Mothers are aware that their own emotional health has consequences for their children. Although many mothers experienced lacks in their social support systems, many are reluctant to discuss parenting stress and depressive symptoms with their child's pediatrician because of mistrust and fear of judgment. Mothers are, however, generally receptive to the idea of open communication with their pediatricians and are interested in receiving supportive written communication about parenting stress and depressive symptoms from pediatricians. These qualitative data are valuable in developing an intervention to help pediatricians assist mothers at risk.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis provoked an organizational ethics dilemma: how to develop ethical pandemic policy while upholding our organizational mission to deliver relationship- and patient-centered care. Tasked with producing a recommendation about whether healthcare workers and essential personnel should receive priority access to limited medical resources during the pandemic, the bioethics department and survey and interview methodologists at our institution implemented a deliberative approach that included the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patient stakeholders in the policy development process. Involving the community more, not less, during a crisis required balancing the need to act quickly to garner stakeholder perspectives, uncertainty about the extent and duration of the pandemic, and disagreement among ethicists about the most ethically supportable way to allocate scarce resources. This article explains the process undertaken to garner stakeholder input as it relates to organizational ethics, recounts the stakeholder perspectives shared and how they informed the triage policy developed, and offers suggestions for how other organizations may integrate stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making as well as directions for future research and public health work.

No abstract

Cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening is used to identify the presence of fetal genetic variants early in pregnancy. Patients' informed decision-making is central to the success of this new screen in clinical practice. Although research has focused on pregnant women's decision-making, little is known about partners' role and preferences as a member of the decision-making dyad. Using a grounded theory approach, this study analyzed 23 in-depth interviews to examine partners' perspectives about cfDNA screening and preferences with respect to their role in the decision-making process. Participants wished to be actively involved in testing decisions. They articulated a distinct set of needs and preferences in the decision-making process. Such involvement was hindered by several biological and logistical barriers. This study demonstrates the need to develop mechanisms that foster informed decision-making for cfDNA screening and related new reproductive genetic technologies that focus on not just the pregnant woman but also the decision-making dyad that includes her partner as well.

Background Though many probiotic products are currently available in yogurt or pill form in the United States (US), there is uncertainty surrounding the structure of regulation of these products. As more therapeutic probiotics are developed changes to existing regulatory process in the US may be required to meet the needs of patients and users in the population. Objective This study examined how patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) diseases view the regulation of probiotics. Design We conducted a multi-site qualitative study consisting of focus groups of patients with chronic gastrointestinal diseases at three tertiary hospitals: at [institutions removed for blinded review]. Results We conducted 22 focus groups with 136 patients with major gastrointestinal (GI) diseases between March and August 2009. Participants were not familiar with of existing regulation of probiotic products but wanted assurances of accurate labeling of strain as well as safety. Participants raised concerns that regulation of probiotics might be accompanied by greater costs, reduced access, and increased involvement of pharmaceutical companies. Although participants voiced significant doubt of government regulators, they felt that products containing genetically modified probiotic strains should have oversight comparable to that of pharmaceutical drugs. Discussion and conclusion If GI patient perspectives are indicative of public perceptions of therapeutic probiotics in the US, consumers may expect more rigorous regulation in the future while simultaneously wanting low costs, easy access, and low involvement of pharmaceutical companies. Manufacturers, translational scientists, clinicians, and regulators should be sensitive to consumer attitudes when designing, testing, and regulating new therapeutic probiotics.