Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29754867›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of pediatrics2018

Assessing Ethics Knowledge: Development of a Test of Ethics Knowledge in Neonatology.

Christy L Cummings, Gina M Geis, Henry A Feldman, Elisa R Berson, Jennifer C Kesselheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Christy L CummingsDivision of Newborn Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: christy.cummings@childrens.harvard.edu.
Gina M GeisDivision of Neonatology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY.
Henry A FeldmanInstitutional Centers for Clinical and Translational Research, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Elisa R BersonDivision of Newborn Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Jennifer C KesselheimMaster of Medical Sciences in Medical Education Program, Harvard Medical School, Dana Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, MA.

Funding

NICHD NIH HHS L40 HD085254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and validate the Test of Ethics Knowledge in Neonatology (TEK-Neo) with good internal consistency reliability, item performance, and construct validity that reliably assesses interprofessional staff and trainee knowledge of neonatal ethics. STUDY

designWe adapted a published test of ethics knowledge for use in neonatology. The novel instrument had 46 true/false questions distributed among 7 domains of neonatal ethics: ethical principles, professionalism, genetic testing, beginning of life/viability, end of life, informed permission/decision making, and research ethics. Content and correct answers were derived from published statements and guidelines. We administered the voluntary, anonymous test via e-mailed link to 103 participants, including medical students, neonatology fellows, neonatologists, neonatology nurses, and pediatric ethicists. After item reduction, we examined psychometric properties of the resulting 36-item test and assessed overall sample performance.

resultsThe overall response rate was 27% (103 of 380). The test demonstrated good internal reliability (Cronbach α = 0.66), with a mean score of 28.5 ± 3.4 out of the maximum 36. Participants with formal ethics training performed better than those without (30.3 ± 2.9 vs 28.1 ± 3.5; P = .01). Performance improved significantly with higher levels of medical/ethical training among the 5 groups: medical students, 25.9 ± 3.7; neonatal nurses/practitioners, 27.7 ± 2.7; neonatologists, 28.8 ± 3.7; neonatology fellows, 29.8 ± 2.9; and clinical ethicists, 33.0 ± 1.9 (P < .0001).

conclusionsThe TEK-Neo reliably assesses knowledge of neonatal ethics among interprofessional staff and trainees in neonatology. This novel tool discriminates between learners with different levels of expertise and can be used interprofessionally to assess individual and group performance, track milestone progression, and address curricular gaps in neonatal ethics.

Indexed as

Decision MakingInternship and ResidencyAdultEthics, MedicalFemaleHumansMaleNeonatologyPsychometricsSurveys and Questionnairesassessmentmedical educationmedical ethicsmilestonesprofessionalism

Identifiers

PMID29754867
PMCPMC13244496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.