ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2017
The Moral of the Tale: Stories, Trust, and Public Engagement with Clinical Ethics via Radio and Theatre.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Living bioethics, clinical ethics committees and children's consent to heart surgery.Clinical ethics · 2022Article
- Always leave the audience wanting more: An entertaining approach to stimulate engagement with health research among publics in coastal Kenya through 'Magnet Theatre'.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Genomics England's implementation of its public engagement strategy: Blurred boundaries between engagement for the United Kingdom's 100,000 Genomes project and the need for public support.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2018Article
- Rearranging Deck Chairs on a Sinking Ship? : Some Reflections on Ethics and Reproduction Looking Back at 2017 and Ahead at 2018.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- Investigating Public trust in Expert Knowledge: Narrative, Ethics, and Engagement.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017Article
- Prestidigitation vs. Public Trust: Or How We Can Learn to Change the Conversation and Prevent Powers From "Organizing the Discontent".Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust is frequently discussed with reference to the professional-patient relationship. However, trust is less explored in relation to the ways in which understanding of, and responses to, questions of ethics are discussed by both the "public" and "experts." Public engagement activity in healthcare ethics may invoke "trust" in analysing a moral question or problem but less frequently conceives of trust as integral to "public engagement" itself. This paper explores the relationship between trust and the ways in which questions of healthcare ethics are identified and negotiated by both "experts" and the public. Drawing on two examples from the author's "public engagement" work-a radio programme for the British Broadcasting Corporation and work with a playwright and theatre-the paper interrogates the ways in which "public engagement" is often characterized. The author argues that the common approach to public engagement in questions of ethics is unhelpfully constrained by a systemic disposition which continues to privilege the professional or expert voice at the expense of meaningful exchange and dialogue. By creating space for novel interactions between the "expert" and the "public," authentic engagement is achieved that enables not only the participants to flourish but also contributes to trust itself.
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.