9 found
Order:
  1.  50
    Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature.Jennifer Gibson, Vincci Lui, Nakul Malhotra, Jia Ce Cai, Neha Malhotra, Donald J. Willison, Ross Upshur, Erica Di Ruggiero & Kathleen Murphy - 2021 - BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1):1-17.
    BackgroundArtificial intelligence has been described as the “fourth industrial revolution” with transformative and global implications, including in healthcare, public health, and global health. AI approaches hold promise for improving health systems worldwide, as well as individual and population health outcomes. While AI may have potential for advancing health equity within and between countries, we must consider the ethical implications of its deployment in order to mitigate its potential harms, particularly for the most vulnerable. This scoping review addresses the following question: (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  2.  31
    If you build it, they will come: unintended future uses of organised health data collections.Kieran C. O’Doherty, Emily Christofides, Jeffery Yen, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Wylie Burke, Nina Hallowell, Barbara A. Koenig & Donald J. Willison - 2016 - BMC Medical Ethics 17 (1):54.
    Health research increasingly relies on organized collections of health data and biological samples. There are many types of sample and data collections that are used for health research, though these are collected for many purposes, not all of which are health-related. These collections exist under different jurisdictional and regulatory arrangements and include: 1) Population biobanks, cohort studies, and genome databases 2) Clinical and public health data 3) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing 4) Social media 5) Fitness trackers, health apps, and biometric data (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  3.  35
    What makes public health studies ethical? Dissolving the boundary between research and practice.Donald J. Willison, Nancy Ondrusek, Angus Dawson, Claudia Emerson, Lorraine E. Ferris, Raphael Saginur, Heather Sampson & Ross Upshur - 2014 - BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):61.
    The generation of evidence is integral to the work of public health and health service providers. Traditionally, ethics has been addressed differently in research projects, compared with other forms of evidence generation, such as quality improvement, program evaluation, and surveillance, with review of non-research activities falling outside the purview of the research ethics board. However, the boundaries between research and these other evaluative activities are not distinct. Efforts to delineate a boundary – whether on grounds of primary purpose, temporality, underlying (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  4.  52
    Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: Insights from a public dialogue.Donald J. Willison, Marilyn Swinton, Lisa Schwartz, Julia Abelson, Cathy Charles, David Northrup, Ji Cheng & Lehana Thabane - 2008 - BMC Medical Ethics 9 (1):18-.
    BackgroundThe role of consent for research use of health information is contentious. Most discussion has focused on when project-specific consent may be waived but, recently, a broader range of consent options has been entertained, including broad opt-in for multiple studies with restrictions and notification with opt-out. We sought to elicit public values in this matter and to work toward an agreement about a common approach to consent for use of personal information for health research through deliberative public dialogues.MethodsWe conducted seven (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  5.  55
    Consent for use of personal information for health research: Do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions?Donald J. Willison, Valerie Steeves, Cathy Charles, Lisa Schwartz, Jennifer Ranford, Gina Agarwal, Ji Cheng & Lehana Thabane - 2009 - BMC Medical Ethics 10 (1):10-.
    BackgroundStigma refers to a distinguishing personal trait that is perceived as or actually is physically, socially, or psychologically disadvantageous. Little is known about the opinion of those who have more or less stigmatizing health conditions regarding the need for consent for use of their personal information for health research.MethodsWe surveyed the opinions of people 18 years and older with seven health conditions. Participants were drawn from: physicians' offices and clinics in southern Ontario; and from a cross-Canada marketing panel of individuals (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6.  61
    Who's minding the shop? The role of Canadian research ethics boards in the creation and uses of registries and biobanks.Elaine Gibson, Kevin Brazil, Michael D. Coughlin, Claudia Emerson, Francois Fournier, Lisa Schwartz, Karen V. Szala-Meneok, Karen M. Weisbaum & Donald J. Willison - 2008 - BMC Medical Ethics 9 (1):17-.
    BackgroundThe amount of research utilizing health information has increased dramatically over the last ten years. Many institutions have extensive biobank holdings collected over a number of years for clinical and teaching purposes, but are uncertain as to the proper circumstances in which to permit research uses of these samples. Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada and elsewhere in the world are grappling with these issues, but lack clear guidance regarding their role in the creation of and access to registries and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7.  67
    A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives.Nancy K. Ondrusek, Donald J. Willison, Vinita Haroun, Jennifer A. H. Bell & Catherine C. Bornbaum - 2015 - BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):1-8.
    BackgroundThe boundaries between health-related research and practice have become blurred as initiatives traditionally considered to be practice increasingly use the same methodology as research. Further, the application of different ethical requirements based on this distinction raises concerns because many initiatives commonly labelled as “non-research” are associated with risks to patients, participants, and other stakeholders, yet may not be subject to any ethical oversight. Accordingly, we sought to develop a tool to facilitate the systematic identification of risks to human participants and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  22
    The role of research evidence in pharmaceutical policy making: evidence when necessary but not necessarily evidence.Donald J. Willison & Stuart M. MacLeod - 1999 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 5 (2):243-249.
  9.  15
    Deliberation on Childhood Vaccination in Canada: Public Input on Ethical Trade-Offs in Vaccination Policy.Kieran C. O’Doherty, Sara Crann, Lucie Marisa Bucci, Michael M. Burgess, Apurv Chauhan, Maya J. Goldenberg, C. Meghan McMurtry, Jessica White & Donald J. Willison - 2021 - AJOB Empirical Bioethics 12 (4):253-265.
    Background Policy decisions about childhood vaccination require consideration of multiple, sometimes conflicting, public health and ethical imperatives. Examples of these decisions are whether vaccination should be mandatory and, if so, whether to allow for non-medical exemptions. In this article we argue that these policy decisions go beyond typical public health mandates and therefore require democratic input.Methods We report on the design, implementation, and results of a deliberative public forum convened over four days in Ontario, Canada, on the topic of childhood (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark