Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29871682›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

The significance of ethics reflection groups in mental health care: a focus group study among health care professionals.

Marit Helene Hem, Bert Molewijk, Elisabeth Gjerberg, Lillian Lillemoen, Reidar Pedersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Financial medicine as a source of moral distress: An unrecognised pathway to moral injury in the South African EMS systems.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Making the (Business) Case for Clinical Ethics Support in the UK.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Marit Helene HemCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway. marit.helene.hem@vid.no.ORCID 0000-0001-7648-9058
Bert MolewijkCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Elisabeth GjerbergCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Lillian LillemoenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Reidar PedersenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1130, Blindern, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfessionals within the mental health services face many ethical dilemmas and challenging situations regarding the use of coercion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the significance of participating in systematic ethics reflection groups focusing on ethical challenges related to coercion.

methodsIn 2013 and 2014, 20 focus group interviews with 127 participants were conducted. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis is inspired by the concept of 'bricolage' which means our approach was inductive.

resultsMost participants report positive experiences with participating in ethics reflection groups: A systematic and well-structured approach to discuss ethical challenges, increased consciousness of formal and informal coercion, a possibility to challenge problematic concepts, attitudes and practices, improved professional competence and confidence, greater trust within the team, more constructive disagreement and room for internal critique, less judgmental reactions and more reasoned approaches, and identification of potential for improvement and alternative courses of action. On several wards, the participation of psychiatrists and psychologists in the reflection groups was missing. The impact of the perceived lack of safety in reflection groups should not be underestimated. Sometimes the method for ethics reflection was utilised in a rigid way. Direct involvement of patients and family was missing.

conclusionThis focus group study indicates the potential of ethics reflection groups to create a moral space in the workplace that promotes critical, reflective and collaborative moral deliberations. Future research, with other designs and methodologies, is needed to further investigate the impact of ethics reflection groups on improving health care practices.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCoercionEthical AnalysisGroup ProcessesHealth PersonnelCommunicationCooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health CareFemaleFocus GroupsHospitalsHumansMaleMental DisordersMental HealthMental Health ServicesCoercionEthics reflection groupsFocus group studyHealth care professionalsMental health care

Identifiers

PMID29871682
PMCPMC5989396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.