Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25889307›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2015

Ethics reflection groups in community health services: an evaluation study.

Lillian Lillemoen, Reidar Pedersen

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Case-Based Clinical Ethics Support - A Description and Normative Discussion of Methodological Issues from the Swedish Perspective.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. CURA-An Ethics Support Instrument for Nurses in Palliative Care. Feasibility and First Perceived Outcomes.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lillian LillemoenUniversity of Oslo, P.O.Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway. lillian.lillemoen@medisin.uio.no.
Reidar PedersenUniversity of Oslo, P.O.Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway. reidar.pedersen@medisin.uio.no.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic ethics support in community health services in Norway is in the initial phase. There are few evaluation studies about the significance of ethics reflection on care. The aim of this study was to evaluate systematic ethics reflection in groups in community health (including nursing homes and residency), - from the perspectives of employees participating in the groups, the group facilitators and the service managers. The reflection groups were implemented as part of a research and development project.

methodsA mixed-methods design with qualitative focus group interviews, observations and written reports were used to evaluate. The study was conducted at two nursing homes, two home care districts and a residence for people with learning disabilities. Participants were employees, facilitators and service managers. The study was guided by ethical standard principles and was approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services.

resultsWe found support for ethics reflection as a valuable measure to strengthen clinical practice. New and improved solutions, more cooperation between employees, and improved collaboration with patients and their families are some of the results. No negative experiences were found. Instead, the ethics reflection based on experiences and challenges in the workplace, was described as a win-win situation. The evaluation also revealed what is needed to succeed and useful tips for further development of ethics support in community health services.

conclusionsEthics reflection groups focusing on ethical challenges from the participants' daily work were found to be significant for improved practice, collegial support and cooperation, personal and professional development among staff, facilitators and managers. Resources needed to succeed were managerial support, and anchoring ethics sessions in the routine of daily work.

Indexed as

Group ProcessesHealth PersonnelThinkingCommunity Health ServicesCooperative BehaviorGroup HomesHumansMoralsNorwayNursing HomesQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID25889307
PMCPMC4413993
OpenAlexW1994173863

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.