Explore the vast range of titles available.

Data Sharing is widely recognised as crucial for accelerating scientific research and improving its quality. However, data sharing is still not a common practice. Funding agencies tend to facilitate the sharing of research data by both providing incentives and requiring data sharing as part of their policies and conditions for awarding grants. The goal of our article is to answer the following question: What challenges do international funding agencies see when it comes to their own efforts to foster and implement data sharing through their policies? We conducted a series of sixteen guideline-based expert interviews with representatives of leading international funding agencies. As contact persons for open science at their respective agencies, they offered their perspectives and experiences concerning their organisations' data sharing policies. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the interviews and categorised the challenges perceived by funding agencies. We identify and illustrate six challenges surrounding data sharing policies as perceived by leading funding agencies: The design of clear policies, monitoring of compliance, sanctions for non-compliance, incentives, support, and limitations for funders' own capabilities. However, our interviews also show how funders approach potential solutions to overcome these challenges, for example by coordinating with other agencies or adjusting grant evaluation metrics to incentivise data sharing. Our interviews point to existing flaws in funders' data sharing policies, such as a lack of clarity, a lack of monitoring of funded researchers' data sharing behaviour, and a lack of incentives. A number of agencies could suggest potential solutions but often struggle with the overall complexity of data sharing and the implementation of these measures. Funders cannot solve each challenge by themselves, but they can play an active role and lead joint efforts towards a culture of data sharing.

Targeted modifications of the human epigenome, epigenome editing (EE), are around the corner. For EE, techniques similar to genome editing (GE) techniques are used. While in GE the genetic information is changed by directly modifying DNA, intervening in the epigenome requires modifying the configuration of DNA, for example, how it is folded. This does not come with alterations in the base sequence (‘genetic code’). To date, there is almost no ethical debate about EE, whereas the discussions about GE are voluminous. Our article introduces EE into bioethics by translating knowledge from science to ethics and by comparing the risks of EE with those of GE. We, first (I), make the case that a broader ethical debate on EE is due, provide scientific background on EE, compile potential use-cases and recap previous debates. We then (II) compare EE and GE and suggest that the severity of risks of novel gene technologies depends on three factors: (i) the choice of an ex vivo versus an in vivo editing approach, (ii) the time of intervention and intervention windows and (iii) the targeted diseases. Moreover, we show why germline EE is not effective and reject the position of strong epigenetic determinism. We conclude that EE is not always ethically preferable to GE in terms of risks, and end with suggestions for next steps in the current ethical debate on EE by briefly introducing ethical challenges of new areas of preventive applications of EE (III).

The objective of explainable artificial intelligence systems designed for clinical decision support (XAI-CDSS) is to enhance physicians’ diagnostic performance, confidence and trust through the implementation of interpretable methods, thus providing for a superior epistemic positioning, a robust foundation for critical reflection and trustworthiness in times of heightened technological dependence. However, recent studies have revealed shortcomings in achieving these goals, questioning the widespread endorsement of XAI by medical professionals, ethicists and policy-makers alike. Based on a surgical use case, this article challenges generalising calls for XAI-CDSS and emphasises the significance of time-sensitive clinical environments which frequently preclude adequate consideration of system explanations. Therefore, XAI-CDSS may not be able to meet expectations of augmenting clinical decision-making in specific circumstances where time is of the essence. This article, by employing a principled ethical balancing methodology, highlights several fallacies associated with XAI deployment in time-sensitive clinical situations and recommends XAI endorsement only where scientific evidence or stakeholder assessments do not contradict such deployment in specific target settings.

In recent years, the principle of informed consent has come under significant pressure with the rise of biobanks and data infrastructures for medical research. Study-specific consent is unfeasible in the context of biobank and data infrastructure research; and while broad consent facilitates research, it has been criticised as being insufficient to secure a truly informed consent. Dynamic consent has been promoted as a promising alternative approach that could help patients and research participants regain control over the use of their biospecimen and health data in medical research. Critical voices have focused mainly on concerns around its implementation; but little has been said about the argument that dynamic consent is morally superior to broad consent as a way to respect people’s individual autonomy. In this paper, we identify two versions of this argument—an information-focused version and a control-focused version—and then argue that both fail to establish the moral superiority of dynamic over broad consent. In particular, we argue that since autonomous choices are a certain species of choices, it is neither obvious that dynamic consent would meaningfully enhance people’s autonomy, nor that it is morally justifiable to act on every kind of consent choice enabled by dynamic consent.

