Weaving EU digital health policy into national healthcare practices. The making of a reimbursement standard for digital health technologies in Belgium.

Along the hopes and fears around the recent rise of Digital Health Technologies (DHT), EU and Member State (MS) policymakers have sought to find ways to translate these innovations into tangible trustworthy and reliable tools for health and care practices. While these translation-efforts have been developed across different healthcare contexts with their own histories, practices, and values, their increasing entanglement has over the years raised several implementation issues between EU and MS policy initiatives. While policymakers have struggled to understand the reasons behind this, this article proposes to 'move focus' towards a socio-technical understanding of DHT by investigating how these alignment attempts come about in practice. For this we focus on Belgium's frontrunning attempt to develop a reimbursement framework for DHT. Drawing on a document analysis of EU and Belgian policy, media, and industry publications (2016-2022), field observations, and interviews, we demonstrate how Belgian policymakers have tried to align their attempt to improve trust in DHT with existing EU efforts in this regard through the development of their 'mhealthBelgium validation pyramid'. With this, we show that rather than overcoming translation difficulties, the pyramid is in fact enacting frictions around 'trust', 'medical' devices, the 'empowered' patient, and 'valuable' data. Beyond mere technical accounts of the translation challenges at hand, this article therefore points to the way this pyramid is "locking-in" these frictions, and with this has hindered the implementation of DHT. Despite the Belgian government's announcement of a renewed reimbursement framework two years later, its emphasis on overcoming technical translation issues risks re-enacting these very same entrenched frictions.

Clinician perspectives on policy approaches to genetic risk disclosure in families.

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication.

Dealing with ambivalence in the practice of advanced genetic healthcare: towards an ethical choreography.

The implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in diagnostic practice has stimulated ongoing debates on how to construct and perform "good" genomic care. Our multi-sited qualitative fieldwork at two large European centres for human genetics (CHGs) revealed tangible ambivalence in beliefs, norms, and actions in the enactment of NGS practices across sites stemming from differing expectations, interests, demands, and tensions. First, ambivalence was present around the boundaries of clinical diagnostic genetic care. The overlap between research and clinical work and diagnostics and screening led to ambivalence around "best" practices and norms concerning whom to offer NGS testing and how far to take testing. Secondly, the clinical value of NGS results, especially VUS and unsolicited findings, was ambivalently valued, resulting in an inconsistent approach towards these types of findings. Thirdly, ambivalence was recognized in applying guidelines in the reality of clinical practice. The ambivalence we encountered was often not made explicit or acknowledged, causing a failure to benefit from its possibility to encourage reflexivity and change. We propose to facilitate a more explicit ethical choreography [27], where ethics and science are developed iteratively whilst welcoming different perspectives and disciplines. Pulling experiences and practices of ambivalence into the light can help to understand the points of tension in the values and internal logic in care practices within the CHGs and facilitate a more informed, transparent, and consciously chosen direction for genetic care.

The European health data space: Too big to succeed?

In May 2022, the European Commission issued the Proposal for a Regulation on the European Health Data Space (EHDS), with the aims of granting citizens increased access to and control of their (electronic) health data across the EU, and facilitating health data re-use for research, innovation, and policymaking. As the first in a series of European domain-specific "data spaces", the EHDS is a high-stakes development that will transform health data governance in the EU region. As an international consortium of experts from health policy, law, ethics and the social sciences, we are concerned that the EHDS Proposal will detract from, rather than lead to the achievement of, its stated aims. We are in no doubt on the benefits of using health data for secondary purposes, and we appreciate attempts to facilitate such uses across borders in a carefully curated manner. Based on the current draft Regulation, however, the EHDS risks undermining rather than enhancing patient control over data; hindering rather than facilitating the work of health professionals and researchers; and eroding rather than increasing the public value generated through health data sharing. Therefore, significant adjustments are needed if the EHDS is to realize its promised benefits. Besides analyzing the implications for key groups and European societies at large who will be affected by the implementation of the EHDS, this contribution advances targeted policy recommendations to address the identified shortcomings of the EHDS Proposal.

Solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from a nine-country interview study in Europe.

Calls for solidarity have been an ubiquitous feature in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we know little about how people have thought of and practised solidarity in their everyday lives since the beginning of the pandemic. What role does solidarity play in people's lives, how does it relate to COVID-19 public health measures and how has it changed in different phases of the pandemic? Situated within the medical humanities at the intersection of philosophy, bioethics, social sciences and policy studies, this article explores how the practice-based understanding of solidarity formulated by Prainsack and Buyx helps shed light on these questions. Drawing on 643 qualitative interviews carried out in two phases (April-May 2020 and October 2020) in nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, German-speaking Switzerland and the UK), the data show that interpersonal acts of solidarity are important, but that they are not sustainable without consistent support at the institutional level. As the pandemic progressed, respondents expressed a longing for more institutionalised forms of solidarity. We argue that the medical humanities have much to gain from directing their attention to individual health issues, and to collective experiences of health or illness. The analysis of experiences through a collective lens such as solidarity offers unique insights to understandings of the individual and the collective. We propose three essential advances for research in the medical humanities that can help uncover collective experiences of disease and health crises: (1) an empirical and practice-oriented approach alongside more normative approaches; (2) the confidence to make recommendations for practice and policymaking and (3) the pursuit of cross-national and multidisciplinary research collaborations.

