ArticleAJOB primary research
Understanding the Severity of Wrongdoing in Health Care Delivery and Research: Lessons Learned From a Historiometric Study of 100 Cases.
Article in AJOB primary research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Resource Guide to Help Patients Receive Appropriate Care.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2021Article
- Development and Psychometric Analysis of the Measure of Perceived Adherence to the Principles of Medical Ethics in Clinical Educational Settings: Trainee Version (PAMETHIC-CLIN-T).Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Preventing Egregious Ethical Violations in Medical Practice: Evidence-Informed Recommendations from a Multidisciplinary Working Group.Journal of medical regulation · 2018Article
- Is It Time to Share Qualitative Research Data?Qualitative psychology (Washington, D.C.) · 2018Article
- Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing.Accountability in research · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWrongdoing among physicians and researchers causes myriad problems for patients and research participants. While many articles have been published on professional wrongdoing, our literature review found no studies that examined the rich contextual details of large sets of historical cases of wrongdoing.
methodsWe examined 100 cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research using historiometric methods, which involve the statistical description and analysis of coded historical narratives. We used maximum variation, criterion-based sampling to identify cases involving 29 kinds of wrongdoing contained in a taxonomy of wrongdoing developed for the project. We coded the presence of a variety of environmental and wrongdoer variables and rated the severity of wrongdoing found in each case. This approach enabled us to (a) produce rich descriptions of variables characterizing cases; (b) identify factors influencing the severity of wrongdoing; and (c) test the hypothesis that professional wrongdoing is a unified, relatively homogenous phenomenon such as "organizational deviance."
resultsSome variables were consistently found across cases (e.g., wrongdoers were male and cases lasted more than 2 years), and some variables were consistently absent across cases (e.g., cases did not involve wrongdoers who were mistreated by institutions or penalized for doing what is right). However, we also found that some variables associated with wrongdoing in research (such as ambiguous legal and ethical norms) differ from those associated with wrongdoing in healthcare delivery (such as wrongdoers with a significant history of professional misbehavior).
conclusionsEarlier intervention from colleagues might help prevent the pattern we observed of repeated wrongdoing across multiple years. While some variables characterize the vast majority of highly publicized cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research-regardless of the kind of wrongdoing-it is important to examine and compare sets of relatively homogenous cases in order to identify factors associated with wrongdoing.
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.