This paper serves two purposes: first, the proposition of an ethical fiduciary theory that substantiates the often-cited assertion that the patient–physician relationship is fiduciary in nature; and second, the application of this theory to the case of informed consent. Patients’ decision-making preferences vary significantly. While some seek fully autonomous decision-making, others prefer to delegate parts of their decision. Therefore, we propose an ethical fiduciary theory that allows physician and patient to jointly determine the physician’s role on a spectrum from fiduciary as advisor to fiduciary as agent. Drawing on legal concepts of the fiduciary relationship and on phenomenological accounts of obligation by Lévinas and Løgstrup, our theory relies on the key attributes of trust, vulnerability and otherness. Finally, practical implications of this theory for the informed consent process are developed: we propose a preassessment of patients’ risk and value profiles as well as a restructuring of the oral consent interview and the written consent materials.

Secondary use of clinical data for biomedical research purposes holds great potential for various types of noninterventional, data-driven studies. Patients’ willingness to support research with their clinical data is a crucial prerequisite for research progress. The aim of the study was to learn about patients’ attitudes and expectations regarding secondary use of their clinical data. In a next step, our results can inform the development of an appropriate governance framework for secondary use of clinical data for research purposes. A questionnaire was developed to assess the willingness of patients with cancer to provide their clinical data for biomedical research purposes, considering different conditions of data sharing and consent models. The Cancer Registry of the German federal state of Baden-Württemberg recruited a proportionally stratified random sample of patients with cancer and survivors of cancer based on a full census. In total, 838 participants completed the survey. Approximately all participants (810/838, 96.7%) showed general willingness to make clinical data available for biomedical research purposes; however, they expected certain requirements to be met, such as comparable data protection standards for data use abroad and the possibility to renew consent at regular time intervals. Most participants (620/838, 73.9%) supported data use also by researchers in commercial companies. More than half of the participants (503/838, 60%) were willing to give up control over clinical data in favor of research benefits. Most participants expressed acceptance of the broad consent model (494/838, 58.9%), followed by data use by default (with the option to opt out at any time; 419/838, 50%); specific consent for every study showed the lowest acceptance rate (327/838, 39%). Patients expected physicians to share their data (763/838, 91.1%) and their fellow patients to support secondary use with their clinical data (679/838, 81%). Although patients’ general willingness to make their clinical data available for biomedical research purposes is very high, the willingness of a substantial proportion of patients depends on additional requirements. Taking these perspectives into account is essential for designing trustworthy governance of clinical data reuse and sharing. The willingness to accept the loss of control over clinical data to enhance the benefits of research should be given special consideration.

The secondary use of clinical data in data-gathering, non-interventional research or learning activities (SeConts) has great potential for scientific progress and health care improvement. At the same time, it poses relevant risks for the privacy and informational self-determination of patients whose data are used.BACKGROUNDThe secondary use of clinical data in data-gathering, non-interventional research or learning activities (SeConts) has great potential for scientific progress and health care improvement. At the same time, it poses relevant risks for the privacy and informational self-determination of patients whose data are used.Since the current literature lacks a tailored framework for risk assessment in SeConts as well as a clarification of the concept and practical scope of SeConts, we aim to fill this gap.OBJECTIVESince the current literature lacks a tailored framework for risk assessment in SeConts as well as a clarification of the concept and practical scope of SeConts, we aim to fill this gap.In this study, we analyze each element of the concept of SeConts to provide a synthetic definition, investigate the practical relevance and scope of SeConts through a literature review, and operationalize the widespread definition of risk (as a harmful event of a certain magnitude that occurs with a certain probability) to conduct a tailored analysis of privacy risk factors typically implied in SeConts.METHODSIn this study, we analyze each element of the concept of SeConts to provide a synthetic definition, investigate the practical relevance and scope of SeConts through a literature review, and operationalize the widespread definition of risk (as a harmful event of a certain magnitude that occurs with a certain probability) to conduct a tailored analysis of privacy risk factors typically implied in SeConts.We offer a conceptual clarification and definition of SeConts and provide a list of types of research and learning activities that can be subsumed under the definition of SeConts. We also offer a proposal for the classification of SeConts types into the categories non-interventional (observational) clinical research, quality control and improvement, or public health research. In addition, we provide a list of risk factors that determine the probability or magnitude of harm implied in SeConts. The risk factors provide a framework for assessing the privacy-related risks for patients implied in SeConts. We illustrate the use of risk assessment by applying it to a concrete example.RESULTSWe offer a conceptual clarification and definition of SeConts and provide a list of types of research and learning activities that can be subsumed under the definition of SeConts. We also offer a proposal for the classification of SeConts types into the categories non-interventional (observational) clinical research, quality control and improvement, or public health research. In addition, we provide a list of risk factors that determine the probability or magnitude of harm implied in SeConts. The risk factors provide a framework for assessing the privacy-related risks for patients implied in SeConts. We illustrate the use of risk assessment by applying it to a concrete example.In the future, research ethics committees and data use and access committees will be able to rely on and apply the framework offered here when reviewing projects of secondary use of clinical data for learning and research purposes.CONCLUSIONSIn the future, research ethics committees and data use and access committees will be able to rely on and apply the framework offered here when reviewing projects of secondary use of clinical data for learning and research purposes.

