ArticleJournal of medical ethics2005
Balancing confidentiality and the information provided to families of patients in primary care.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guardians of Trust: The Legal and Ethical Dimensions of Protecting Doctor-Patient Confidentiality in Clinical Practice.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Confidentiality and family involvement in healthcare: a mixed-method approach of physicians' perspectives in Jordan.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- What ethical conflicts do internists in Spain, México and Argentina encounter? An international cross-sectional observational study based on a self-administrated survey.BMC medical ethics · 2024Observational
- Clinical Simulation Program for the Training of Health Profession Residents in Confidentiality and the Use of Social Networks.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Article
- The risks of absolute medical confidentiality.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
- Elderly patients also have rights.Journal of medical ethics · 2007Article
- Secrets in primary care: a qualitative exploration and conceptual model.Journal of general internal medicine · 2007Article
- Does Sociodemographic Background Determine the Responses to Ethical Dilemma Vignettes among Patients?Indian journal of psychological medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical confidentiality underpins the doctor-patient relationship and ensures privacy so that intimate information can be exchanged to improve, preserve, and protect the health of the patient. The right to information applies to the patient alone, and, only if expressly desired, can it be extended to family members. However, it must be remembered that one of the primary tenets of family medicine is precisely that patient care occurs ideally within the context of the family. There may be, then, certain occasions when difficulties will arise as to the extent of the information provided to family members.
objectivesThis study aimed to describe family doctors' attitudes to confidentiality and providing patient information to relatives as well as their justifications for sharing information.
methodA descriptive postal questionnaire was self-administered by family doctors.
resultsOf 227 doctors, 95.1% provided information to a patient's family and over a third (35%) disclosed information to others without prior patient consent.
conclusionsThe findings reveal that family doctors should pay more attention to their patients' rights to information, privacy, and confidentiality, and reflect very carefully on the fine balance between this and the occasional need for the support and collaboration of family members in delivery of care. Emphasis should be placed on ethics and legal problems during undergraduate education and in-service training of doctors.
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.