https://hdl.handle.net/10481/24344 2026-04-19T07:00:28Z https://hdl.handle.net/10481/112512 Nuevas formas de reticencia a la vacunación en la era pos-COVID-19: un estudio cualitativo Cruz Piqueras, Maite; Hortal Carmona, Joaquín; Massó Guijarro, Ester Objetivo: Analizar los argumentos para dudar o rechazar cualquiera de las vacunas contra la COVID-19 y cómo estos discursos han podido modificarse tras la experiencia de la pandemia. Método: Se desarrolló un estudio cualitativo exploratorio-descriptivo durante 2021-2022, con cuatro entrevistas semiestructuradas y tres grupos focales mediante muestreo teórico a personas reticentes a las vacunas contra la COVID-19 en la provincia de Granada (Espana). ˜ Se realizó un análisis temático y se construyó una tipología de perfiles de reticentes. Resultados: Los discursos sobre el origen del virus oscilaron entre interpretaciones moderadas y narrativas conspirativas, mientras que la enfermedad se percibió como leve o amplificada mediáticamente. La sobreabundancia de información impulsó la búsqueda de fuentes alternativas y un empirismo basado en la experiencia personal. Los argumentos reticentes se articularon en dos ejes: científico-salubrista (dudas sobre la protección, la rapidez de aprobación, los componentes y los efectos adversos) y ético-político (autonomía corporal, estigma, obligatoriedad implícita y polarización). Se identificaron cuatro perfiles: empoderado, infoxicado, paralizado y resistente. Estos perfiles integran distintos grados de agencia, incertidumbre y desconfianza hacia las instituciones científicas y gubernamentales. Conclusiones: La «neorreticencia» que ha surgido en torno a las vacunas contra la COVID-19 presenta rasgos diferenciados respecto a la reticencia «clásica», e incorpora un componente político que debilita la confianza en las instituciones sanitarias y en las políticas de salud pública. Se requieren estrategias no coercitivas, adaptadas a los distintos perfiles, con una comunicación pública transparente que incorpore instrumentos de colaboración científica y comunitaria para anticipar futuras crisis sanitarias.; Objective: This study analyzes the arguments underlying hesitation to receive any COVID-19 vaccine and how these discourses may have evolved throughout the pandemic. Method: Anexploratory,descriptivequalitative study was conductedin2021–2022 intheprovince of Granada (Spain). Data were collected through four semi-structured interviews and three focus groups using theoretical sampling with individuals who expressed hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines. A thematic analysis was performed, leading to the development of a typology of vaccine-hesitant profiles. Results: Participants’ narratives about the origin of the virus ranged from moderate interpretations to conspiratorial explanations, while COVID-19 was perceived either as a mild illness or as one exaggerated by the media. The overabundance of information encouraged reliance on alternative sources and personal experience as evidence. Hesitant arguments clustered around two domains: scientific–public health concerns (including doubts about vaccine effectiveness, accelerated approval processes, components, and potential adverse ef fects) and ethical–political concerns (such as bodily autonomy, stigma, implicit mandates, and sociopolitical polarization). Four profiles of hesitancy were identified: empowered, infoxicated, paralyzed and resistant. These profiles reflecting different levels of agency, uncertainty, and distrust toward scientific and governmental institutions. Conclusions: The “neo-hesitancy” emerging around COVID-19 vaccines exhibits distinct features compared with “classical” vaccine hesitancy, incorporating a political dimension that undermines trustin health authorities and public health policies. Non-coercive, profile-specific strategies and transparent public communication that integrates scientific and community collaboration are recommended to strengthen preparedness for future health crises. Este proyecto obtuvo una beca de la Fundación Víctor Grifols i Lucas – Convocatoria de Becas sobre Bioética (convocatoria 2020- 2021). https://hdl.handle.net/10481/112371 Which message works best? Experimental evidence on disaster appeals Monasterio Astobiza, Aníbal; Ortega Lozano, Ramón This article evaluates the efficacy of argumentative strategies in promoting collective action against existential threats through two studies involving 200 participants (236 recruited; 36 excluded due to incomplete responses or failed attention checks). The first study (N=118) contrasts emotional with rational arguments, revealing a statistically significant difference in their effectiveness (t(117) = 2.34, p = 0.032), with emotional appeals demonstrating a stronger persuasive impact. The second study (N=118) assesses the influence of social comparisons and financial incentives, where no significant difference was found