Background: Cancer clinical trials often employ exclusion criteria that can impact vulnerable populations, particularly individuals with psychological, psychiatric, or neurological conditions.Aims: This study aimed to analyze the prevalence and nature of exclusion criteria in clinical trials for prostate, breast, and lung cancers.Methods: The EU Clinical Trials Register identified 51 protocols uploaded between 2022 and 2024. Thematic content analysis categorized exclusion criteria, and the justifications provided, while frequency analysis quantified their prevalence.Results: After excluding five protocols (two non‐English and three inaccessible), the final dataset comprised 46 protocols: 13 for prostate cancer (22.8%), 24 for breast cancer (42.1%), and 9 for lung cancer (15.8%). Exclusion criteria targeting vulnerable populations were present in 78.3% of protocols, categorized into five themes: psychiatric conditions (24.6%), neurological conditions (22.8%), other psychological conditions (22.8%), legal/guardianship status (5.3%), and unspecified conditions (24.6%). Compliance concerns (39.1%) were the most common justification, followed by informed consent challenges (32.6%), safety risks (13%), drug interference (10.9%), and not in the best interest (4.3%). Notably, 29.1% of protocols lacked justification for exclusions, raising ethical and transparency concerns.Conclusions: The exclusion of vulnerable populations may limit the inclusivity and generalizability of cancer research. Heuristic biases and systemic practices can potentially influence this. Exploring the role of these factors and considering adaptive trial designs, along with providing detailed justifications for exclusion criteria, could support more equitable and representative clinical research.

Integrating Clinical Ethics Consultants (CECs) into healthcare requires understanding how they apply bioethical knowledge while managing cognitive and emotional challenges in ethical deliberations. Ethical consultations often elicit strong emotions, yet their impact on decision-making remains underexplored. This study explores the emotional responses of 52 CECs from the United States and 10 European countries through a semi-structured survey. Participants selected a real ethical case they had encountered and described their emotional reactions during and after deliberation. Findings revealed that almost 77% of CECs experienced negative emotions such as frustration, sadness, or anger during deliberation, while 21% reported neutral or positive feelings. Although satisfaction and relief increased after deliberation, negative emotions often persisted. Additionally, 45% of participants reported feelings of inadequacy or remorse, 12% expressed uncertainty about their decision, and 5% stated they would change their decision in hindsight. The accumulation of negative emotions may affect CECs’ well-being and judgment, highlighting the need for structured support. Managing cognitive and emotional demands is essential to maintaining CECs’ effectiveness, underscoring the importance of targeted training programs and support strategies to enhance ethical decision-making and resilience in high-stakes medical contexts.

Congenital anomalies are the principal cause of neonatal mortality in the United States. Families who decide to continue gestation and reject termination of pregnancy benefit from the experience of Perinatal Hospice (PH). There are no current studies that show if there may be positive outcomes for care-providers as well. The first step is exploration of their emotive experiences and representations beyond burnout or stress disorders and the possible negative outcomes. With this aim, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 specialists. An Elementary Context analysis was performed with T-Lab software. Providers experience positive elements even though they work in a painful reality and face the possibility of 'failure' of medical science or the loss of a patient. They declare themselves to be satisfied and do not demonstrate deep suffering or particular psychophysical disorders. They consider their job as a 'gift'. There is a lack of research exploring the encouraging aspects of their work, such as coping strategies or positive emotions.

The loss of a child is one of the most profoundly stressful events an adult can experience, but perinatal hospice may be an important resource for the family’s wellbeing. The aim of this study was to understand how a group of American and Italian parents of infants affected by life-limiting or terminal conditions and treated with personalised comfort measures represents, with a metaphorical statement, the experience of perinatal hospice care. Thirty five questionnaires were collected and included 13 parents from Italy and 22 from the US. Parents represent their experience as positive and rich with lovely family moments and, although it is also a hard path, they consider it as an important gift. Other metaphors elected were related to spirituality and transcendence, underlying the need of parents to express and share their spiritual values and beliefs. Finally, parents also perceived an overall support from care providers and felt as if they were part of the same family.

Background: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent neurodevelopmental condition affecting children, adolescents, and adults worldwide. Despite evidence-based treatments, long-term functional outcomes remain variable due to heterogeneity in symptoms, comorbidities, and environmental contexts. Digital technologies, including AI-augmented digital Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs), are increasingly proposed to support more precise and personalized ADHD care. This concept paper provides a theoretical discussion of the potential applications of CDSSs in ADHD rehabilitation and examines key considerations for system design, usability, and ethical implementation. Discussion: CDSSs and AI technologies offer conceptual promise for enhancing ADHD care by integrating patient-specific data to guide diagnosis, intervention planning, monitoring, and outcome prediction. Incorporating Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) principles is critical to ensure systems are intuitive, engaging, and supportive of adherence, particularly for children and adolescents with ADHD. Ethical, practical, and implementation challenges, including data privacy, equity, and variability in healthcare infrastructures, must be addressed. Thoughtful design and governance of AI-supported CDSSs may improve decision-making, optimize functional outcomes, and facilitate more individualized rehabilitation pathways. Conclusions: The paper concludes by emphasizing future research directions that may include translating conceptual frameworks into empirically testable models, developing guidelines for user-centered and ethically responsible technology deployment, and evaluating long-term impacts on clinical outcomes. By providing a theoretical foundation, this paper aims to guide the integration of AI-augmented CDSSs into technology-assisted ADHD rehabilitation while highlighting the importance of ethical, practical, and human-centered design considerations.