ArticleBritish dental journal2018
What do dental codes of ethics and conduct suggest about attitudes to raising concerns and self-regulation?
Article in British dental journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Scoping Review of Comparative Healthcare Codes of Ethics Studies.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Control, access and professionalism: a qualitative evaluation of Australian dental practitioners attitudes to expanding medicare to include more dental services.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Breaking the silence: confidence and barriers in raising concerns among undergraduate dental students- "a national study".BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Exploring the evolution of a dental code of ethics: a critical discourse analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
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
Background The ability of the dental profession to self-regulate and address poor performance or impairment is crucial if practitioners are to demonstrate a public commitment to patient safety. Failure of the profession to actively engage in this activity is likely to call into question trustworthiness and ability to place the interests of patients and the public first.Aim To investigate attitudes towards self-regulation and the raising of concerns as expressed through the ethical codes of different dental professional and regulatory organisations.Method A qualitative review of professional codes of ethics written and published by dental associations and regulatory bodies using thematic analysis to discern common attitudes and perspectives on self-regulation.Results Four main themes were identified; (1) explicit expression of the need to report; (2) warning against frivolous reporting; (3) acceptance of reporting being difficult and; (4) threshold requiring a professional to report. From these themes, common and differing attitudes were then explored.Conclusions This review shows that often codes of ethics and practice do discuss an obligation to self-regulate and raise concerns but that this is accompanied by an anxiety surrounding unsubstantiated or malicious reporting. This gives the collective guidance a defensive tone and message that may be unhelpful in promoting a culture of openness and candour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29472677What 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.