Communicating risk in human terms

October 4, 2017

Pär SegerdahlThe concept of risk used in genetics is a technical term. For the specialist, risk is the probability of an undesired event, for example, that an individual develops some form of cancer. Risk is usually stated as a percentage.

It is well known that patients have difficulties to access the probability notion of risk. What do their difficulties mean?

Technical notions, which experts use in their specialist fields, usually have high status. The attitude is: this is what risk really is. Based on such an attitude, people’s difficulties mean: they have difficulties to understand risk. Therefore, we have to help them understand, by using educational tools that explain to them what we mean (we who know what risk is).

We could speak of communicating risk in the experts’ terms (and on their terms). Of course, one tries to communicate risk as simply and accessibly as possible. However, the notion of ​​what to communicate is fixed. Anything else would disturb the attitude that the expert knows what risk really is.

In an article in Patient Education and Counseling, Jennifer Viberg Johansson (along with Pär Segerdahl, Ulrika Hösterey Ugander, Mats G. Hansson and Sophie Langenskiöld) makes an inquiry that departs from this pattern. She explores how people themselves make sense of genetic risk.

How does Viberg’s study depart from the pattern? She does not use the technical notion of risk as the norm for understanding risk.

Viberg interviewed healthy participants in a large research project. She found that they avoided the technical, probability notion of genetic risk. Instead, they used a binary concept of risk. Genetic risk (e.g., for breast cancer) is something that you have or do not have.

Furthermore, they interpreted risk in three ways in terms of time. Past: The risk has been in my genome for a long time. When symptoms arise, the genetic risk is the cause of the disease. Present: The risk is in my genome now, making me a person who is at risk. Future: The risk will be in my genome my entire life, but maybe I can control it through preventive measures.

These temporal dimensions are not surprising. People try to understand risk in the midst of their lives, which evolve in time.

It is not the case, then, that people “fail” to understand. They do understand, but in their own terms. They think of genetic risk as something that one has or does not have. They understand genetic risk in terms of how life evolves in time. A practical conclusion that Viberg draws is that we should try to adapt genetic risk communication to these “lay” conceptions of risk, which probably help people make difficult decisions.

We could speak of communicating risk in human terms (and on human terms). What does genetic risk mean in terms of someone’s past, present and future life?

When you talk with people with lives to live, that is probably what the risk really is.

Pär Segerdahl

J. Viberg Johansson, et al., Making sense of genetic risk: A qualitative focus-group study of healthy participants in genomic research, Patient Educ Couns (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.009

This post in Swedish

We like real-life ethics : www.ethicsblog.crb.uu.se


Stem cells: unique biobank material?

March 7, 2017

Pär SegerdahlStem cells are perhaps not what first springs to mind as biobank material. Yet, even stem cells can be biobank material and there are biobanks that focus on stem cells. The use of this biobank material, however, has some unique features.

Stem cell researchers process not only data from human material. The material itself is “processed” and sometimes transplanted to research participants. Commercializing stem cell research moreover implies that cells derived from donated human tissue appear in products on a market. This gives rise to ethical and legal questions.

Does the law allow patenting cell lines derived from human donated material? Is buying and selling such material lawful? Another issue concerns research participants’ right to withdraw their consent at any time. Human embryonic stem cell research uses stem cells from donated spare embryos from IVF treatment. How far does embryo donors’ right to withdraw consent stretch? Must transplanted devices with matured cells be removed from research participants, if the embryo donor withdraws consent? Moreover, assuming that researchers share stem cell lines with companies, are these companies willing to invest in the development of stem cell products if embryo donors may withdraw their consent at any time?

Another difficulty is the purpose to which embryo donors are asked to consent. According to the law, human embryos can be donated only for research purposes (or to other IVF patients). Yet, medical research loses its meaning if results cannot be commercialized. It cannot then reach patients. It is important to inform donors about this broader context of embryo donation. Does that information imply that the consent becomes broader than has support in the law? Or is there support since embryos are not used in product development, only derived material?

