基于意向的前瞻性生活方式契约:移动医疗技术与医疗保健中的责任。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-01-11 DOI:10.1007/s10728-020-00424-8
Emily Feng-Gu, Jim Everett, Rebecca C H Brown, Hannah Maslen, Justin Oakley, Julian Savulescu
{"title":"基于意向的前瞻性生活方式契约:移动医疗技术与医疗保健中的责任。","authors":"Emily Feng-Gu, Jim Everett, Rebecca C H Brown, Hannah Maslen, Justin Oakley, Julian Savulescu","doi":"10.1007/s10728-020-00424-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As the rising costs of lifestyle-related diseases place increasing strain on public healthcare systems, the individual's role in disease may be proposed as a healthcare rationing criterion. Literature thus far has largely focused on retrospective responsibility in healthcare. The concept of prospective responsibility, in the form of a lifestyle contract, warrants further investigation. The responsibilisation in healthcare debate also needs to take into account innovative developments in mobile health technology, such as wearable biometric devices and mobile apps, which may change how we hold others accountable for their lifestyles. Little is known about public attitudes towards lifestyle contracts and the use of mobile health technology to hold people responsible in the context of healthcare. This paper has two components. Firstly, it details empirical findings from a survey of 81 members of the United Kingdom general public on public attitudes towards individual responsibility and rationing healthcare, prospective and retrospective responsibility, and the acceptability of lifestyle contracts in the context of mobile health technology. Secondly, we draw on the empirical findings and propose a model of prospective intention-based lifestyle contracts, which is both more aligned with public intuitions and less ethically objectionable than more traditional, retrospective models of responsibility in healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":"29 3","pages":"189-212"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321967/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Feng-Gu, Jim Everett, Rebecca C H Brown, Hannah Maslen, Justin Oakley, Julian Savulescu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10728-020-00424-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As the rising costs of lifestyle-related diseases place increasing strain on public healthcare systems, the individual's role in disease may be proposed as a healthcare rationing criterion. Literature thus far has largely focused on retrospective responsibility in healthcare. The concept of prospective responsibility, in the form of a lifestyle contract, warrants further investigation. The responsibilisation in healthcare debate also needs to take into account innovative developments in mobile health technology, such as wearable biometric devices and mobile apps, which may change how we hold others accountable for their lifestyles. Little is known about public attitudes towards lifestyle contracts and the use of mobile health technology to hold people responsible in the context of healthcare. This paper has two components. Firstly, it details empirical findings from a survey of 81 members of the United Kingdom general public on public attitudes towards individual responsibility and rationing healthcare, prospective and retrospective responsibility, and the acceptability of lifestyle contracts in the context of mobile health technology. Secondly, we draw on the empirical findings and propose a model of prospective intention-based lifestyle contracts, which is both more aligned with public intuitions and less ethically objectionable than more traditional, retrospective models of responsibility in healthcare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"189-212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321967/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00424-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00424-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于与生活方式相关的疾病费用不断上涨,给公共医疗系统造成了越来越大的压力,因此可以提出将个人在疾病中的作用作为医疗配给的标准。迄今为止,文献主要集中于医疗保健中的回顾性责任。以生活方式契约为形式的前瞻性责任概念值得进一步研究。医疗保健责任化的讨论还需要考虑到移动医疗技术的创新发展,如可穿戴生物识别设备和移动应用程序,它们可能会改变我们要求他人对其生活方式负责的方式。关于公众对生活方式契约的态度,以及在医疗保健中使用移动健康技术要求人们承担责任的情况,我们知之甚少。本文由两部分组成。首先,本文详细介绍了对 81 名英国普通公众进行的一项调查的实证结果,该调查涉及公众对个人责任和医疗保健配给、预期责任和追溯责任的态度,以及移动医疗技术背景下生活方式契约的可接受性。其次,我们借鉴了这些实证研究结果,提出了一种基于前瞻性意图的生活方式契约模式,与传统的、追溯性的医疗保健责任模式相比,这种模式更符合公众的直觉,在道德上也不那么令人反感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare.

Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare.

As the rising costs of lifestyle-related diseases place increasing strain on public healthcare systems, the individual's role in disease may be proposed as a healthcare rationing criterion. Literature thus far has largely focused on retrospective responsibility in healthcare. The concept of prospective responsibility, in the form of a lifestyle contract, warrants further investigation. The responsibilisation in healthcare debate also needs to take into account innovative developments in mobile health technology, such as wearable biometric devices and mobile apps, which may change how we hold others accountable for their lifestyles. Little is known about public attitudes towards lifestyle contracts and the use of mobile health technology to hold people responsible in the context of healthcare. This paper has two components. Firstly, it details empirical findings from a survey of 81 members of the United Kingdom general public on public attitudes towards individual responsibility and rationing healthcare, prospective and retrospective responsibility, and the acceptability of lifestyle contracts in the context of mobile health technology. Secondly, we draw on the empirical findings and propose a model of prospective intention-based lifestyle contracts, which is both more aligned with public intuitions and less ethically objectionable than more traditional, retrospective models of responsibility in healthcare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信