Background Financial toxicity of cancer has so far been discussed primarily in the US health care system and is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. In European health care systems, the socio-economic impact of cancer is poorly understood. This study investigates the financial burden and patient-reported outcomes of neuroendocrine (NET) or colorectal (CRC) cancer patients at a German Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods This prospective cross-sectional study surveyed 247 advanced stage patients ( n  = 122 NET /n  = 125 CRC) at the National Center for Tumor Diseases, in Germany about cancer-related out-of-pocket costs, income loss, distress, and quality of life. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to demonstrate the effects of economic deterioration on patients’ quality of life and distress. Results 81% ( n  = 199) of the patients reported out-of-pocket costs, and 37% ( n  = 92) income loss as a consequence of their disease. While monthly out-of-pocket costs did not exceed 200€ in 77% of affected patients, 24% of those with income losses reported losing more than 1.200€ per month. High financial loss relative to income was significantly associated with patients’ reporting a worse quality of life ( p  < .05) and more distress ( p  < .05). Conclusions Financial toxicity in third-party payer health care systems like Germany is caused rather by income loss than by co-payments. Distress and reduced quality of life due to financial problems seem to amplify the burden that already results from a cancer diagnosis and treatment. If confirmed at a broader scale, there is a need for targeted support measures at the individual and system level.

For biomedical data-driven research purposes, secondary use of clinical data carries great but largely untapped potential. Physicians' attitudes and their needs towards secondary data use are essential to inform its practical and ethically sound implementation but are currently understudied. Therefore, the objectives of the study are to assess physicians' (i) general attitudes and concerns, (ii) willingness to adapt workflows and to make data available for secondary use, (iii) group-specific conditions toward implementation of secondary use and associated concerns of physician-scientists and purely clinical physicians. We developed an online survey based on a literature review and an expert interview study. Physicians in private practice and at two large German university hospitals were surveyed from May 2021 until January 2022. In total, 446 physicians participated in the survey. 96% [380/397] of all physicians reported a positive attitude towards secondary use; 87% [31/397] are in-principle willing to support secondary use of clinical data along with a small proportion of physicians with fundamental reservations. Secondly, the most important conditions for adapting workflows were funding of additional time and effort for research-adequate documentation (71% [286/390]) and the most important condition for providing patients' clinical data was reliable protection of patients' privacy (67% [254/382]). Thirdly, physician-scientists were more likely than purely clinical physicians to request additional funding for research-adequate documentation as a precondition for support (83% vs 69%, P = .002) and the privilege to conduct research with their own patients' clinical data before other researchers are allowed to (43% vs 11%, P < .001); while purely clinical physicians more frequently require reliable protection of patient privacy (76% vs 62%, P = .007) and monetary compensation (45% vs 25%, P < .001). Since this study presents high in-principle willingness of physicians to support secondary use along with little general concerns, it seems essential to address physicians' group-specific conditions toward secondary use in order to gain their support.

Financial toxicity is a side effect of cancer that results from the perceived financial distress an individual may experience in the course of the disease. The purpose of this paper is to analyse underlying factors related to subjective financial distress in high-income countries with universal healthcare coverage. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify qualitative and quantitative studies of cancer patient-reported subjective financial distress by performing a search in the databases of PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to December 2020. A qualitative synthesis was performed linking the time-dependent occurrence of risk factors to derived categories of risk factors. Out of 4321 identified records, 30 quantitative and 16 qualitative studies were eligible. Classification of risk factors resulted in eight categories with a total of 34 subcategories. Subjective financial distress is primarily determined by pre-diagnosis sociodemographic- factors as well as financial and work factors that might change during the course of the disease. The design of healthcare and social security systems shapes the country-specific degree of subjective financial distress. Further research should focus on evolving multidisciplinary intervention schemes and multidimensional instruments for subjective financial distress to account for identified risk factors in universal healthcare systems more precisely.