Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29472677›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2018

What do dental codes of ethics and conduct suggest about attitudes to raising concerns and self-regulation?

A Holden

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

A HoldenLecturer in Dental Ethics, Law and Professionalism, Honourary Associate in the Centre for Sydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Chalmers Street, Surry Hills, NSW, Australia 2010.ORCID 0000-0002-5698-8973

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelCodes of EthicsEthics, DentalProfessional AutonomyDentistryHumansMalpracticeSocieties, Dental

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.