between the two strategies (t(117) = -1.24, p = 0.11), suggesting that their relative effectiveness may depend on specific contextual factors. Overall, the findings emphasize the critical role of emotional appeals and the conditional impact of financial incentives in motivating action against existential risks. https://hdl.handle.net/10481/111985 Inteligencia artificial y confianza en la práctica sanitaria: cuando el algoritmo entra en la consulta Ríos-Díaz, J.; Ortega Lozano, R.; Chana Valero, P.; Monasterio Astobiza, Aníbal En enero de 2026, dos noticias aparentemente desconectadas revela ron la velocidad vertiginosa con que la inteligencia artificial (IA) está transformando la atención sanitaria. OpenAI anunció ChatGPT Health, una herramienta que permite a profesionales sanitarios consultar casos clínicos y acceder a información médica actualizada. Simultáneamen te, Utah se convirtió en el primer estado de EE. UU. en aprobar el uso de la IA para prescribir medicamentos sin supervisión médica directa. Estos desarrollos no son futuristas; están ocurriendo ahora y plantean una pregunta fundamental que trasciende las especialidades sanitarias: ¿cuándo y cómo debemos confiar en sistemas algorítmicos que median, complementan o, potencialmente, reemplazan la interacción entre pro fesionales de la salud y pacientes? Este trabajo se ha realizado con la ayuda del proyecto de investigación CONFIIA financiado por el Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Agencia Estatal de Investigación, del Gobierno de España y el Fondo Social Europeo Plus (PID2024-156166OA-I00, MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 y FS +) y del Programa Iberoamericano de Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo – CYTED a través de la Red temática Laboratorio Iberoamericano de Ética y Salud Pública (LIBERESP: 623RT0148). https://hdl.handle.net/10481/111681 Trust and AI in healthcare: a systematic review Monasterio Astobiza, Aníbal; Alonso Fernández, Marcos; Ortega Lozano, Ramón The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare is growing quickly and offers big improvements in medical diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient care. However, people often don’t trust AI systems, which prevents them from being widely used. This article looks at both the philosophical and practical issues of trust in healthcare AI systems. First, we provide an overview of the current state of AI in healthcare. Then, we review existing research on trust in technology. Based on our findings, we identify three main factors that affect trust in AI: Technology-Related Factors (transparency, reliability, safety), Healthcare Context Factors (how well AI fits into healthcare settings, proper training for professionals), and Individual User Factors (user experience and attitudes toward AI). Our results show that continuous human oversight, strong regulations, and ethical considerations are essential. Addressing these areas is key to making sure AI systems in healthcare are reliable, transparent, and trusted by both healthcare professionals and patients. https://hdl.handle.net/10481/111085 The Role of the Family in Deceased Organ Procurement: A Guide for Clinicians and Policymakers Delgado Rodríguez, Janet; Molina Pérez, Alberto; Shaw, David; Rodríguez Arias Vailhen, David Families play an essential role in deceased organ procurement. As the person cannot directly communicate his or her wishes regarding donation, the family is often the only source of information regarding consent or refusal. We provide a systematic description and analysis of the different roles the family can play, and actions the family can take, in the organ procurement process across different jurisdictions and consent systems. First, families can inform or update healthcare professionals about a person’s donation wishes. Second, families can authorize organ procurement in the absence of deceased’s preferences and the default is not to remove organs, and oppose donation where there is no evidence of preference but the default is to presume consent; in both cases, the decision could be based on their own wishes or what they think the deceased would have wanted. Finally, families can overrule the known wishes of the deceased, which can mean preventing donation, or permitting donation when the deceased refused it. We propose a schema of 4 levels on which to map these possible family roles: no role, witness, surrogate, and full decisional authority. We conclude by mapping different jurisdictions onto this schema to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the consent system for organ donation and some important nuances about the role of families. This classificatory model aims to account for the majority of the world’s consent systems. It provides conceptual and methodological guidance that can be useful to researchers, professionals, and policymakers involved in organ procurement.