PP130 Nudging In Public Health: Accountability For Practical Wisdom

INTRODUCTION:Nudging is the application of behavioural sciences aimed at influencing behaviour in a non-prescriptive way. It is a tool of public health decision makers to produce health gain. Just like decisions in the field of Health Technology Assessment (HTA), nudging decisions are inevitably value laden. The current European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA) approach to evaluate ethical aspects encompasses mainly utilitarian and principlistic approaches. The aim of this project is to incorporate the virtue ethics approach in public health decision-making processes based on the example of nudging.METHODS:The narrative analysis of nudging is based on a systematic literature search conducted from 28 October to 13 November 2015 in the following databases: Medline via Ovid, Embase, and TRIP Database. A total of sixty-two articles were listed as relevant as a result of searches and, in addition, twenty-five more articles were found through hand searching.RESULTS:Regardless of the potential issues related to nudging (manipulation or coercion), nudging is considered cost-effective and inevitable because of the malleability of human psychology for example, alcoholic drinks served in smaller glasses nudge people to drink less alcohol.No policy intervention, nudging or HTA, is value neutral and hence it requires an ethical evaluation. It takes traits of character, virtues, to discern which principle to apply in what circumstances and phronesis, practical wisdom, is the key virtue of a decision maker. Phronesis is not a moral judgement deduced from principles, but it is context specific, bottom-up, action orientated, and framed through dialogues. It focuses on the agent, the decision maker, who, via the use public scrutiny, should be held accountable for phronetic decisions made.CONCLUSIONS:Nudging is a cost-effective tool that can improve the populations health in a non-prescriptive way. Transparent reporting open to public scrutiny is necessary for the sake of evaluating whether the decisions made were phronetic for it takes traits of character, virtues, to decide between competing moral principles.</jats:sec

OP77 Nudging In Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: Ethical Guidance

IntroductionNon-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) has already established itself in many European countries (either via public or private institutions) as an option at hand that pregnant women can choose. Based on mother's blood, NIPT claims to “quasi-diagnose” among other things the presence of chromosomal abnormalities caused by an aneuploidy of a chromosome (such as Trisomy 13, 18, and 21). Apart from normative issues concerning the question of “whether to fund NIPT by universal coverage”, NIPT gives rise also to normative issues concerning the question of “how to put NIPT into practice” – the analysis of which is the goal of this study.MethodsComplemented by a hand search, we have conducted a systematic literature search in Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO for combinations of NIPT and nudging, NIPT and participation, and NIPT and ethics. Screening was based on content analysis of titles, abstracts, and articles. Writing of the study is in progress.ResultsWe identified 83 references of which 39 were included. The main instance of nudging (or also of unintentional choice design) was the use of default bias (the application or reduction of friction cost/hassle factor) that influenced the turnout to NIPT. In establishing NIPT in universal coverage systems, further potential biases identified were the use of authority bias, bandwagon effect, sunk-cost bias, and framing effect. The core ethical challenges with nudging in NIPT derive from the lack of transparency of the methods applied and the challenge of paternalism.ConclusionsAlong the line of accountability for reasonableness, four specific recommendations are suggested as the ethical guidance to using of the tool of nudging in NIPT: (i) decision makers should recognize that some choice design is inevitable, (ii) nudging should be done transparently, (iii) rationales for nudging should be publicly accessible. (iv) revision procedures should be put in place.</jats:sec

Neonatology in Austria: ethics to improve practice

AbstractIn the world of Austrian neonatal intensive care units, the role of ethics is recognized only partially. The normatively tense cases that are at the backdrop of this essay concern the situations around the limit of viability (weeks 22 + 0 days to 25 + 6 days of gestation), which is the point in the development of an extremely preterm infant at which there are chances of extra-uterine survival. This essay first outlines the key explicit ethical challenges that are mainly concerned with notions of uncertainty and best interest. Then, it attempts to elucidate the less explicit ethical challenges related to the notion of nudging in the neonatal practice and argue that the role of ethics needs to be recognized more—with the focus on the role of virtue ethics—in order to improve the practice of neonatal medicine.</jats:p

Minimum volume standards in day surgery: a systematic review

Abstract Background The aim was to find out if and for what indications are minimum volume standards (MVS) applied in the day surgery setting and whether the application of MVS improves patient relevant outcomes. Methods We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search in seven databases on July 12th, 2019. Concerning effectiveness and safety, the data retrieved from the selected studies were systematically extracted into data-extraction tables. Two independent researchers (MS, CS) systematically assessed the quality of evidence using the quality assessment tool for individual studies of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) called Task Force Checklist for Quality Assessment of Retrospective Database Studies. No instances of disagreement occurred. No further data processing was applied. Results The systematic literature search, together with hand search, yielded 595 hits. No prospective or controlled studies were found. Data from eight retrospective studies were used in the analysis of clinical effectiveness and safety on seven indications: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, cataract surgery, meniscectomy, thyroidectomy, primary hip arthroscopy, open carpal tunnel release, and rotator cuff repair. All interventions (except for carpal tunnel release and thyroidectomy) confirmed a volume-outcome relationship (VOR) with relation to surgeon/hospital volume, however, none established MVS for the respective interventions. Safety related data were reported without its relationship to surgeon/hospital volume. Conclusions This present paper provides some evidence in favor of the VOR, however, it based on low quality retrospective data-analyses. The present results cannot offer any clear-cut MVS thresholds for the day surgery setting and so the simple transition from inpatient results (that support MVS) to the day surgery setting is questionable. Further quality assuring policy approaches should be considered. </jats:sec

