Dataset Information

Ethical issues in the development and implementation of nutrition-related public health policies and interventions: A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The limited integration of ethics in nutrition-related public health policies and interventions is one major concern for those who have the task of implementing them. Ethical challenges that are overlooked during the development of such interventions could raise serious ethical issues during their implementation and even after. As a result, these decision makers need technical support and ethical guidance for adaptation of interventions to local (cultural, social, economic, etc.) contexts.

Aim

The goal of this scoping review is to delineate and "map" the range of ethical issues in nutrition-related public health interventions, as well as the range of the various fields in which they may arise.

Methods

A scoping review of empirical research and conceptual literature was conducted following the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Searches using PubMed with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) categories and Advanced Search Builder as well as in the Global Health Library were performed. The final sample consists of 169 publications.

Results

The ethics of public health prevention or treatment of obesity and non-communicable diseases is the most explicitly and frequently discussed subject. In comparison, ethical issues raised by public health interventions in the fields of undernutrition, breastfeeding, vitamin/mineral supplementation and food fortification, food security, food sustainability and food safety are addressed in a lower proportion of the sample. The results illustrate the various natures, types, and scopes of existing public health nutrition-related interventions, and the various ethical issues that may be raised by these interventions, in addition to the numerous and different contexts in which they may be implemented.

Discussion

The ethical issues faced in the development and implementation of nutrition-related public health interventions are varied and cannot be equated with, nor generalized about, when dealing with specific activities in this field. More importantly, these ethical issues cannot be managed without a careful consideration for the complexity of contexts in which nutrition-related interventions are expected to be implemented. These interventions engage a variety of actors with diverse perspectives and interests. We discuss these challenges and also comment on the importance of considering ethical impacts in the monitoring and evaluation of such interventions.

Conclusion

General ethical frameworks or recommendations-although useful-cannot be expected to provide policy makers, implementators and other public health personnel with sufficient practical ethical guidance as they cannot consider and anticipate the particularities of all specific nutrition-related public health interventions and the complexity of the contexts in which they are implemented. Further research is needed in order to develop more targeted ethical frameworks.

SUBMITTER: Hurlimann T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5658098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The field of public health includes a wide scope of activities and professional disciplines, ranging from sanitation, health protection, epidemiology, environmental health, financing, health promotion, including supervision, or the provision of clinical care. Each of these disciplines works in systems that face ethical dilemmas, making it important that public health workers have motivation to understand and practice within the ethical guidelines of their profession, thus making ethics an important component of training and practice. The dangers of ethical lapses are overwhelmingly apparent in the case of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century which metamorphosed from forced sterilizations in many liberal democratic countries into mass murder of physically and mentally handicapped children and adults in Nazi Germany. Between 1939 and 1941, 180 thousand psychiatric patients along with an equivalent number of handicapped children and adults were killed in an organized extermination program in Germany by lethal gassing. This method was then applied to the industrialized murder or Holocaust of six million Jews and millions of other “untermenschen” (sub human) in the greatest genocide in human history. Shortly after World War II ended the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals were conducted including medical doctors, and some were executed for crimes against humanity. This was followed by the 1948 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and by the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration. Both are widely accepted as cornerstone documents—the latter specifically governing ethical standards related to human experimentation—and are revised regularly since being issued in 1964. But genocide has not disappeared, nor has unscrupulous experimentation such as the Tuskegee experiment on black Americans infected with syphilis and left untreated even after the availability of a cure, penicillin. Ethical standards are now required by “Helsinki Committees”—ethical review boards—in most medical facilities worldwide. Ethical frameworks have evolved in part due to bitter experience of ethical failures later recognized and affecting public health standards of practice. Future generations of public health leaders and staff will face many ethical issues such as mandatory immunization of health workers and school children, and assisted death of terminally ill patients.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of new healthcare AI (HCAI) technologies. Whilst some of these technologies show promise for improving the patient experience, ethicists have warned that AI can introduce and exacerbate harms and wrongs in healthcare. It is important that HCAI reflects the values that are important to people. However, involving patients and publics in research about AI ethics remains challenging due to relatively limited awareness of HCAI technologies. This scoping review aims to map how the existing literature on publics' views on HCAI addresses key issues in AI ethics and governance.MethodsWe developed a search query to conduct a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Academic Search Complete from January 2010 onwards. We will include primary research studies which document publics' or patients' views on machine learning HCAI technologies. A coding framework has been designed and will be used capture qualitative and quantitative data from the articles. Two reviewers will code a proportion of the included articles and any discrepancies will be discussed amongst the team, with changes made to the coding framework accordingly. Final results will be reported quantitatively and qualitatively, examining how each AI ethics issue has been addressed by the included studies.DiscussionConsulting publics and patients about the ethics of HCAI technologies and innovations can offer important insights to those seeking to implement HCAI ethically and legitimately. This review will explore how ethical issues are addressed in literature examining publics' and patients' views on HCAI, with the aim of determining the extent to which publics' views on HCAI ethics have been addressed in existing research. This has the potential to support the development of implementation processes and regulation for HCAI that incorporates publics' values and perspectives.

Project description:BackgroundMentoring provides mentees and mentors with holistic support and research opportunities. Yet, the quality of this support has been called into question amidst suggestions that mentoring is prone to bullying and professional lapses. These concerns jeopardise mentoring's role in medical schools and demand closer scrutiny.MethodsTo better understand prevailing concerns, a novel approach to systematic scoping reviews (SSR) s is proposed to map prevailing ethical issues in mentoring in an accountable and reproducible manner. Ten members of the research team carried out systematic and independent searches of PubMed, Embase, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Scopus, OpenGrey and Mednar databases. The individual researchers employed 'negotiated consensual validation' to determine the final list of articles to be analysed. The reviewers worked in three independent teams. One team summarised the included articles. The other teams employed independent thematic and content analysis respectively. The findings of the three approaches were compared. The themes from non-evidence based and grey literature were also compared with themes from research driven data.ResultsFour thousand six titles were reviewed and 51 full text articles were included. Findings from thematic and content analyses were similar and reflected the tabulated summaries. The themes/categories identified were ethical concerns, predisposing factors and possible solutions at the mentor and mentee, mentoring relationship and/or host organisation level. Ethical concerns were found to stem from issues such as power differentials and lack of motivation whilst predisposing factors comprised of the mentor's lack of experience and personality conflicts. Possible solutions include better program oversight and the fostering of an effective mentoring environment.ConclusionsThis structured SSR found that ethical issues in mentoring occur as a result of inconducive mentoring environments. As such, further studies and systematic reviews of mentoring structures, cultures and remediation must follow so as to guide host organisations in their endeavour to improve mentoring in medical schools.