Mapping the use of computational modelling and simulation in clinics: A survey.

In silico medicine describes the application of computational modelling and simulation (CM&S) to the study, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of a disease. Tremendous research advances have been achieved to facilitate the use of CM&S in clinical applications. Nevertheless, the uptake of CM&S in clinical practice is not always timely and accurately reflected in the literature. A clear view on the current awareness, actual usage and opinions from the clinicians is needed to identify barriers and opportunities for the future of in silico medicine. The aim of this study was capturing the state of CM&S in clinics by means of a survey toward the clinical community. Responses were collected online using the Virtual Physiological Human institute communication channels, engagement with clinical societies, hospitals and individual contacts, between 2020 and 2021. Statistical analyses were done with R. Participants (n = 163) responded from all over the world. Clinicians were mostly aged between 35 and 64 years-old, with heterogeneous levels of experience and areas of expertise (i.e., 48% cardiology, 13% musculoskeletal, 8% general surgery, 5% paediatrics). The CM&S terms "Personalised medicine" and "Patient-specific modelling" were the most well-known within the respondents. "In silico clinical trials" and "Digital Twin" were the least known. The familiarity with different methods depended on the medical specialty. CM&S was used in clinics mostly to plan interventions. To date, the usage frequency is still scarce. A well-recognized benefit associated to CM&S is the increased trust in planning procedures. Overall, the recorded level of trust for CM&S is high and not proportional to awareness level. The main barriers appear to be access to computing resources, perception that CM&S is slow. Importantly, clinicians see a role for CM&S expertise in their team in the future. This survey offers a snapshot of the current situation of CM&S in clinics. Although the sample size and representativity could be increased, the results provide the community with actionable data to build a responsible strategy for accelerating a positive uptake of in silico medicine. New iterations and follow-up activities will track the evolution of responses over time and contribute to strengthen the engagement with the medical community.

Navigating the uncertainties of next-generation sequencing in the genetics clinic.

This study explores the different manifestations and navigations of uncertainty in the practice of diagnostic next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing. Drawing upon multi-sited fieldwork conducted at a large Centre for Human Genetics in Belgium, we analyse how uncertainty takes shape and is managed in the different steps of the diagnostic process: starting from the testing offer, to the analysis in the lab, the multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) and ending with the consultation with the patient. Building on interviews with genetic healthcare professionals and their patients and observations in consultations and MDTs, our empirical work underlines the duality of uncertainty as both burdensome and productive. Building on the existing literature on uncertainty in medicine and NGS, our analysis shows the ontological politics at play in the everyday uncertainty work in this CHG. We show how the, at times, contrasting ways of dealing with uncertainty lead to friction but also result in constructive negotiation and collaboration between actors, making use of multiple types of evidence and expertise. By not only minimising but also sustaining or inviting uncertainty, genetic healthcare professionals are able to advance the practices around NGS in a way that matches their multidisciplinary understandings, considerations and more normative stances.

Democratic research: Setting up a research commons for a qualitative, comparative, longitudinal interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The sudden and dramatic advent of the COVID-19 pandemic led to urgent demands for timely, relevant, yet rigorous research. This paper discusses the origin, design, and execution of the SolPan research commons, a large-scale, international, comparative, qualitative research project that sought to respond to the need for knowledge among researchers and policymakers in times of crisis. The form of organization as a research commons is characterized by an underlying solidaristic attitude of its members and its intrinsic organizational features in which research data and knowledge in the study is shared and jointly owned. As such, the project is peer-governed, rooted in (idealist) social values of academia, and aims at providing tools and benefits for its members. In this paper, we discuss challenges and solutions for qualitative studies that seek to operate as research commons.

Informing relatives of their genetic risk: an examination of the Belgian legal context.

Findings from genomic sequencing can have important implications for patients and relatives. For this reason, most professional guidelines support that patients have an ethical duty to inform relatives and, when disclosure does not occur, most guidelines allow health-care professionals (HCPs) to breach confidentiality. Translating the ethical duties to respect the patient's confidentiality and prevent harm in at-risk relatives into legislation is a complex issue due to the both personal and familial nature of genetic information. In many countries there is no specific guideline or law addressing family communication of genetic information and thus it is unclear what duties patients and HCPs have towards at-risk relatives. Using Belgium as an example for countries in which this is the case, we examined the existing Belgian legislation in relation to three central topics: (1) patients' duties to family members, (2) respect for patient confidentiality and privacy, and (3) HCPs' duties to family members. We then investigated international legal frameworks and compared it with the Belgian context to see to what degree international precedent could aid in the interpretation of Belgian law. Based on our review of the legislation, we make recommendations for the interpretation of current law and examine whether there is sufficient legal precedent to answer the questions central to family communication of genetic information. Although we focus on the specific Belgian legislation, the discussions are relevant for many other countries that have similar legislative approaches.

Anticipating hopes, fears and expectations towards COVID-19 vaccines: A qualitative interview study in seven European countries.

Vaccine uptake is essential to managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and vaccine hesitancy is a persistent concern. At the same time, both decision-makers and the general population have high hopes for COVID-19 vaccination. Drawing from qualitative interview data collected in October 2020 as part of the pan-European SolPan study, this study explores early and anticipatory expectations, hopes and fears regarding COVID-19 vaccination across seven European countries. We find that stances towards COVID-19 vaccines were shaped by personal lived experiences, but participants also aligned personal and communal interests in their considerations. Trust, particularly in expert institutions, was an important prerequisite for vaccine acceptance, but participants also expressed doubts about the rapid vaccine development process. Our findings emphasise the need to move beyond the study of factors driving vaccine hesitancy, and instead to focus on how people personally perceive vaccination in their particular social and political context.

Normative positions towards COVID-19 contact-tracing apps: findings from a large-scale qualitative study in nine European countries.

Mobile applications for digital contact tracing have been developed and introduced around the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed as a tool to support 'traditional' forms of contact-tracing carried out to monitor contagion, these apps have triggered an intense debate with respect to their legal and ethical permissibility, social desirability and general feasibility. Based on a large-scale study including qualitative data from 349 interviews conducted in nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, German-speaking Switzerland, the United Kingdom), this paper shows that the binary framing often found in surveys and polls, which contrasts privacy concerns with the usefulness of these interventions for public health, does not capture the depth, breadth, and nuances of people's positions towards COVID-19 contact-tracing apps. The paper provides a detailed account of how people arrive at certain normative positions by analysing the argumentative patterns, tropes and (moral) repertoires underpinning people's perspectives on digital contact-tracing. Specifically, we identified a spectrum comprising five normative positions towards the use of COVID-19 contact-tracing apps: opposition, scepticism of feasibility, pondered deliberation, resignation, and support. We describe these stances and analyse the diversity of assumptions and values that underlie the normative orientations of our interviewees. We conclude by arguing that policy attempts to develop and implement these and other digital responses to the pandemic should move beyond the reiteration of binary framings, and instead cater to the variety of values, concerns and expectations that citizens voice in discussions about these types of public health interventions.

The FDA's standard-making process for medical digital health technologies: co-producing technological and organizational innovation.

As digital health technologies (DHT) have been embraced as a 'panacea' for health care systems, they have evolved from a buzzword into a high priority objective for health policy across the globe. In the realm of quality and safety standards for medical devices, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been a frontrunner in adapting its regulatory framework to DHT. However, despite the utmost relevance of quality and safety standards and their role for sustaining the innovation pathway of DHT, their actual making has not yet been subjected to in-depth social-science scrutiny. Drawing on the conceptual repertoires of Science and Technology Studies (STS), this article investigates how digital health evolved from a buzzword into an 'object of government', or gained material meaning and transformed into a regulatable object, by charting the standard-making process of FDA's medical digital health policy between 2008 and 2018. From this, we reflect on the mutually sustaining dynamics between technological and organizational innovation, as the FDA's attempts to standardize medical DHT not only shaped the lifestyle/medical boundary for DHT. It also led to significant reconfigurations within the FDA itself, while fostering a broader shift toward the uptake of alternative forms of evidence in regulatory science.

Nonscalability of "citizen science" in post-Fukushima Japan: Unpacking articulations of citizen radiation measuring organizations.

This article explores and discusses understandings of citizen science with members of Japanese citizen radiation measuring organizations who began measuring radioactive contamination in food, soil, air, and human bodies after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. Building on in-depth interviews with organization members and extensive multi-site fieldwork (2018, 2020), the article takes shimin kagaku (citizen science in Japanese) to examine articulations of citizenship and science, while discussing citizen radiation measuring organization activities. Adopting Tsing's notion of nonscalability, it draws attention to the manifold articulations of citizenship and science, unearthing frictions embedded in Japanese science-society relations. In this way, this article outlines the diversity of notions of citizenship and science, and of citizen participatory practices in science. By bringing nonscalability to bear on an analysis of different articulations of shimin kagaku, this article encourages scientists and public authorities to engage with citizen participatory practices reflexively and responsibly by considering local articulations and knowledges.

The Genetic Discrimination Observatory: confronting novel issues in genetic discrimination.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is the differential or unfair profiling of an individual on the basis of genetic data. This article summarizes the actions of the Genetic Discrimination Observatory (GDO) in addressing GD and recent developments in GD since late 2020. It shows how GD can take many forms in today's rapidly evolving society.

Disclosure of genetic information to family members: a systematic review of normative documents.

PURPOSE: Findings from genomic sequencing can have important implications for patients and family members. Yet, when a patient does not consent to the disclosure of genetic information to relatives, it is unclear how health-care professionals (HCPs) should balance their responsibilities toward patients and their family members and whether breaches in confidentiality are warranted. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of normative documents to understand how HCPs should discuss and facilitate family disclosure, and what should be done in cases where the patient does not consent to disclosure. RESULTS: We analyzed 35 documents from advisory committees at the national, European, and international level. We identified discrepancies regarding the recommended role of HCPs in disclosure. While almost all normative documents supported the disclosure of genetic information without patient consent in limited conditions, the conditions for disclosure were often not well defined. Documents provided varying degrees of information regarding what actions HCPs must take in such situations. CONCLUSION: Our findings present concerns regarding the ability of these normative documents to guide HCPs' decision making around the disclosure of genetic information to family members. Clearer guidance outlining the responsibilities and acceptability of disclosure is necessary to facilitate disclosure of genetic information to family members.

Normalising life at risk of Huntington's disease. A qualitative study of backgrounds and coping strategies of fears of genetic discrimination.

Studies in the sociology of genetics have shown how living with a predisposition to a genetic disorder often comes with significant psycho-social burdens and struggles. One of these struggles is the fear of genetic discrimination. Despite genetic non-discrimination regulations, research shows people still worry about being subjected to genetic discrimination. This article adds to this existing body of literature by showing why people still worry about genetic discrimination and how they cope with these worries. Our findings derive from an analysis of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with individuals at risk for Huntington's disease (HD) in Belgium. Concerns of genetic discrimination are grounded in the participants' family backgrounds. Our participants, having witnessed numerous events in which symptomatic relatives suffered discrimination and stigmatisation, expressed heightened fears of facing genetic discrimination. Further, this article provides insight into the strategies participants use to cope with these fears. Two ways of normalising life were identified-while some persist in keeping their genetic risk a secret, other participants explicitly choose to be transparent about their genetic risk, desiring a level of openness. However, while they want to 'break' with their family background, participants who choose to be open are still held back by their worries about genetic discrimination by organisational actors. 'Normalising genetics' appears to be particularly challenging considering the remaining stereotypes and stigma surrounding genetic diseases.

The Governance of UK Dairy Antibiotic Use: Industry-Led Policy in Action.

This article analyses the progress made in the UK with regard to tackling antibiotic "misuse and overuse" in food-producing animals. Moving beyond statistical realities, the paper examines how the UK's industry-led policy approach is shaping practice. Using a multi-sited ethnography situated in Actor Network Theory and Callon's sociology of markets, the UK dairy supply chain policies and practices were studied. Findings reveal that dairy industry policies only partially address the complex network of people, animals, and the environment in which dairy antibiotics circulate. Antibiotic "misuse and overuse" in agriculture is far from a behavioural matter, with solely farmers and veterinarians to blame. Instead, antibiotic use in food animals is embedded in complex economic networks that constrain radical changes in dairy husbandry management and antibiotic use on farms. More attention toward the needs of the dairy supply chain actors and wider environmental considerations is essential to reduce the dairy sector's dependency on antibiotics and support transition toward responsible farming in the UK.

Solidarity after nature: From biopolitics to cosmopolitics.

What is sustaining the divide between nature and nurture, even though sciences like epigenetics have been challenging it for at least two decades? Evelyn Fox Keller asked this question and considered it a logical problem rooted in terminological confusion within the sciences. In this article, we propose a complementary diagnosis of the problem: the nature-nurture divide is (re-)mobilized when society faces questions of inclusion and solidarity. With examples stemming from the fields of insurance and health care, immigration policy and epigenetics, we demonstrate how the nature-nurture divide is performed through techniques of classification for a politics of solidarity. We identify a common operation to these different examples that we coin 'biopolitical imputation'. We use this term to draw attention to how (Western) societal institutions, including science, create solvable problems out of complex situations, defining human actors and their agency along the lines of the nature-nurture divide as a moral guide. We argue that the tenacity of the nature-nurture divide is therefore not only a logical problem needing better scientific concepts, but also a cosmopolitical problem asking for a more profound reflection on the ontology and ethics of solidarity in order to move beyond the biopolitics of nature versus nurture.