The answers to these questions probably depend on whether one can distinguish between donated embryos and cell material derived from embryos (using various inventions). This raises also more philosophical questions about how to view embryos, stem cell lines, matured cells, and human tissue.

Pär Segerdahl

An earlier version of this text was published in Biobank perspectives.

This post in Swedish

Approaching future issues - the Ethics Blog


Commercialization, but not at any price

February 14, 2017

Pär SegerdahlIn a previous post, I tried to make the point that the pharmaceutical industry can support altruism between research participants and patients, despite the fact that the industry itself is not altruistic but is driven by profit. Medical research will not benefit patients, unless results are developed into commercially available treatments.

However, this presupposes, of course, that pricing is reasonable, so that we can actually afford the drugs. Otherwise, research and research participation become meaningless.

Today, I just want to recommend an article in the journal Cell, where the authors argue that the prices of new cancer drugs have become indefensibly high. They propose new collaborations between academic researchers and small companies, to offer cancer drugs at more reasonable prices. Researchers should ensure that the companies they work together with are willing to sell the drugs with smaller profit margins.

You can find a summary of these ideas in The Guardian.

Pär Segerdahl

Workman, P. Draetta, G. F., Schellens, J. H. M., Bernards, R. (2017). How much longer will we put up with $100,000 cancer drugs? Cell 168: 579-583.

This post in Swedish

We recommend readings - the Ethics Blog


What is the risk?

November 2, 2016

Pär SegerdahlTo communicate about genetic risk with patients, we need to know how people think about risk and that experts and people in general often think differently.

A common feature, however, is this: Risk has to do with future adverse events. We talk about the risk of getting sick. But we rarely talk about the risk of getting well. We must then imagine people who value their disease (perhaps to avoid enrollment in an occupation army).

The expert’s concept of risk presupposes the negative value, but does not delve into it. It focuses on the probability that the unwanted event will happen (and how certain/uncertain the probability is).

For patients, however, the value aspect probably is more in focus. A couple learning about a 25% risk of having a child with a certain disability probably considers how bad such impairment would be: for the child and themselves. Maybe it isn’t so bad? Perhaps there is no great “risk” at all! They evaluate the risk scenario rather than calculate the probability.

How can we understand this value aspect, which risk presupposes and patients ponder? Ulrik Kihlbom at CRB asks the question in an article in the Journal of Risk Research.

Kihlbom describes two common ways of understanding value. The first is in terms of preferences. People have different preferences. Most prefer health before sickness, but occasionally someone may prefer disease. Value lies in satisfying these preferences, whatever they are. There is then only one value: preference satisfaction. The problem is that we can object that these preferences are not always reasonable or well informed. Additionally, patients can adapt to their illness and prefer their lives as much as healthy persons prefer their lives. Is it valuable to satisfy even such preferences?

Not surprisingly, the other way of understanding value is more objective. Here one assumes that value depends on how well certain basic human capabilities are supported. Such as being able to use one’s senses, imagine, think, play, be healthy, etc. Here there is a more objective measure of value. The problem is the authority the measure is given. May not a person lack some of these capabilities and still live a full and dignified life? Who decides which capabilities should belong to the measure?

Actually, I would say that both proposals impose a measure of value. Preference satisfaction is, of course, a general measure too.

Kihlbom proposes a third way of understanding value. No measure of value is imposed and value is not separated from that which has value. If someone gets cancer, the negative value lies already in the disease, so to speak. A person who knows what cancer is does not ask: “Why is it bad to get cancer?” And hardly anybody would answer: “Because it frustrates my preferences” or “Because it prevents me from flourishing as a human being.”

Knowing what disease is means knowing that it is bad. It is part of the point of the word. To exclaim, “I’m so sick!” is to complain (not to rejoice). The value lies in the phenomenon itself and in the word. If some people still value their disease (perhaps to avoid military service), the value lies in the situation where the disease can appear as a good thing.

This is probably how people approach genetic risk information: What does this mean in my life? How bad is it? They immerse themselves in the value aspect, which the numerical probability presupposes. The 25-percent risk of having a child with a certain disability leads to concerns over what such a life might turn out to be like; how it can be described; how it can be valued.

