatal clinics in the Bope Poddala division in Galle, Sri Lanka and reviewed and extracted information on antenatal depression from clinical guidelines. Data was collected in Sinhala and translated into English. We used applied thematic analysis and worked closely with our local team to ensure data trustworthiness.ResultsMidwives (n = 12) reported varying degrees of knowledge on antenatal depression and did not have standardized diagnosis patterns. However, they were very consistent in their clinical practices, following guidelines for referral and follow-up of case management, building strong rapport. In their practice, midwives continue to face challenges of lack of human resources and high stigma around mental illness. They suggested that that care could be improved with use of a standardized diagnostic tool, and easier access to specialist care. We found the clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of antenatal depression is lacking key details on symptoms for appropriate diagnosis, but it clearly guides on how to navigate treatment.ConclusionsPublic health midwives are following the clinical guideline to refer pregnant women who need intervention for antenatal depression and follow-up for case management. However, there is a need for more specific and context-relevant guidelines, especially for diagnosis of antenatal depression. Formative research is needed to explore intervention strategies to improve antenatal depression management in Sri Lanka.

Project description:BackgroundGene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts (n = 33) from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically.ResultsThe respondents' moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards (1) the uncertainty related to GDTs; (2) the alternatives to which they should be compared; and (3) the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials ('risks of intervention' stance) or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo ('risks of non-intervention' stance). With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered (un)feasible and (in)sufficiently explored: conventional strategies ('downstream solutions' stance) or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems ('upstream solutions' stance). Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans' role in nature ('interference' stance) or not ('non-interference stance').ConclusionsThis interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further (normative) reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise data concerning the views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals towards the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in general and the challenges faced when implementing it in practice.DesignA systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.Data sourcesAn electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers.Inclusion criteriaPrimary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice.ResultsOf 18?524 citations, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies that some commissioners and general practice (GP) healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the programme, whereas others raised concerns around inequality of uptake, the evidence base and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, those working in pharmacies were all positive about programme benefits, citing opportunities for their business and staff. The main challenges to implementation were: difficulties with information technology and computer software, resistance to the programme from some GPs, the impact on workload and staffing, funding and training needs. Inadequate privacy was also a challenge in pharmacy and community settings, along with difficulty recruiting people eligible for Health Checks and poor public access to some venues.ConclusionsThe success of the NHS Health Check Programme relies on engagement by those responsible for its commissioning, management and delivery. Recognising and addressing the challenges identified in this review, in particular the concerns of GPs, are important for the future of the programme.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Inappropriate gestational weight gain in pregnancy may negatively impact health outcomes for mothers and babies. While optimal gestational weight gain is often not acheived, effective counselling by antenatal health care providers is recommended. It is not known if gestational weight gain counselling practices differ by type of antenatal health care provider, namely, family physicians, midwives and obstetricians, and what barriers impede the delivery of such counselling. The objective of this study was to understand the counselling of family physicians, midwives and obstetricians in Ontario and what factors act as barriers and enablers to the provision of counselling about GWG. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven family physicians, six midwives and five obstetricians in Ontario, Canada, where pregnancy care is universally covered. Convenience and purposive sampling techniques were employed. A grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. Codes, categories and themes were generated using NVIVO software. RESULTS:Providers reported that they offered gestational weight gain counselling to all patients early in pregnancy. Counselling topics included gestational weight gain targets, nutrition & exercise, gestational diabetes prevention, while dispelling misconceptions about gestational weight gain. Most do not routinely address the adverse outcomes linked to gestational weight gain, or daily caloric intake goals for pregnancy. The health care providers all faced similar barriers to counselling including patient attitudes, social and cultural issues, and accessibility of resources. Patient enthusiasm and access to a dietician motivated health care providers to provide more in-depth gestational weight gain counselling. CONCLUSION:Reported gestational weight gain counselling practices were similar between midwives, obstetricians and family physicians. Antenatal knowledge translation tools for patients and health care providers are needed, and would seem to be suitable for use across all three types of health care provider specialties.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Current medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results. RESULTS:The length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants' reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings. CONCLUSIONS:These findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process.

Dataset Information

What is a good health check? An interview study of health check providers' views and practices.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

What is a good health check? An interview study of health check providers' views and practices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets