ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2012
Opening the black box of ethics policy work: evaluating a covert practice.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Pooled it
- Identifying and Classifying Tools for Health Policy Ethics Review: A Systematic Search and Review.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2021Pooled it
- Ethical issues in public health surveillance: a systematic qualitative review.BMC public health · 2017Pooled it
- Health care ethics programs in U.S. Hospitals: results from a National Survey.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Philosophy of Healthcare Ethics Practice Statements: Quality Attestation and Beyond.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2018Article
- Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach.Implementation science : IS · 2014Article
- Written institutional ethics policies on euthanasia: an empirical-based organizational-ethical framework.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2014Article
- Are ethics committees in tune with the "epidemiology of ethical issues"?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hospital ethics committees (HECs) and ethicists generally describe themselves as engaged in four domains of practice: case consultation, research, education, and policy work. Despite the increasing attention to quality indicators, practice standards, and evaluation methods for the other domains, comparatively little is known or published about the policy work of HECs or ethicists. This article attempts to open the "black box" of this health care ethics practice by providing two detailed case examples of ethics policy reviews. We also describe the development and application of an evaluation strategy to assess the quality of ethics policy review work, and to enable continuous improvement of ethics policy review processes. Given the potential for policy work to impact entire patient populations and organizational systems, it is imperative that HECs and ethicists develop clearer roles, responsibilities, procedural standards, and evaluation methods to ensure the delivery of consistent, relevant, and high-quality ethics policy reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23072671What 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.