So what should we keep in mind in genetic risk communication? The novelty about genetic risk information is not only that patients get difficult to interpret percentages of probability. The scenarios are new. These scenarios can involve time perspectives that extend throughout one’s future life, even to future generations. They can be about diseases and treatments that we do not know what it means to live with.

We evaluate risks daily (like the risk of missing the train), but here patients encounter novel risk scenarios that are difficult to evaluate. If I understand Kihlbom right, he thinks that the challenge is not only to explain probabilities to patients. The challenge is not least that of talking with patients about these new risk scenarios: about how they react to them in terms of value, how they describe them as “catastrophic” or “not so bad.”

Patients need support to evaluate genetic risk scenarios reasonably; not only to understand probabilities.

Pär Segerdahl

Kihlbom, U. 2016. “Genetic Risk and Value.” Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080 / 13669877.2016.1200653

This post in Swedish

We like real-life ethics : www.ethicsblog.crb.uu.se


How to listen to (the right) patient voices?

October 25, 2016

Ulrik Kihlbom, Academic co-lead of PREFER's methodology work packageWe all think patients’ voices are important. But how do we make sure we listen to the right ones? Patient engagement and patient perspectives have come into focus in health care in recent years. Though this is especially true for the clinical setting, this development can be expected to continue for decision-makers at other levels.

We are just starting to research these questions in a project called PREFER. The aim is to establish which methods to use to bring in patient perspectives into important decisions regarding medical drugs; decisions made by different stakeholders, such as physicians, regulatory and reimbursement authorities, and the industry. In short: how and when should decision makers listen to the patients?

But, how can we make sure that the methods enable decision-makers to listen to the right patient voices?

Now, the expression “the right patient voices” should plausibly be understood as comprising several aspects such as being representative of the actual views patients have, being adequately informed, and as being non-biased. Each of these aspects require thorough consideration and also methodological development. I am myself responsible for one task that will specifically address these questions. One of the many intriguing issues here is when, during the process of falling ill, coming under treatment, and hopefully convalescing, a patient’s voice should be listened to? The patient’s preferences will probably change during the trajectory of illness. Imagine that you fall seriously ill, are treated and recover, and suppose also that your preferences for a risky treatment change during this period of time. Do you know when your preferences are such that your physician should listen to them? And when they merit less attention? I am myself far from sure how to answer this question.

Another set of questions concerns how the (right) patient perspective should be incorporated into the decision making. How, for example should a reimbursement authority weigh the patient perspective against cost-effectiveness when making a decision of subsidising a medical drug? Or how should a regulatory authority, such as EMA in Europe, FDA in the US, and Läkemedelsverket in Sweden, weigh patient effectiveness against safety concerns? It seems fair to say that everybody agrees that the patient perspective should have a weight, but no one has an established scale.

These are some of the very hard and intriguing questions that the PREFER project will address over the coming five years. 33 partners from academic institutions, patient organisations, health technology assessment bodies, small companies and the pharmaceutical industry are putting their heads, competence and resources together. Uppsala University is coordinating the project, with CRB’s director Mats G. Hansson at the helm. Apart from me and Mats, Josepine Fernow, Elisabeth Furberg, Jorien Veldwijk and Karin Schölin Bywall at CRB are involved in PREFER. We are looking forward to interesting research questions, but also to learning by working in, and leading, a public-private partnership of this size.

In the autumn of 2021, the project will issue recommendations. By then we will know better how decision makers may find and listen to the (right) patient voices. And how patients’ voices can make themselves heard in the decisions of regulators, health technology assessment bodies, reimbursement agencies, and pharmaceutical companies.

Ulrik Kihlbom

About PREFER: The Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (PREFER) project has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 115966. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA. The contents of this text reflects the author’s view and not the view of IMI, the European Union or EFPIA.

This post in Swedish

The Ethics Blog - Exploring preferences


Physicians’ experiences of do-not-resuscitate orders

September 21, 2016

Pär SegerdahlCritically ill patients sometimes have such a poor prognosis that cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest (CPR) would not help. They are so weak that they would not survive the treatment. If they survive, they do so with even poorer quality of life. The physician can then write a so-called DNR decision, which means that CPR should not be performed.

