ArticleHEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues2011
Client participation in moral case deliberation: a precarious relational balance.
Article in HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Dealing With Conflicts in Medical Decisions: Epistemic Reasonable Disagreement Between Parents and Medical Staff.Bioethics · 2026Article
- Ethics support personnel's perceptions of patient and parent participation in clinical ethics support services in pediatric oncology.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Two years of ethics reflection groups about coercion in psychiatry. Measuring variation within employees' normative attitudes, user involvement and the handling of disagreement.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations-a national survey.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Theory and practice of integrative clinical ethics support: a joint experience within gender affirmative care.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- The safety paradox in ethics training: a case study on safety dynamics within a military ethics train-the-trainer course.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- The significance of ethics reflection groups in mental health care: a focus group study among health care professionals.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- The Care Dialog: the "ethics of care" approach and its importance for clinical ethics consultation.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2018Article
- The Norwegian national project for ethics support in community health and care services.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Evaluation of moral case deliberation at the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate: a pilot study.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Prevalence and characteristics of moral case deliberation in Dutch health care.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2014Article
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
Moral case deliberation (MCD) is a form of clinical ethics support in which the ethicist as facilitator aims at supporting professionals with a structured moral inquiry into their moral issues from practice. Cases often affect clients, however, their inclusion in MCD is not common. Client participation often raises questions concerning conditions for equal collaboration and good dialogue. Despite these questions, there is little empirical research regarding client participation in clinical ethics support in general and in MCD in particular. This article aims at describing the experiences and processes of two MCD groups with client participation in a mental healthcare institution. A responsive evaluation was conducted examining stakeholders' issues concerning client participation. Findings demonstrate that participation initially creates uneasiness. As routine builds up and client participants meet certain criteria, both clients and professionals start thinking beyond 'us-them' distinctions, and become more equal partners in dialogue. Still, sentiments of distrust and feelings of not being safe may reoccur. Client participation in MCD thus requires continuous reflection and alertness on relational dynamics and the quality of and conditions for dialogue. Participation puts the essentials of MCD (i.e., dialogue) to the test. Yet, the methodology and features of MCD offer an appropriate platform to introduce client participation in healthcare institutions.
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.