Laurijssen Sara, van der Graaf Rieke, Schuit Ewoud, den Haan Melina, van Dijk Wouter, Groenwold Rolf, le Sessie Saskia, Grobbee Diederick, de Vries Martine
Department of Healthcare Saxion Applied University Deventer Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht Netherlands.
Learn Health Syst. 2023 Jul 15;8(1):e10379. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10379. eCollection 2024 Jan.
Implementation of an LHS in cardiology departments presents itself with ethical challenges, including ethical review and informed consent. In this qualitative study, we investigated stakeholders' attitudes toward ethical issues regarding the implementation of an LHS in the cardiology department.
We conducted a qualitative study using 35 semi-structured interviews and 5 focus group interviews with 34 individuals. We interviewed cardiologists, research nurses, cardiovascular patients, ethicists, health lawyers, epidemiologists/statisticians and insurance spokespersons.
Respondents identified different ethical obstacles for the implementation of an LHS within the cardiology department. These obstacles were mainly on ethical oversight in LHSs; in particular, informed con sent and data ownership were discussed. In addition, respondents reported on the role of patients in LHS. Respondents described the LHS as a possibility for patients to engage in both research and care. While the LHS can promote patient engagement, patients might also be reduced to their data and are therefore at risk, according to respondents.
Views on the ethical dilemmas of a LHSs within cardiology are diverse. Similar to the literary debate on oversight, there are different views on how ethical oversight should be regulated. This study adds to the literary debate on oversight by highlighting that patients wish to be informed about the learning activities within the LHS they participate in, and that they wish to actively contribute by sharing their data and identifying learning goals, provided that informed consent is obtained.
在心脏病学部门实施学习型健康系统(LHS)面临着伦理挑战,包括伦理审查和知情同意。在这项定性研究中,我们调查了利益相关者对心脏病学部门实施LHS的伦理问题的态度。
我们进行了一项定性研究,对34个人进行了35次半结构化访谈和5次焦点小组访谈。我们采访了心脏病专家、研究护士、心血管疾病患者、伦理学家、健康律师、流行病学家/统计学家和保险发言人。
受访者确定了心脏病学部门实施LHS的不同伦理障碍。这些障碍主要在于LHS中的伦理监督;特别是,讨论了知情同意和数据所有权。此外,受访者报告了患者在LHS中的作用。受访者将LHS描述为患者参与研究和护理的一种可能性。虽然LHS可以促进患者参与,但受访者认为,患者也可能沦为他们的数据,因此处于风险之中。
心脏病学领域对LHS伦理困境的看法多种多样。与关于监督的文献辩论类似,对于伦理监督应如何规范存在不同观点。本研究通过强调患者希望了解他们参与的LHS中的学习活动,并且希望在获得知情同意的情况下通过分享数据和确定学习目标来积极做出贡献,为关于监督的文献辩论增添了内容。