Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24023864›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

"Righteous minds" in health care: measurement and explanatory value of social intuitionism in accounting for the moral judgments in a sample of U.S. physicians.

Jon C Tilburt, Katherine M James, Sarah M Jenkins, Ryan M Antiel, Farr A Curlin, Kenneth A Rasinski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ethics 4.0: Ethical Dilemmas in Healthcare Mediated by Social Robots.International journal of social robotics · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jon C TilburtDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America ; Biomedical Ethics Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America ; Mayo Program in Professionalism and Ethics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.
Katherine M James
Sarah M Jenkins
Ryan M Antiel
Farr A Curlin
Kenneth A Rasinski
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USMayo Clinic · USUniversity of Chicago · USUniversity of Chicago Medical Center · USWinnMed · US

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesKL2RR024151 · NCRR · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI RIZZA, ROBERT A. · 2006 to 2011
$15.3M
NCRR NIH HHS 1 KL2 RR024151NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024151
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The broad diversity in physicians' judgments on controversial health care topics may reflect differences in religious characteristics, political ideologies, and moral intuitions. We tested an existing measure of moral intuitions in a new population (U.S. physicians) to assess its validity and to determine whether physicians' moral intuitions correlate with their views on controversial health care topics as well as other known predictors of these intuitions such as political affiliation and religiosity. In 2009, we mailed an 8-page questionnaire to a random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties. The survey included the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ30), along with questions on physicians' judgments about controversial health care topics including abortion and euthanasia (no moral objection, some moral objection, strong moral objection). A total of 1032 of 1895 (54%) physicians responded. Physicians' overall mean moral foundations scores were 3.5 for harm, 3.3 for fairness, 2.8 for loyalty, 3.2 for authority, and 2.7 for sanctity on a 0-5 scale. Increasing levels of religious service attendance, having a more conservative political ideology, and higher sanctity scores remained the greatest positive predictors of respondents objecting to abortion (β = 0.12, 0.23, 0.14, respectively, each p<0.001) as well as euthanasia (β = 0.08, 0.17, and 0.17, respectively, each p<0.001), even after adjusting for demographics. Higher authority scores were also significantly negatively associated with objection to abortion (β = -0.12, p<0.01), but not euthanasia. These data suggest that the relative importance physicians place on the different categories of moral intuitions may predict differences in physicians' judgments about morally controversial topics and may interrelate with ideology and religiosity. Further examination of the diversity in physicians' moral intuitions may prove illustrative in describing and addressing moral differences that arise in medical practice.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalIntuitionMoralsDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24023864
PMCPMC3762735
OpenAlexW2083153550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.