ArticleBMC medical ethics2017
The use of empirical research in bioethics: a survey of researchers in twelve European countries.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-empirical methods for ethics research on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health: a systematic journal review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Pooled it
- The Vagueness of Integrating the Empirical and the Normative: Researchers' Views on Doing Empirical Bioethics.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Expert Stakeholder Perspectives on Emerging Technology for Neuroimaging Research with Highly Portable MRI: The Need for Guidance on Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024Article
- Truth and consequences.Metaphilosophy · 2023Article
- Acceptable objectives of empirical research in bioethics: a qualitative exploration of researchers' views.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Research, education, ethics consultation: evaluating a Bioethics Unit in an Oncological Research Hospital.BMC medical ethics · 2022Observational
- Developing new ways to listen: the value of narrative approaches in empirical (bio)ethics.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Reflections on autonomy in travel for cross border reproductive care.Monash bioethics review · 2021Article
- The American Public Is Ready to Accept Human-Animal Chimera Research.Stem cell reports · 2020Article
- Illness and disease: an empirical-ethical viewpoint.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- An update on the "empirical turn" in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals.BMC medical ethics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of empirical research methods in bioethics has been increasing in the last decades. It has resulted in discussions about the 'empirical turn of bioethics' and raised questions related to the value of empirical work for this field, methodological questions about its quality and rigor, and how this integration of the normative and the empirical can be achieved. The aim of this paper is to describe the attitudes of bioethics researchers in this field towards the use of empirical research, and examine their actual conduct: whether they use empirical research methods (and if so, what methods), and whether (and how) they have made attempts at integrating the empirical and the normative.
methodsAn anonymous online survey was conducted to reach scholars working in bioethics/biomedical ethics/ethics institutes or centers in 12 European countries. A total of 225 bioethics researchers participated in the study. Of those, 200 questionnaires were fully completed, representing a response rate of 42.6%. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics.
resultsMost respondents (n = 175; 87.5%) indicated that they use or have used empirical methods in their work. A similar proportion of respondents (61.0% and 59.0%) reported having had at least some training in qualitative or quantitative methods, respectively. Among the 'empirical researchers', more than a fifth (22.9%) had not received any methodological training. It appears that only 6% or less of the 'empirical researchers' considered themselves experts in the methods (qualitative or quantitative) that they have used. Only 35% of the scholars who have used empirical methods reported having integrated empirical data with normative analysis, whereas for their current projects, 59.8% plan to do so.
conclusionsThere is a need to evaluate the current educational programs in bioethics and to implement rigorous training in empirical research methods to ensure that 'empirical researchers' have the necessary skills to conduct their empirical research in bioethics. Also imperative is clear guidance on the integration of the normative and the empirical so that researchers who plan to do so have necessary tools and competences to fulfil their goals.
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.