Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25949739›Full record

ArticleLondon journal of primary care2014

4th annual primary care ethics conference: ethics education and lifelong learning.

Andrew Papanikitas, John Spicer, Emma McKenzie-Edwards, David Misselbrook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in London journal of primary care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Andrew PapanikitasNIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer in General Practice, Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.
John SpicerHead of Primary Care Education and Development, Health Education South London (University of London), London, UK.
Emma McKenzie-EdwardsGeneral Practitioner and GP Educator, Bury Knowle Health Centre, Oxford, UK.
David MisselbrookSenior Lecturer in Family Medicine, RCSI Bahrain, Adliya, Kingdom of Bahrain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary care ethics is a field of study that has recently found new life, with calls to establish the relevance of ethical discussion in general practice, to gather a body of literature and to carve out an intellectual space for primary care on the academic landscape of bioethics. In this report, we reflect on the key strands of the 4th primary care ethics conference held at the Royal Society of Medicine, on a theme of ethics education and lifelong learning: first, to produce insights that have relevance for policy and practice; and second, to illustrate the idea that not only is ethics relevant in primary care, but primary care is relevant in medical ethics. Core themes included the advantages and disadvantages of prescriptive ways of doing ethics in education, ethical reflection and potential risk to professional status, the need to deal with societal change and to take on board the insights gained from empirical work, whether this is about different kinds of fatherhood, or work on the causes of moral distress in healthcare workers.

Indexed as

educationethicsgeneral practiceprimary carerole models

Identifiers

PMID25949739
PMCPMC4345781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.