ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although stakeholder involvement in policymaking is attracting attention in the fields of medicine and healthcare, a practical methodology has not yet been established. Rare-disease policy, specifically research priority setting for the allocation of limited research resources, is an area where evidence generation through stakeholder involvement is expected to be effective. We generated evidence for rare-disease policymaking through stakeholder involvement and explored effective collaboration among stakeholders. METHODS: We constructed a space called 'Evidence-generating Commons', where patients, family members, researchers, and former policymakers can share their knowledge and experiences and engage in continual deliberations on evidence generation. Ten rare diseases were consequently represented. In the 'Commons', 25 consecutive workshops were held predominantly online, from 2019 to 2021. These workshops focused on (1) clarification of difficulties faced by rare-disease patients, (2) development and selection of criteria for priority setting, and (3) priority setting through the application of the criteria. For the first step, an on-site workshop using sticky notes was held. The data were analysed based on KJ method. For the second and third steps, workshops on specific themes were held to build consensus. The workshop agendas and methods were modified based on participants' feedback. RESULTS: The 'Commons' was established with 43 participants, resulting in positive effects such as capacity building, opportunities for interactions, mutual understanding, and empathy among the participants. The difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases were classified into 10 categories. Seven research topics were identified as priority issues to be addressed including 'impediments to daily life', 'financial burden', 'anxiety', and 'burden of hospital visits'. This was performed by synthesising the results of the application of the two criteria that were particularly important to strengthen future research on rare diseases. We also clarified high-priority research topics by using criteria valued more by patients and family members than by researchers and former policymakers, and criteria with specific perspectives. CONCLUSION: We generated evidence for policymaking in the field of rare diseases. This study's insights into stakeholder involvement can enhance evidence-informed policymaking. We engaged in comprehensive discussions with policymakers regarding policy implementation and planned analysis of the participants' experiences in this project.
Stakeholder involvement is significant for effective policymaking in the field of rare diseases. However, practical methods for this involvement have not yet been established. Therefore, we developed the 'Commons project' to generate valuable policymaking information and explore effective ways for stakeholders' collaboration. This article explains the process and results of 25 continuous workshops, held from 2019 to 2021 with 43 participants, including patients, family members, researchers, and former policymakers. The main achievements of the discussion that took place in the 'Commons' included a presentation of the overview of the difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases and formulation of high priority research topics.First, the difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases were grouped into 10 categories. Second, seven research topics were identified as priority issues including 'impediments to daily life', 'financial burden', 'anxiety', and 'burden of hospital visits'. During the project process, positive effects such as capacity building, opportunities for interactions, mutual understanding, and empathy among the participants, were identified. Beyond the context of the field of rare diseases and science of policy, these findings are useful for the future of society, including co-creation among stakeholders and patient and public involvement. Based on this study's results, we have initiated communications with policy stakeholders in the field of rare diseases, with the aim of policy implementation.
ABSTRACT
Genome editing is a technology that can accurately and efficiently modify the genome of organisms, including the human genome. Although human genome editing (HGE) has many benefits, it also involves technical risks and ethical, legal, and social issues. Thus, the pros and cons of using this technology have been actively debated since 2015. Notably, the research community has taken an interest in the issue and has discussed it internationally. However, for the governance of HGE, the roles of government agencies and the general public are also important for an effective regulatory system. Here, we examine the roles of the research community, government, and public in the governance of HGE through an analysis of discussions in the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics. During the discussion of the research ethics review system, the professionalism of the research community and the pros and cons of state oversight have become issues for debate. Furthermore, through an examination of the overall policy-making process, three stakeholders are clearly involved in the governance of emerging medical technologies in the Expert Panel on Bioethics, a discussion forum established by government agencies. The contrast among these roles provides insight into the positive roles of government agencies and the research community and the conditions under which these roles are played. We also note that there are diverse actors in the public, which may have an impact on their participation. Our results may serve as a guide for countries and organizations to establish governance on emerging medical technologies.
ABSTRACT
The geographically inequitable distribution of physicians has long posed a serious social problem in Japan. The government tackled this problem by establishing and managing Jichi Medical University (JMU) and regional quotas (RQs) for medical schools. JMU/RQs recruit local students who hope to work as physicians in rural areas, educate them for 6 years without tuition (JMU) or with scholarship (RQs), and after graduation, assign them to their home prefectures for 9 years, including 4-6 years of rural service. JMU/RQs entrants now occupy 11.6% of all medical school entrants. While JMU/RQs have been shown to be highly effective in securing physicians for rural areas, ethical issues related to these policies have been raised, such as whether the government truly needs to implement these policies using tax money, and whether it is acceptable to limit the personal freedoms of the physicians. In this paper, we discuss these issues from the perspectives of social justice, utilitarianism, luck egalitarianism, liberty, medical professionalism and consistency with national health insurance and the Japanese Constitution. We conclude that JMU/RQs are necessary and ethically valid policies, and also propose some institutional improvements to better secure the integrity and maturity of these systems.
