Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: a study protocol describing a multimedia-based deliberative method

Implementation Science

Patrick Vachon⁵  Myriam Hivon⁵  Jennifer R Fishman²  Fiona A Miller⁶  Bryn Williams-Jones³  Philippe Gauthier⁴  Pascale Lehoux¹ 

[1]Department of Health Administration, University of Montreal, Institute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal (IRSPUM), Montreal, Canada

[2]Biomedical Ethics Unit, Social Studies of Medicine Department, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

[3]Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Montreal, IRSPUM, Montreal, Canada

[4]School of Industrial Design, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada

[5]IRSPUM, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada

[6]Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

关键词: Public involvement;    Deliberative methods;    Prospective scenarios;    Audiovisual based-elicitation methods;    Ethics;    Health technology;   

Others  :  1146956
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-81

 received in 2014-04-19, accepted in 2014-06-18,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The design of health technologies relies on assumptions that affect how they will be implemented, such as intended use, complexity, impact on user autonomy, and appropriateness. Those who design and implement technologies make several ethical and social assumptions on behalf of users and society more broadly, but there are very few tools to examine prospectively whether such assumptions are warranted and how the public define and appraise the desirability of health innovations. This study protocol describes a three-year study that relies on a multimedia-based prospective method to support public deliberations that will enable a critical examination of the social and ethical issues of health technology design.

Methods

The first two steps of our mixed-method study were completed: relying on a literature review and the support of our multidisciplinary expert committee, we developed scenarios depicting social and technical changes that could unfold in three thematic areas within a 25-year timeframe; and for each thematic area, we created video clips to illustrate prospective technologies and short stories to describe their associated dilemmas. Using this multimedia material, we will: conduct four face-to-face deliberative workshops with members of the public (n = 40) who will later join additional participants (n = 25) through an asynchronous online forum; and analyze and integrate three data sources: observation, group deliberations, and a self-administered participant survey.

