ArticleThe Journal of pediatrics2018
Assessing Ethics Knowledge: Development of a Test of Ethics Knowledge in Neonatology.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH and psychometric properties in gastroesophageal reflux: systematic review.Jornal de pediatriaPooled it
- The Pediatric Ethics & Professionalism Assessment Tool (Pedi-EPAT): Development and implementation of a novel, competency-based assessment.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a tool to assess researchers' knowledge of human subjects' rights and their attitudes toward research ethics education in Saudi Arabia.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Decision making at extreme prematurity: Innovation in clinician education.Seminars in perinatology · 2022Article
- Developing a digitally innovative ethics and professionalism curriculum for neonatal-perinatal medicine fellows: a 3-year multicenter pilot study.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2022Article
- Ethics of Pediatric and Young Adult Medical Decision-Making: Case-Based Discussions Exploring Consent, Capacity, and Surrogate Decision-Making.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2021Article
- Testing a Communication Assessment Tool for Ethically Sensitive Scenarios: Protocol of a Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.