ArticleJournal of medical ethics2001
The value of taking an 'ethics history'.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Defence of Causing Patients to Worry: Ethical Issues in the Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty.Bioethics · 2025Article
- Evaluation and ethical review of a tool to explore patient preferences for information and involvement in decision making.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Article
- Taking an "ethics history".Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2005Article
- Taking an 'ethics history'.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2005Article
- The value of an ethics history?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo study the value of taking an ethics history as a means of assessing patients' preferences for decision making and for their relatives' involvement.
designQuestionnaire administered by six junior doctors to 56 mentally competent patients, admitted into general and geriatric medical beds.
settingA large district general hospital in the United Kingdom. MAIN MEASURES: To establish whether patients were adequately informed about their illness and whether they minded the information being communicated to their relatives. To establish their preference regarding truthful disclosure and participation in decision making with risk attached. To establish whether they wished to be involved in CPR decision making, and if not, who should make the decision. To establish whether they knew of living wills and whether they had any advance directives.
resultsTwenty-four (43%) were inadequately informed of their illness. Forty-six (82%) said they would want to know were something serious to be found. Twenty-eight (50%) wanted to make their own decision if requiring risky treatment and 11 (20%) wanted family members involved. Thirty-one (55%) wanted to make a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decision and five of these decisions differed from those made by the doctors. Twenty-five (45%) preferred the doctors to decide. Eleven (20%) of the patients had heard of living wills but only one had executed such a will. Seven (13%) of the patients wished to provide advance directives. Three (5%) did not find the history taking helpful but none were discomforted.
conclusionTaking an ethics history is a simple means of obtaining useful information about patients' preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.