Discussion

This study protocol will be of interest to those who design and assess public involvement initiatives and to those who examine the implementation of health innovations. Our premise is that using user-friendly tools in a deliberative context that foster participants’ creativity and reflexivity in pondering potential technoscientific futures will enable our team to analyze a range of normative claims, including some that may prove problematic and others that may shed light over potentially more valuable design options. This research will help fill an important knowledge gap; intervening earlier in technological development could help reduce undesirable effects and inform the design and implementation of more appropriate innovations.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Lehoux et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B, Miller FA, Urbach D, Tailliez S: What leads to better healthcare innovation? Reconciling the innovation and health agendas. Int J Health Serv Res Policy, 2008, 13(4):251-254.
• [2]Coddington DC, Fischer EA, Moore KD, Clarke RL: Beyond Managed Care: How consumers and technology are changing the future of healthcare. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000.
• [3]Giacomini M, Baylis F, Robert J: Banking on it: Public policy and the ethics of stem cell research. Soc Sci Med 2007, 65:1490-1500.
• [4]Miller FA, Ahern CM, Smith C, Harvey E: Understanding the new human genetics: a review of scientific editorials. Soc Sci Med 2006, 62:2375-2385.
• [5]Tatum JS: The challenge of responsible design. Des Issues 2004, 20(3):66-80.
• [6]Boenink M, Swierstra T, Stemerding D: Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: A scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2010, 4(2):1-38.
• [7]Lehoux P: The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern healthcare systems. New York: Routledge; 2006.
• [8]Einsiedel EF: Introduction: Making sense of emerging technologies. In First impressions: Understanding public views on emerging technologies. University of Calgary: GenomePrairie GE3LS Team; 2006.
• [9]Lehoux P, Hivon M, Williams-Jones B, Miller FA, Urbach D: How do medical device manufacturers’ websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations. Med Healthc Philos 2012, 15(1):61-77.
• [10]Burns TW, O’Connor DJ, Stocklmayer SM: Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Underst Sci 2003, 12:183-202.
• [11]Evans R, Plows A: Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of disinterested citizen. Soc Stud Sci 2007, 37(6):827-853.
• [12]Bohman J: Public Deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.
• [13]Lehoux P, Denis J-L, Rock M, Tailliez S, Hivon M: How do medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations? Scientific, clinical and social arguments. Sociol Health Illn 2009, 32(1):1-17.
• [14]Boenink M: Molecular medicine and concepts of disease: the ethical value of a conceptual analysis of emerging biomedical technologies. Med Healthc Philos 2010, 13:11-23.
• [15]Brown N, Webster A: New medical technologies and society: Reordering life. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2004.
• [16]Boltanski L, Thévenot L: De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard; 1991.
• [17]Molewijk AC, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W, Dupuis HM, Kievit J: Implicit normativity in evidence-based medicine: a plea for integrated empirical ethics research. Healthc Anal 2004, 11(1):69-92.
• [18]Haimes E: What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics 2002, 16(2):89-113.
• [19]Gauthier P: Technological intervention and the malady of happiness. Des Issues 1999, 15(2):40-54.
• [20]Schön DA: The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith; 1983.
• [21]Bucciarelli LL: Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1994.
• [22]Dixon D, Brown A, Meenan BJ, Eatock J: Experiences of new product development in the medical device industry. Med Technol Device 2006, 17(3):20-22.
• [23]Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Williams-Jones B, Denis J-L, Longo C: How do business models and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs. Res Policy 2014, 43(6):1025-1038.
• [24]Blume SS: Insight and industry: On the dynamics of technological change in medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992.
• [25]Calnan M, Montaner D, Horne R: How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales. Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:1937-1948.
• [26]Priester R: A values framework for health system reform. Health Aff 1992, 11(1):84-107.
• [27]Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan PG, Gabbay J, Gyte G, Oakley A, Stein K: Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: Developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8(15):1-148.
• [28]Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF: Weighing up the evidence: Making evidence-informed guidance accurate, achievable, and acceptable. A summary of a workshop held on September 29, 2005, Ottawa. 2006.
• [29]Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Demers-Payette O, Boivin A: Fostering deliberations about health innovations: What do we want to know from the publics? Soc Sci Med 2009, 68(11):2002-2009.
• [30]Garcia E, Timmermans DRM, van Leeuwen E: The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal tests: Searching for justification. Soc Sci Med 2008, 66:753-764.
• [31]Swierstra T, Boenink M, Stermerding D: Exploring techno-moral change: the case of the obesity pill. In Evaluating new technologies. Methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments. Edited by Sollie P, Duwell M. Dordrecht/Heidelberg: Springer; 2009:119-138.
• [32]Elzen B, Hofman P, Geels F: Sociotechnical Scenarios – A new methodology to explore technological transitions. Enschede: University of Twente; 2002.
• [33]Walmsley H: Stock options, tax credits or employment contracts please! The value of deliberative public disagreement about human tissue donation. Soc Sci Med 2011, 73(2):209-216.
• [34]Davies H, Powell A: Helping social research make a difference. Discussion paper. 2010. Discussion paper, Health Foundation Seminar, November
• [35]Barnes M: Passionate participation: Emotional experiences and expressions in deliberative forums. Crit Soc Policy 2008, 28(4):461-480.
• [36]Bate P, Robert G: Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care 2006, 15:307-310.
• [37]Abelson J, Montesanti S, Li K, Gauvin F-P, Martin E: Effective strategies for interactive public engagement in the development of healthcare policies and programs. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2010.
• [38]Bennett P, Smith SJ: Genetics, insurance and participation: How a Citizens’ Jury reached its verdict. Soc Sci Med 2007, 64(12):2487-2498.
• [39]Swierstra T, Rip A: Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 2007, 1:3-20.
• [40]Black LW: Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments. Commun Theory 2008, 18:93-116.
• [41]Stromer-Galley J, Muhlberger P: Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction, future engagement, and decision legitimacy. Pol Commun 2009, 26:173-192.
• [42]Marshall C, Rossman GB: Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.
• [43]Droste S, Charalabos-Markos D, Gerber A: Information on ethical issues in health technology assessment: How and where to find them. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010, 26(4):441-449.
• [44]Giacomini M, Kenny N, DeJean D: Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: Foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing? Health Policy 2009, 89:58-71.
• [45]Health Canada: Science and Technology Foresight Workshop no 1. Preparatory documents for the Dec. 7–8, 2008 Workshop: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada. 2008.
• [46]Sigma Scan Horizon Scanning Initiative, Government Office for Science, United Kingdomhttp://www.sigmascan.org webcite, last accessed April 18, 2014
• [47]Habegger B: Strategic foresight: anticipation and capacity to act. CSS Analyses in Security Policy 2009, 52:1-3. ETH Zurich
• [48]Aaron Shepard’s Home Page, Stories, Scripts, and Morehttp://www.aaronshepard.com/youngauthor/elements.html webcite, last accessed on March 28, 2014
• [49]Harrison B: Seeing health and illness world—using visual methodologies in a sociology of health and illness: A methodological review. Sociol Health Illn 2002, 24(6):856-872.
• [50]Lehoux P, Vachon P, Daudelin G, Hivon M: How to summarize a 6,000-word paper in a 6-minute video clip. Healthc Policy 2013, 8(4):19-26.
• [51]Whitehead LC: Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 2007, 65:782-791.
• [52]Campbell MK, Meier A, Carr C, Enga Z, James AS, Reedy J, Zheng B: Health behavior change after colon cancer: A comparison of findings from face-to-face and on-line focus groups. Fam Commun Health 2001, 24(3):88-103.
• [53]Kitzinger J: The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Soc Health Illness 1994, 16(1):103-121.
• [54]Morgan DL: Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 1996, 22:129-152.
• [55]Hollander JA: The social contexts of focus groups. J Contemp Ethnogr 2004, 33(5):602-637.
• [56]Lehoux P, Poland B, Daudelin G: Focus group research and the ‘patient’s view’. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63:2091-2104.
• [57]Crossley ML: 'Could you please pass one of those health leaflets along?' Exploring health, morality and resistance through focus groups. Soc Sci Med 2002, 55(8):1471-1483.
• [58]Mays N, Pope C: Observational methods in healthcare care settings. In Qualitative research in healthcare. 2nd edition. Edited by Pope C, Mays N. London: BMJ Books; 2000:30-39.
• [59]Eysenbach G: Improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for reporting results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004, 6(3):e34.
• [60]Seale C: New directions for critical Internet research health studies: Representing cancer experience on the web. Sociol Health Illn 2005, 27(4):515-540.
• [61]Datta LE: Multimethod evaluations: Using case studies together with other methods. In Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Edited by Chelimsky E, Shadish WR. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997:344-359.
• [62]Miles MB, Huberman AM: Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1994.
• [63]Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage; 1990.
• [64]Ihde D: Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1990.