Ethics analysis of light and vitamin D therapies for seasonal affective disorder

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this ethics analysis was to highlight the overt and covert value issues with regard to two health technologies (light therapy and vitamin D therapy), the health technology assessment (HTA) and the disease of seasonal affective disorder (SAD). The present ethics analysis served as a chapter of a full HTA report that aimed to assist decision makers concerning the two technologies.MethodFirst, we used the revised Socratic approach of Hofmann et al. to build overarching topics of ethical issues, and then, we conducted a hand search and a comprehensive systematic literature search on between 12 and 14 February 2019 in seven databases.ResultsThe concrete ethical issues found concerned vulnerability of the target population and the imperative to treat depressive symptoms for the sake of preventing future harm. Further disease-related ethical issues concerned the questionable nature of SAD as a disease, autonomy, authenticity, and capacity for decision making of SAD patients, and the potential stigma related to the underdiagnosis of SAD, which is contrasted with the concern over unnecessary medicalization. Regarding the interventions and comparators, the ethical issues found concerned their benefit-harm ratios and the question of social inequality. The ethical issues related to the assessment process relate to the choice of comparators and the input data for the selected health economic studies.ConclusionsThe concrete ethical issues related to the interventions, the disease, and the assessment process itself were made overt in this ethics analysis. The ethics analysis provided an (additional) value context for making future decisions regarding light and vitamin D therapies.</jats:sec

Minimum Volume Standards in day Surgery: A Systematic Review

Abstract Background: To find out if and for what indications are minimum volume standards (MVS) applied in the day surgery setting and whether the application of MVS improves patient relevant outcomes. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search in seven databases on July 12th, 2019. Concerning effectiveness and safety, the data retrieved from the selected studies were systematically extracted into data-extraction tables. Two independent researchers (MS, CS) systematically assessed the quality of evidence using the quality assessment tool for individual studies of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) called Task Force Checklist for Quality Assessment of Retrospective Database Studies. No instances of disagreement occurred. No further data processing was applied.Results: The systematic literature search, together with hand search, yielded 595 hits. No prospective or controlled studies were found. Data from eight retrospective studies were used in the analysis of clinical effectiveness and safety on seven indications: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, cataract surgery, me­niscectomy, thyroidectomy, primary hip arthroscopy, open carpal tunnel release, and rotator cuff repair. All interventions (except for carpal tunnel release and thyroidectomy) confirmed a volume-outcome relationship (VOR) with relation to surgeon/hospital volume, however, none established MVS for the respective interventions. Safety related data were reported without its relationship to surgeon/hospital volume.Conclusions: This present paper provides some evidence in favor of the VOR, however, it based on low quality retrospective data-analyses. The present results cannot offer any clear-cut MVS thresholds for the day surgery setting and so the simple transition from inpatient results (that support MVS) to the day surgery setting is questionable. Further quality assuring policy approaches should be considered.</jats:p

Nudging in screening: Literature review and ethical guidance

Objectives Nudging is the purposeful alteration of choices presented to people that aims to make them choose in predicted ways. While nudging has been used to assure high uptake and good outcome of screening programs, it has been criticized for being paternalistic, undermining free choice, and shared decision making. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to explore a) nudging strategies identified in screening, b) arguments for and against nudging; and on basis of this, to c) suggest a tentative conclusion on how to handle nudging in screening. Methods Literature searches in Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO for combinations of screening and nudging. Screening based on content analysis of titles, abstracts, and articles. Results 239 references were identified and 109 were included. Several forms of nudging were identified: framed information, default bias, or authority bias. Uptake and public health outcome were the most important goals. Arguments for nudging were bounded rationality, unavoidability, and beneficence, while lack of transparency, crowding out of intrinsic values, and paternalism were arguments against it. The analysis indicates that nudging can be acceptable for screenings with (high quality) evidence for high benefit-harm ratio (beneficence), where nudging does not infringe other ethical principles, such as justice and non-maleficence. In particular, nudging should not only focus on attendance rates, but also on making people “better choosers.” Practice implications Four specific recommendations follow from the review and the analysis: 1) Nudging should be addressed in an explicit and transparent manner. 2) The means of nudging have to be in proportion to the benefit-harm ratio. 3) Disagreement on the evidence for either benefits or harms warrants special care. 4) Assessing and assuring the intended outcome of nudging appears to be crucial, as it can be context dependent