3 rows where subject contains "Health(social science)" sorted by abstract

View and edit SQL

Suggested facets: subject, is-referenced-by-count, ISSN, container-title, created (date), title (array), ISSN (array), orcids (array), names (array), award_numbers (array), funder_names (array), funder_dois (array)

subject (array)

Link rowid title DOI URL created subject references-count is-referenced-by-count ISSN container-title abstract ▼ author_number orcids names award_numbers funder_names funder_dois
47 ["Prescribing medical cannabis: ethical considerations for primary care providers"] 10.1136/medethics-2019-105759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105759 2019-12-18T22:15:30Z ["Health Policy", "Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)", "Issues, ethics and legal aspects", "Health(social science)"] 27 1 ["0306-6800", "1473-4257"] Journal of Medical Ethics <jats:p>Medical cannabis is widely available in the USA and legalisation is likely to expand. Despite the increased accessibility and use of medical cannabis, physicians have significant knowledge gaps regarding evidence of clinical benefits and potential harms. We argue that primary care providers have an ethical obligation to develop competency to provide cannabis to appropriate patients. Furthermore, specific ethical considerations should guide the recommendation of medical cannabis. In many cases, these ethical considerations are extensions of well-established principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, which indicate that providers should recommend cannabis only for conditions that have the strongest evidence base. Additionally, the contested status of cannabis in American culture raises specific issues related to shared decision-making and patient education, as well as continuing clinical education.</jats:p> 2 ["http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2282-9253"] ["Aaron Glickman", "Dominic Sisti"] [""] [""] [""]
61 ["At the speed of Juul: measuring the Twitter conversation related to ENDS and Juul across space and time (2017\u20132018)"] 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055427 2020-03-20T21:16:55Z ["Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health", "Health(social science)"] 0 0 ["0964-4563", "1468-3318"] Tobacco Control <jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are the most-used tobacco product by adolescents, and Juul has rapidly become the most popular ENDS brand. Evidence indicates that Juul has been marketed heavily on social media. In light of recent lawsuits against the FDA spurred by claims that the agency responded inadequately to this marketing push, measuring the social media conversation about ENDS like Juul has important public health implications.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We employed search filters to collect Juul-related and other ENDS-related data from Twitter in 2017–2018 using Gnip Historic PowerTrack. Trained coders labelled random samples for Juul and ENDS relevance, and the labelled samples were used to train a supervised learning classifier to filter out irrelevant tweets. Tweets were geolocated into US counties and their <jats:italic>fitness for use</jats:italic> was assessed.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The amount of Juul-related tweets increased 67 times over the study period (from 18 849 in the first quarter of 2017 to 1 287 028 in the last quarter of 2018), spreading widely across US counties. By the last quarter 2018, 34% of US counties had more than 6 Juul-related posts per 10 000 people, up from 0% in the first quarter 2017. However, during the same period, the total of non-Juul ENDS-related tweets decreased by 25%.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Juul-related content grew exponentially on Twitter and spread across the entire country during the time when the brand was gaining market share. This social media buzz continued to increase even after FDA’s multiple interventions to curb promotions targeting minors.</jats:p></jats:sec> 5 ["http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1685-1753", "http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3425-9155"] ["Yoonsang Kim", "Sherry L Emery", "Lisa Vera", "Bryn David", "Jidong Huang"] ["R01CA194681-04S1"] ["National Cancer Institute"] ["10.13039/100000054"]
99 ["Randomised evaluation of government health programmes does present a challenge to standard research ethics frameworks"] 10.1136/medethics-2019-106003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-106003 2019-12-18T22:15:26Z ["Health Policy", "Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)", "Issues, ethics and legal aspects", "Health(social science)"] 5 0 ["0306-6800", "1473-4257"] Journal of Medical Ethics <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In a recent issue of Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), we discussed the ethical review of evaluations of interventions that would occur whether or not the evaluation was taking place. We concluded that standard research ethics frameworks including the Ottawa Statement, which requires justification for all aspects of an intervention and its roll-out, were a poor guide in this area. We proposed that a consideration of researcher responsibility, based on the consequences of the research taking place, would be a more appropriate way delineate the scope of research ethics review. Weijer and Taljaard present a counterargument to our proposal, which we address in this reply. They claim that a focus on researcher responsibility will weaken the protection of research participants and link it to ‘unethical research’ and a ‘government experimenting on its own people’. However, the moral responsibility of researchers is defined in terms of the consequences of the research on human welfare and harm, not in opposition to it. Weijer and Taljaard argue that researchers must justify what they are studying whether or not they have any control over it and that governments must justify their programmes, including by demonstrating equipoise, to a research ethics committee if they implement them in a randomised way. We strongly disagree that this is a defensible way to define the scope of research ethics review and argue that this provides no further protections to research participants beyond what we propose, but places a potential barrier to learning from government programmes.</jats:p> 3 [] ["Samuel I Watson", "Mary Dixon-Woods", "Richard J Lilford"] ["WT09789"] ["Wellcome Trust", "National Institute for Health Research"] ["10.13039/100004440", "10.13039/501100000272"]

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited

CSV options:

CREATE TABLE [article] (
   [title] TEXT,
   [DOI] TEXT,
   [URL] TEXT,
   [created] TEXT,
   [subject] TEXT,
   [references-count] TEXT,
   [is-referenced-by-count] TEXT,
   [ISSN] TEXT,
   [container-title] TEXT,
   [abstract] TEXT,
   [author_number] TEXT,
   [orcids] TEXT,
   [names] TEXT,
   [award_numbers] TEXT,
   [funder_names] TEXT,
   [funder_dois] TEXT
);