Behavior change is more effective and lasting when patients are autonomously motivated. To examine this idea, we identified 184 independent data sets from studies that utilized self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) in health care and health promotion contexts. A meta-analysis evaluated relations between the SDT-based constructs of practitioner support for patient autonomy and patients' experience of psychological need satisfaction, as well as relations between these SDT constructs and indices of mental and physical health. Results showed the expected relations among the SDT variables, as well as positive relations of psychological need satisfaction and autonomous motivation to beneficial health outcomes. Several variables (e.g., participants' age, study design) were tested as potential moderators when effect sizes were heterogeneous. Finally, we used path analyses of the meta-analyzed correlations to test the interrelations among the SDT variables. Results suggested that SDT is a viable conceptual framework to study antecedents and outcomes of motivation for health-related behaviors.

Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis.

Collaborations of physicians and researchers with industry can provide valuable benefits to society, particularly in the translation of basic scientific discoveries to new therapies and products. Recent reports and news stories have, however, documented disturbing examples of relationships and practices that put at risk the integrity of medical research, the objectivity of professional education, the quality of patient care, the soundness of clinical practice guidelines, and the public's trust in medicine. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice provides a comprehensive look at conflict of interest in medicine. It offers principles to inform the design of policies to identify, limit, and manage conflicts of interest without damaging constructive collaboration with industry. It calls for both short-term actions and long-term commitments by institutions and individuals, including leaders of academic medical centers, professional societies, patient advocacy groups, government agencies, and drug, device, and pharmaceutical companies. Failure of the medical community to take convincing action on conflicts of interest invites additional legislative or regulatory measures that may be overly broad or unduly burdensome. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice makes several recommendations for strengthening conflict of interest policies and curbing relationships that create risks with little benefit. The book will serve as an invaluable resource for individuals and organizations committed to high ethical standards in all realms of medicine.

Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice

Nearly 40% of mortality in the United States is linked to social and behavioral factors such as smoking, diet and sedentary lifestyle. Autonomous self-regulation of health-related behaviors is thus an important aspect of human behavior to assess. In 1997, the Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) was formed. Within the BCC, seven health behaviors, 18 theoretical models, five intervention settings and 26 mediating variables were studied across diverse populations. One of the measures included across settings and health behaviors was the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ). The purpose of the present study was to examine the validity of the TSRQ across settings and health behaviors (tobacco, diet and exercise). The TSRQ is composed of subscales assessing different forms of motivation: amotivation, external, introjection, identification and integration. Data were obtained from four different sites and a total of 2731 participants completed the TSRQ. Invariance analyses support the validity of the TSRQ acrossallfoursitesandallthreehealthbehaviors. Overall,theinternalconsistencyofeachsubscale was acceptable (most a values >0.73). The present study provides further evidence of the validity of the TSRQ and its usefulness as an assessment tool across various settings and for different health behaviors.

/pdf/validating-the-theoretical-structure-of-the-treatment-self-2uj6sd6snk.pdf

Validating the theoretical structure of the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ) across three different health behaviors

The World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki was first adopted in 1964. In its 40-year lifetime the Declaration has been revised five times and has risen to a position of prominence as a guiding statement of ethical principles for doctors involved in medical research. The most recent revision, however, has resulted in considerable controversy, particularly in the area of the ethical requirements surrounding placebo-controlled trials and the question of responsibilities to research participants at the end of a study. This review considers the past versions of the Declaration of Helsinki and asks the question: How exactly has the text of the Declaration changed throughout its lifetime? Regarding the present form of the Declaration of Helsinki we ask: What are the major changes in the most recent revision and what are the controversies surrounding them? Finally, building on the detailed review of the past and present versions of the Declaration of Helsinki, we give consideration to some of the possible future trajectories for the Declaration in the light of its history and standing in the world of the ethics of medical research.

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.02103.x

The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future

It is hypothesised and argued that "the four principles of medical ethics" can explain and justify, alone or in combination, all the substantive and universalisable claims of medical ethics and probably of ethics more generally. A request is renewed for falsification of this hypothesis showing reason to reject any one of the principles or to require any additional principle(s) that can't be explained by one or some combination of the four principles. This approach is argued to be compatible with a wide variety of moral theories that are often themselves mutually incompatible. It affords a way forward in the context of intercultural ethics, that treads the delicate path between moral relativism and moral imperialism. Reasons are given for regarding the principle of respect for autonomy as "first among equals", not least because it is a necessary component of aspects of the other three. A plea is made for bioethicists to celebrate the approach as a basis for global moral ecumenism rather than mistakenly perceiving and denigrating it as an attempt at global moral imperialism.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/29/5/307.full.pdf

Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”

The Principles of Biomedical Ethics by Beauchamp and Childress is a classic in the field of medical ethics. The first edition was published in 1979 and “unleashed” the four principles of respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice on the newly emerging field. These principles were argued to be mid-level principles mediating between high-level moral theory and low-level common morality, and they immediately became very popular in writings about medical ethics. Over the years Beauchamp and Childress have developed this approach and vigorously defended it against the various criticisms that have been raised.

The 5th edition of this book is, as all the …

https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/28/5/332.2.full.pdf

S Holm

Papers

Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn.