ArticleClinical ethics2017
Is healthcare providers' value-neutrality depending on how controversial a medical intervention is? Analysis of 10 more or less controversial interventions.
Article in Clinical ethics, 2017. 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.
- What do medical students think about conscientious objection? A cross-sectional study from Turkey.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The Evolving Landscape of Global Surgery: A Qualitative Study of North American Surgeons' Perspectives on Faith-Based and Academic Initiatives.Journal of religion and health · 2022Article
- How to reveal disguised paternalism: version 2.0.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Value-impregnated factual claims may undermine medical decision-making.Clinical ethics · 2018Article
- "Right to recommend, wrong to require"- an empirical and philosophical study of the views among physicians and the general public on smoking cessation as a condition for surgery.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSwedish healthcare providers are supposed to be value-neutral when making clinical decisions. Recent conducted studies among Swedish physicians have indicated that the proportion of those whose personal values influence decision-making (the value-influenced) vary depending on the framing and the nature of the issue.
objectiveTo examine whether the proportions of value-influenced and value-neutral participants vary depending on the extent to which the intervention is considered controversial.
methodsTo discriminate between value-neutral and value-influenced healthcare providers, we have used the same methods in six vignette based studies including 10 more or less controversial interventions. To be controversial was understood as being an intervention where conscientious objections in healthcare have been proposed or an intervention that is against law and regulations.
resultsEnd of life decisions and female reproduction issues are associated with conscientious objection and more or less against regulations, and also resulted in the highest proportions of value-influenced participants. Following routines, which is not in conflict with official values, were associated with one of the lowest proportion of value-influenced participants. The difference between the highest and lowest proportions of value-influenced participants among the 10 examined interventions was significant (81.8% (95% confidence interval: 78.1-85.5) versus 34.7% (95% confidence interval: 29.2-40.2)).
conclusionThe study indicates that the proportions of value-neutral participants decrease the more controversial an issue is, and vice versa. In some cases, however, framing effects may potentiate or obscure this association. As a bold hypothesis, we suggest the proportion of value-neutral or value-influenced might indicate how controversial an issue is.
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.