Mona Pettersson, PhD student at CRB, writes her thesis on these decisions. I have previously written about her first study, in which she interviewed nurses about their experiences of DNR decisions at Swedish hematology and oncology departments.

This summer the Journal of Palliative Care and Medicine published the second study, in which physicians were interviewed about their experiences of these decisions.

In the interview material, Mona Pettersson discerns three roles that physicians perceive they have. They act as decision maker, as patient advocate and mediator for relatives, and as team member. Physicians describe their experiences of these roles, such as the importance of making clear to relatives that it is the physician who makes the decision – so that relatives don’t risk feeling guilty.

The interviews with physicians also contain descriptions of ethical difficulties associated with DNR decisions. Although the physicians emphasize that the decision is made on medical grounds, they also describe ethical challenges and trade-offs. The decisions seem to be especially difficult in hematology wards, where patients can get intensive treatment for a long time, and where even the treatment makes them ill, but almost up to the last moment can be regarded as treatable. Here decisions are made quickly and at a late stage. Physicians’ experiences of the decision not to resuscitate vary from experiencing that they make themselves God, to experiencing it as just one medical decision among others.

In her conclusion, Mona Pettersson emphasizes that the results indicate how DNR decisions are made not only on medical grounds (such as prognosis and prospect of surviving cardiopulmonary resuscitation). They are made also with reference also to ethical values such as autonomy and quality of life after resuscitation.

In her future research, Mona Petterson will examine the ethical skills needed in DNR decisions and how they can be learned and developed.

Pär Segerdahl

Pettersson, M. Hedström, M. and Höglund, A. Physicians’ experiences of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in hematology and oncology care – a qualitative study. Journal of Palliative Care and Medicine. 2016. DOI: 10.4172 / 2165-7386.1000275

This post in Swedish

We have a clinical perspective : www.ethicsblog.crb.uu.se


Macchiarini and the spirit of fraudulence

February 10, 2016

Pär SegerdahlI assume you heard of Paolo Macchiarini, the “star surgeon” who, with the willpower of a general, simply would win a great battle at the frontline of research – by creating new tracheae using the patients’ own stem cells. That the endeavor had costs in terms of a few soldiers’ or patients’ lives is sad, but some losses must be accepted if one is to win a major battle in the service of cutting-edge experimental research.

It is difficult to avoid such an interpretation of Macchiarini’s mindset, after seeing the Swedish TV-documentaries about him (“Experimenten”/”The Experiments”). You feel the presence of a dominating iron will to carry out a plan and to win. It feeds a warlike spirit in which collegial doubts must be suppressed because they corrupt the morale and slow down the march forward, toward the frontline.

Truth is, as we know, the first casualty of war. Losses must be described as successes, in order not to lose readiness for action in the final battle – which, of course, will be won, don’t for a moment doubt that! The condition of patients who after surgery barely can breathe must thus be described as if the surgery had given them a nearly normal respiratory function. Macchiarini’s misconduct follows the logic of war.

Imagine this rigid winner, waiting impatiently for patients for whom his unproven methods (with some good will) could be interpreted as a last chance to survive. Does he approach the patients as a doctor who wants to offer a last treatment option? Hardly, but the possibility of interpreting the situation in such a way takes him to the frontline: he gets the opportunity to operate on them.

Does he then relate to the patients as a researcher to his participants? Not that either. For the treatment is only improvised in the heat of battle and can hardly even be called experimental; and all failures will be covered up by more scientific fraudulence.

The fact that research ethics developed in the shadow of the Second World War is hardly a coincidence. Something that worries in the Macchiarini case is that research itself – with its competition for funding and more – obviously can be animated by a warlike and strategic spirit of winning, which corrupts individuals as well as institutions…

It goes without saying that suspected research misconduct should not be investigated by the universities themselves; that there is a need for an independent body that handles such matters.

Pär Segerdahl

This post in Swedish

Following the news - the ethics blog


%d bloggers like this: