Wöhlke, Sabine

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","424"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","427"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","14"],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:38:34Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:38:34Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1177/1556264619862395"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1556-2654"],["dc.identifier.issn","1556-2646"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/77371"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.title","Special Issue: Why Ethically Reflect on Empirical Studies in Empirical Ethics? Case Studies and Commentaries"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","31"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","40"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","22"],["dc.contributor.author","Schaper, Manuel"],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T14:11:43Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T14:11:43Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s11019-018-9837-y"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1572-8633"],["dc.identifier.issn","1386-7423"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/71180"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.title","“I would rather have it done by a doctor”—laypeople’s perceptions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and its ethical implications"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","e12563"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","European Journal of Cancer Care"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","26"],["dc.contributor.author","Perry, J."],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, S."],["dc.contributor.author","Heßling, A.C."],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, S."],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:27:23Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:27:23Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/ecc.12563"],["dc.identifier.issn","0961-5423"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/76327"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Allgemeinmedizin"],["dc.title","Why take part in personalised cancer research? Patients’ genetic misconception, genetic responsibility and incomprehension of stratification-an empirical-ethical examination"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","56"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Ethics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.author","Inthorn, Julia"],["dc.contributor.author","Woehlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmidt, Fabian"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:37:47Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:37:47Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: There is an ongoing expert debate with regard to financial incentives in order to increase organ supply. However, there is a lacuna of empirical studies on whether citizens would actually support financial incentives for organ donation. Methods: Between October 2008 and February 2009 a quantitative survey was conducted among German students of medicine and economics to gain insights into their point of view regarding living and deceased organ donation and different forms of commercialization (n = 755). Results: The average (passive) willingness to donate is 63.5% among medical students and 50.0% among students of economics (p = 0.001), while only 24.1% of the respondents were actually holding an organ donor card. 11.3% of students of economics had signed a donor card, however, the number is significantly higher among students of medicine (31.9%, p < 0.001). Women held donor cards significantly more often (28.6%) than men (19.4%, p = 0.004). The majority of students were against direct payments as incentives for deceased and living donations. Nevertheless, 37.5% of the respondents support the idea that the funeral expenses of deceased organ donors should be covered. Women voted significantly less often for the coverage of expenses than men (women 31.6%, men 44.0%, p = 0.003). The number of those in favor of allowing to sell one's organs for money (living organ donation) was highest among students of economics (p = 0.034). Conclusion: Despite a generally positive view on organ donation the respondents refuse to consent to commercialization, but are in favor of removing disincentives or are in favor of indirect models of reward."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1472-6939-15-56"],["dc.identifier.isi","000339287300001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","24996438"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/10484"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/32920"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Biomed Central Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1472-6939"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Impact of gender and professional education on attitudes towards financial incentives for organ donation: results of a survey among 755 students of medicine and economics in Germany"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","380"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Genetics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","10"],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schaper, Manuel"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:51:15Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:51:15Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.description.abstract","The interpretation of genetic information in clinical settings raises moral issues about adequate risk communication and individual responsibility about one’s health behavior. However, it is not well-known what role numeric probabilities and/or the conception of disease and genetics play in the lay understanding of predictive genetic diagnostics. This is an important question because lay understanding of genetic risk information might have particular implications for self-responsibility of the patients. Aim: Analysis of lay attitudes and risk perceptions of German lay people on genetic testing with a special focus on how they deal with the numerical information. Methods: We conducted and analyzed seven focus group discussions (FG) with lay people (n = 43). Results: Our participants showed a positive attitude toward predictive genetic testing. We identified four main topics: (1) Anumeric risk instead of statistical information; (2) Treatment options as a factor for risk evaluation; (3) Epistemic and aleatory uncertainty as moral criticism; (4) Ambivalence as a sign of uncertainty. Conclusion: For lay people, risk information, including the statistical numeric part, is perceived as highly normatively charged, often as an emotionally significant threat. It seems necessary to provide lay people with a deeper understanding of risk information and of the limitations of genetic knowledge with respect to one’s own health responsibility."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fgene.2019.00380"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/16087"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59909"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","1664-8021"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","How Uncertainty Influences Lay People’s Attitudes and Risk Perceptions Concerning Predictive Genetic Testing and Risk Communication"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","S0955470X21000793"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","100673"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Transplantation Reviews"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","36"],["dc.contributor.author","Molina-Pérez, Alberto"],["dc.contributor.author","Delgado, Janet"],["dc.contributor.author","Frunza, Mihaela"],["dc.contributor.author","Morgan, Myfanwy"],["dc.contributor.author","Randhawa, Gurch"],["dc.contributor.author","de Wijdeven, Jeantine Reiger-Van"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.author","Schiks, Eline"],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Rodríguez-Arias, David"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-06-01T09:39:02Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-06-01T09:39:02Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.description.sponsorship"," Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad"],["dc.description.sponsorship"," Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad"],["dc.description.sponsorship"," Agencia Estatal de Investigación"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.trre.2021.100673"],["dc.identifier.pii","S0955470X21000793"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/108373"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-572"],["dc.relation.issn","0955-470X"],["dc.rights.uri","https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/"],["dc.title","Should the family have a role in deceased organ donation decision-making? A systematic review of public knowledge and attitudes towards organ procurement policies in Europe"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","215"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Ethik in der Medizin"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","222"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","25"],["dc.contributor.author","Woehlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Hessling, Arndt"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:20:45Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:20:45Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.description.abstract","Definition of the problem In clinical research and practice, the new paradigm of \"personalised medicine\" raises questions about necessity, expectations, possibilities and risks. In an ongoing empirical-ethical study, we explore the perspectives of both researchers and patients regarding the implementation of \"personalised medicine\" in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. This study focuses on ethically relevant aspects in practice, including expectations towards, counseling on, and decision for \"personalized\" treatment, or research. Methods We conducted interviews (with 19 researchers and physicians and 28 patients) and participant observations during physician-patient consultations (n = 50). Arguments Uncovering differences and similarities in the perspectives of affected patients and physicians will allow potential conflicts in clinical practice to be detected and addressed as early as possible. Conclusions We were able to demonstrate that patients and physicians have different perspectives on \"personalised medicine\". This might lead to conflicts in clinical practice that should be addressed as early as possible."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s00481-013-0263-7"],["dc.identifier.isi","000323661500006"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/28951"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Springer"],["dc.relation.issn","0935-7335"],["dc.title","When it gets personal in \"personalised medicine\": clinical researchers' and patients' perspectives on counseling and communication in an empirical-ethical comparison"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","e0252686"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","PLoS One"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","16"],["dc.contributor.author","Rodríguez-Arias, David"],["dc.contributor.author","Molina-Pérez, Alberto"],["dc.contributor.author","Hannikainen, Ivar R."],["dc.contributor.author","Delgado, Janet"],["dc.contributor.author","Söchtig, Benjamin"],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.contributor.editor","Dor, Frank JMF"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-07-05T14:57:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-07-05T14:57:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Background Consent policies for post-mortem organ procurement (OP) vary throughout Europe, and yet no studies have empirically evaluated the ethical implications of contrasting consent models. To fill this gap, we introduce a novel indicator of governance quality based on the ideal of informed support , and examine national differences on this measure through a quantitative survey of OP policy informedness and preferences in seven European countries. Methods Between 2017–2019, we conducted a convenience sample survey of students ( n = 2006) in Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Denmark (DK), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), Slovenia (SI) and Spain (ES), asking participants about their donation preferences, as well as their beliefs and views about the policy in place. From these measures, we computed indices of informedness, policy support, and fulfilment of unexpressed preferences, which we compared across countries and consent systems. Results Our study introduces a tool for analyzing policy governance in the context of OP. Wide variation in policy awareness was observed: Most respondents in DK, DE, AT and BE correctly identified the policy in place, while those in SI, GR and ES did not. Respondents in opt-out countries (AT, BE, ES and GR) tended to support the policy in place (with one exception, i.e., SI), whereas those in opt-in countries (DE and DK) overwhelmingly opposed it. These results reveal stark differences in governance quality across countries and consent policies: We found a preponderance of informed opposition in opt-in countries and a general tendency towards support–either informed or uninformed–in opt-out countries. We also found informed divergence in opt-in countries and a tendency for convergence–either informed or uninformed–among opt-out countries. Conclusion Our study offers a novel tool for analyzing governance quality and illustrates, in the context of OP, how the strengths and weaknesses of different policy implementations can be estimated and compared using quantitative survey data."],["dc.description.abstract","Background Consent policies for post-mortem organ procurement (OP) vary throughout Europe, and yet no studies have empirically evaluated the ethical implications of contrasting consent models. To fill this gap, we introduce a novel indicator of governance quality based on the ideal of informed support , and examine national differences on this measure through a quantitative survey of OP policy informedness and preferences in seven European countries. Methods Between 2017–2019, we conducted a convenience sample survey of students ( n = 2006) in Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Denmark (DK), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), Slovenia (SI) and Spain (ES), asking participants about their donation preferences, as well as their beliefs and views about the policy in place. From these measures, we computed indices of informedness, policy support, and fulfilment of unexpressed preferences, which we compared across countries and consent systems. Results Our study introduces a tool for analyzing policy governance in the context of OP. Wide variation in policy awareness was observed: Most respondents in DK, DE, AT and BE correctly identified the policy in place, while those in SI, GR and ES did not. Respondents in opt-out countries (AT, BE, ES and GR) tended to support the policy in place (with one exception, i.e., SI), whereas those in opt-in countries (DE and DK) overwhelmingly opposed it. These results reveal stark differences in governance quality across countries and consent policies: We found a preponderance of informed opposition in opt-in countries and a general tendency towards support–either informed or uninformed–in opt-out countries. We also found informed divergence in opt-in countries and a tendency for convergence–either informed or uninformed–among opt-out countries. Conclusion Our study offers a novel tool for analyzing governance quality and illustrates, in the context of OP, how the strengths and weaknesses of different policy implementations can be estimated and compared using quantitative survey data."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1371/journal.pone.0252686"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/87746"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-441"],["dc.relation.eissn","1932-6203"],["dc.title","Governance quality indicators for organ procurement policies"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","17"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Medical Ethics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.author","Mertz, Marcel"],["dc.contributor.author","Inthorn, Julia"],["dc.contributor.author","Renz, Guenter"],["dc.contributor.author","Rothenberger, Lillian Geza"],["dc.contributor.author","Salloch, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schildmann, Jan"],["dc.contributor.author","Wohlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:43:12Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:43:12Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Research in the field of Empirical Ethics (EE) uses a broad variety of empirical methodologies, such as surveys, interviews and observation, developed in disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Whereas these empirical disciplines see themselves as purely descriptive, EE also aims at normative reflection. Currently there is literature about the quality of empirical research in ethics, but little or no reflection on specific methodological aspects that must be considered when conducting interdisciplinary empirical ethics. Furthermore, poor methodology in an EE study results in misleading ethical analyses, evaluations or recommendations. This not only deprives the study of scientific and social value, but also risks ethical misjudgement. Discussion: While empirical and normative-ethical research projects have quality criteria in their own right, we focus on the specific quality criteria for EE research. We develop a tentative list of quality criteria - a \"road map\" - tailored to interdisciplinary research in EE, to guide assessments of research quality. These quality criteria fall into the categories of primary research question, theoretical framework and methods, relevance, interdisciplinary research practice and research ethics and scientific ethos. Summary: EE research is an important and innovative development in bioethics. However, a lack of standards has led to concerns about and even rejection of EE by various scholars. Our suggested orientation list of criteria, presented in the form of reflective questions, cannot be considered definitive, but serves as a tool to provoke systematic reflection during the planning and composition of an EE research study. These criteria need to be tested in different EE research settings and further refined."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1472-6939-15-17"],["dc.identifier.isi","000333171200001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","24580847"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/10037"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/34125"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Biomed Central Ltd"],["dc.relation.issn","1472-6939"],["dc.rights","CC BY 2.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0"],["dc.title","Research across the disciplines: a road map for quality criteria in empirical ethics research"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Genetics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","11"],["dc.contributor.author","Wöhlke, Sabine"],["dc.contributor.author","Schaper, Manuel"],["dc.contributor.author","Oliveri, Serena"],["dc.contributor.author","Cutica, Ilaria"],["dc.contributor.author","Spinella, Francesca"],["dc.contributor.author","Pravettoni, Gabriella"],["dc.contributor.author","Steinberger, Daniela"],["dc.contributor.author","Schicktanz, Silke"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:44:24Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:44:24Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.description.abstract","Genetic information is increasingly provided outside of the traditional clinical setting, allowing users to access it directly via specialized online platforms. This development is possibly resulting in changing ethical and social challenges for users of predictive genetic tests. Little is known about the attitudes and experiences of users of web-accessed genetic information. This survey analyzes data from two European countries with regard to the utility of genetic information, the users’ ways of making use of and dealing with information, and their sharing behavior. Particular focus is given to ethical and social questions regarding the motivation to share personal genetic results with others. Social factors tested for are national background, gender, and marital, parental, and educational status. This study will contribute to public discourse and offer ethical recommendations. The study will also serve to validate the developed questionnaire for use in population representative surveys."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fgene.2020.00102"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1664-8021"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/17397"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/78436"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","1664-8021"],["dc.rights","http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.title","German and Italian Users of Web-Accessed Genetic Data: Attitudes on Personal Utility and Personal Sharing Preferences. Results of a Comparative Survey (n=192)"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]