Interactive learning and action: realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health

Betten, Afke Wieke; Roelofsen, A.; Broerse, Jacqueline E W

doi:10.1007/s11693-013-9113-7

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A transdisciplinary approach, informed by the Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) methodology (21), was selected to unravel the barriers and facilitators that influence mHealth integration and to explore the stakeholders engaged in this process. ILA is a wellestablished methodology characterized by a multi-stakeholder dialogue process aiming to enhance knowledge integration (22). This particular strength of ILA aligned with the focus of this research to engage multiple stakeholders, including health policymakers, health insurers, primary care professionals, and chronically ill patients.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward Integration of mHealth in Primary Care in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives

Bally

Cesuroğlu

2020

Front. Public Health

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is a growing need to structurally change the way chronic illness care is organized as health systems struggle to meet the demand for chronic care. mHealth technologies can alter traditional approaches to health care provision by stimulating self-management of chronically ill patients. The aim of this study was to understand the complex environment related to the introduction of mHealth solutions into primary care for chronic disease management while considering health system functioning and stakeholder views.Methods: A transdisciplinary approach was used informed by the Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) methodology. Exploratory interviews (n = 5) were held with representatives of stakeholder groups to identify and position key stakeholders. Subsequently, professionals and chronically ill patients were consulted separately to elaborate on the barriers and facilitators in integration, using semi-structured interviews (n = 17) and a focus group (n = 6). Follow-up interviews (n = 5) were conducted to discuss initial findings of the stakeholder analysis.Results: Most stakeholders, in particular primary care practitioners and patients, seem to have a supporting or mixed attitude toward integration of mHealth. On the other hand, several powerful stakeholders, including primary care information system developers and medical specialists are likely to show resistance or a lack of initiative toward mHealth integration. Main barriers to mHealth integration were a lack of interoperability with existing information systems; difficulties in financing mHealth implementation; and limited readiness in general practices to change. Potential enablers of integration included co-design of mHealth solutions and incentives for pioneers.Conclusion: Stakeholders acknowledge the benefits of integrating mHealth in primary care. However, important barriers perceived by end-users prevent them to fully adopt and use mHealth. This study shows that the complexity of introducing mHealth into primary care calls for strategies encouraging collaboration between multiple stakeholders to enhance successful implementation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The process of ILA is structured according to five phases: exploration, consultation, integration, prioritization, and implementation (22). Activities are guided by the learning-action spiral of recurring activities of planning, action, observation, reflection, re-planning, etc.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Integration of mHealth in Primary Care in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives

Bally

Cesuroğlu

2020

Front. Public Health

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, it is of utmost importance to try to find a-shifting and negotiable-balance of both the persistent need for scientific institutions and gatekeepers, expert knowledge, and space for risky and ambitious scientific endeavors on the one hand, as well as allowing more active participation and reducing extant barriers of power on the other. [107][108][109][110][111] Furthermore, a study conducted with US citizens reveals enthusiasm for synthetic biology applications if they aim at finding solutions for societal, medical, and sustainability needs. [99] At this juncture, the important point about openness is that different interests are handled with transparency and are given equal weight when they concern the same regulatory point.…”

Section: In Science We Trust? Public Perceptions Of Sbmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[106] Supportive attitudes have mainly been expressed concerning medical applications. [107][108][109][110][111] Furthermore, a study conducted with US citizens reveals enthusiasm for synthetic biology applications if they aim at finding solutions for societal, medical, and sustainability needs. Conversely, emerging biotechnologies are perceived as causes for potential concern if this research is done without investigations into their potential risks and long-term implications.…”

Section: In Science We Trust? Public Perceptions Of Sbmentioning

confidence: 99%

(Re‐)Designing Nature? An Overview and Outlook on the Ethical and Societal Challenges in Synthetic Biology

Braun

Fernau

2019

Adv. Biosys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to provide an initial systematization of the ethical and socio-scientific debate on SB by structuring and categorizing issues that have been widely discussed and debated in recent years. The investigation included international ethical and societal research on SB, covering the period from January 2010 to December 2017. Even though we are aware that there have been several developments before it was referred to as SB, [6] this sample period was selected as the experiments of Craig Venter and his team in the year 2010 marked the birth of broader public and scientific attention to SB, as well as the rise and further establishment of SB as a distinct research discipline.We predefined five main fields of ethical research in order to map the scope of the respective debates. These fields were based on theoretical presuppositions informed by our preliminary theoretical and empirical research and the resulting experiences within the field of ethical and societal challenges of SB. The five fields are: 1) the definition and scope of possible applications; 2) questions of biosafety and -security; 3) the impact of SB on taken-for-granted cultural perceptions and values; 4) SB as a new mode of public participation in science; 5) issues of sustainable governance and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). With these five fields in mind, we searched for relevant articles on Scopus and PubMed. These are two of the largest international research databases, which cover a broad spectrum of ethical and socio-scientific work within the context of biotechnologies. The selected search term was "synthetic biology" in combination with several distinctive codes, which can be assigned to the aforementioned predefined main fields of ethical research ( Table 1).In general, our literature analysis has several methodological limitations. As it is not a comprehensive systematic literature review, it does not provide a broad set of quantitative data scrutinizing all debates, issues and questions on the ethical and societal challenges in SB. Nevertheless, our analysis provides a structured overview on and an initial systematization of the most relevant topics within the discussion on SB in recent years. Additionally, this article aims to provide an analysis and discussion of the current state of play of ethical and societal issues in SB.The first section is concerned with the question of a possible definition of SB and the issue of how we could describe and analyze its technological progress with regard to ethical and societal challenges. As one frequent debate of the last few This structured literature analysis aims to map the current, emerging, and predicted future of synthetic biology (SB) by putting the focus on the implied conceptual, societal, and ethical challenges. The central objective of the analysis is to provide an initial systematization of the ethical and socio-scientific debate on SB by structuring and categorizing widely discussed issues within the debate in recent years. Starting with the quest for possible definitions, issues ...

show abstract

“…Against this background Betten et al (2013) describe their experiences with the so-called Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) approach. The ILA approach seeks to open-up technologies like SynBio to a wider range of actors, and do so early on in its development stage (i.e., upstream involvement).…”

Section: This Specialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing synthetic biology for global health through responsible research and innovation

Douglas

Stemerding

2013

Syst Synth Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthetic biology (SynBio) is a global endeavour with research and development programs in many countries, and due (in part) to its multi-use characteristics it has potential to improve global health in the area of vaccine development, diagnostics, drug synthesis, and the detection and remediation of environmental toxins. However, SynBio will also concurrently require global governance.Here we present what we have learnt from the articles in this Special Issue, and the workshop we hosted in The Hague in February of 2012 on SynBio, global health, and global governance that generated many of the papers appearing here. Importantly we take the notion of 'responsible research and innovation' as a guiding perspective. In doing so our understanding of governance is one that shifts its focus from preventing risks and other potential negative implications, and instead is concerned with institutions and practices involved in the inclusive steering of science and technology towards socially desirable outcomes. We first provide a brief overview of the notion of global health, and SynBio's relation to global health issues. The core of the paper explores some of the dynamics involved in fostering SynBio's global health pursuits; paying particular attention to of intellectual property, incentives, and commercialization regimes. We then examines how DIYbio, Interactive Learning and Action, and road-mapping activities can be seen as positive and productive forms of governance that can lead to more inclusive SynBio global health research programs.

show abstract

Interactive learning and action: realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health

Cited by 13 publications

References 36 publications

Toward Integration of mHealth in Primary Care in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives

Toward Integration of mHealth in Primary Care in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives

(Re‐)Designing Nature? An Overview and Outlook on the Ethical and Societal Challenges in Synthetic Biology

Governing synthetic biology for global health through responsible research and innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About