Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is emerging consensus that a graduated approach to Covid-19–related restrictive measures will be needed. Decisions to continue, modify, or lift restrictions — particularly bans on movement and gathering — could be tailored using individualized risk assessment.

This concept paper delineates the design of a sociotechnical ecosystem for ethical screening and promotion of mental health and well-being, building on the convergence of digital technologies with modern human-centered design methods. Access to individuals’ health and well-being data will enable the generation of actionable insights with different degrees of granularity, for the benefit of individuals, care providers, and business organizations. Critical to the success of the ecosystem are the proactive involvement of all stakeholders, the definition of incentives to encourage engagement, and the promotion of consistent narratives as public institutional messages. The article posits working hypotheses, including the idea that creative externalization of health and well-being data, augmented by advanced physico-digital interactivity, can sustain positive psychological and behavioral change. The theoretical underpinning consists of the integration of existing frameworks across well-being, behavior change, and sustainable business. The article defines a research agenda for expanding socially inclusive dialogue on data governance and policy implications.

In response to a burgeoning pediatric mental health epidemic, recent guidelines have instructed pediatricians to regularly screen their patients for mental health disorders with consistency and standardization. Yet, gold-standard screening surveys to evaluate mental health problems in children typically rely solely on reports given by caregivers, who tend to unintentionally under-report, and in some cases over-report, child symptomology. Digital phenotype screening tools (DPSTs), currently being developed in research settings, may help overcome reporting bias by providing objective measures of physiology and behavior to supplement child mental health screening. Prior to their implementation in pediatric practice, however, the ethical dimensions of DPSTs should be explored. Herein, we consider some promises and challenges of DPSTs under three broad categories: accuracy and bias, privacy, and accessibility and implementation. We find that DPSTs have demonstrated accuracy, may eliminate concerns regarding under- and over-reporting, and may be more accessible than gold-standard surveys. However, we also find that if DPSTs are not responsibly developed and deployed, they may be biased, raise privacy concerns, and be cost-prohibitive. To counteract these potential shortcomings, we identify ways to support the responsible and ethical development of DPSTs for clinical practice to improve mental health screening in children.

Principles of public health ethics suggest that committees developing prostate cancer–screening guidelines should thoroughly examine the scientific rationale and social impact of using race-based criteria.

Is medicalization always harmful? When does medicine overstep its proper boundaries? The aim of this article is to outline the pragmatic criteria for distinguishing between medicalization and over-medicalization. The consequences of considering a phenomenon to be a medical problem may take radically different forms depending on whether the problem in question is correctly or incorrectly perceived as a medical issue. Neither indiscriminate acceptance of medicalization of subsequent areas of human existence, nor criticizing new medicalization cases just because they are medicalization can be justified. The article: (i) identifies various consequences of both well-founded medicalization and over-medicalization; (ii) demonstrates that the issue of defining appropriate limits of medicine cannot be solved by creating an optimum model of health; (iii) proposes four guiding questions to help distinguish medicalization from over-medicalization. The article should foster a normative analysis of the phenomenon of medicalization and contribute to the bioethical reflection on the boundaries of medicine.

In 2021 and 2022, researchers carried out an implementation trial that considered how the capsule sponge test might be used to screen for Barrett’s oesophagus using a mobile clinic in East Anglia. This paper offers insights from 15 months of ethnographic fieldwork studying the trial. It aims to highlight the value of the test in offering reassurance to worried patients, particularly to those with a family history of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. It also considers the variety of aims people held for the capsule sponge test, including the hope that it would address their symptoms of acid reflux, and the conflict that sometimes emerged as a result. The second half of the paper uses fieldwork carried out in virtual support groups for people with Barrett’s oesophagus to explore experiences postdiagnosis, which sometimes were defined by fear of future cancers. It describes notable differences between the care offered to people with morphological risk conditions like Barrett’s oesophagus and the care given to those with genetic risk conditions, including the provision of genetic counselling. More broadly, the paper highlights a tension between patient-centred and risk-centred medicine that is likely to grow as healthcare services continue to shift towards preventative approaches.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) offers significant potential to drive advancements in healthcare; however, the development and implementation of AI models present complex ethical, legal, social, and technical challenges, as data practices often undermine regulatory frameworks in various regions worldwide. This study explores stakeholder perspectives on the development and deployment of AI algorithms for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening, with a focus on ethical risks, data practices, governance, and emerging shortcomings in the Global South AI discourse. Methods Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with ophthalmologists, program officers, AI developers, bioethics experts, and legal professionals. Thematic analysis was guided by OECD principles for responsible AI stewardship. Interviews were analyzed using MAXQDA software to identify themes related to AI trustworthiness and ethical governance. Results Six key themes emerged regarding the perceived trustworthiness of AI: algorithmic effectiveness, responsible data collection, ethical approval processes, explainability, implementation challenges, and accountability. Participants reported critical shortcomings in AI companies’ data collection practices, including a lack of transparency, inadequate consent processes, and limited patient awareness about data ownership. These findings highlight how unchecked data collection and curation practices may reinforce data colonialism in low and middle-income healthcare systems. Conclusion Ensuring trustworthy AI requires transparent and accountable data practices, robust patient consent mechanisms, and regulatory frameworks aligned with ethical and privacy standards. Addressing these issues is vital to safeguarding patient rights, preventing data misuse, and fostering responsible AI ecosystems in the Global South.

Why overdiagnosis is hard to spot and to explain to individuals

Genome sequencing can be used to actively search for genetic variants unrelated to the initial clinical question. While such ‘opportunistic genomic screening’ (OGS) has been proposed in the USA, a European discussion on the ethics of OGS is only starting. Should testing for selected ‘secondary findings’ be offered to patients who need genetic sequencing? Using focus groups and interviews, we explored views on OGS in adults and minors from three perspectives: policy experts (n = 9), health professionals (n = 8) and patient representatives (n = 7). A thematic approach was used to analyze the data. There was consensus that OGS should be evaluated in terms of the classical ‘screening’ framework, rather than as a form of ‘good patient care’. Accordingly, stakeholders agreed that professionals do not have a ‘fiduciary duty’ to look for secondary findings. Adding screening to clinical care was only conceivable with the patient’s informed consent. In general, stakeholders were reluctant towards OGS. Arguments for regarding OGS being premature included lack of evidence regarding its clinical utility, also in view of uncertainties regarding general population penetrance, and concerns about both its psychosocial impact and respect for autonomy. All groups agreed that OGS means unequal access, which was seen as problematic. Yet, despite their concerns, stakeholders felt that offering screening for certain actionable pathogenic variants with known high penetrance could potentially be valuable in certain contexts for both adults and minors. Pharmacogenetic variants were regarded as a category by itself, for which OGS could potentially be beneficial.