ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2001
Ethical and research dilemmas arising from a questionnaire study of psychological morbidity among general practice managers.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supporting ethical practice in primary care research: strategies for action.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- It doesn't cost anything just to ask, does it? The ethics of questionnaire-based research.Journal of medical ethics · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A questionnaire-based research project enquiring into the psychological health of general practice managers found that 5% of managers admitted to suicidal ideas. This paper explores the moral issues raised when research conducted at a distance uncovers information about participants which indicates that they may be at increased risk of harm. It examines whether the authors of such studies have responsibilities towards their research participants beyond those of analysing and properly interpreting the data supplied to them. The paper is an exercise in self-reflection and self-criticism; not all the questions posed and explored by it can be answered definitively. Implications for planning studies of this kind are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11271870PMC1313896W1582401584What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.