Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914461›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

Ethical challenges assessed in the clinical ethics Committee of Psychiatry in the region of Southern Denmark in 2010-2015: a qualitative content analyses.

H Bruun, S G Lystbaek, E Stenager, L Huniche, R 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Challenges of hospital ethics committees: a phenomenological study.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

H BruunDepartment of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. henriette.bruun@rsyd.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-3955-269X
S G LystbaekPsychiatric hospitals, the Region of Southern Denmark, Toldbodgade 45, 5000, Odense, Denmark.
E StenagerDepartment of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
L HunicheUser Perspectives, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
R PedersenCenter for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this article is to give more insight into what ethical challenges clinicians in mental healthcare experience and discuss with a Clinical Ethics Committee in psychiatry in the Region of Southern Denmark. Ethical considerations are an important part of the daily decision-making processes and thereby for the quality of care in mental healthcare. However, such ethical challenges have been given little systematic attention - both in research and in practices.

methodsA qualitative content analysis of 55 written case-reports from the Clinical Ethics Committee. The Committee offers clinicians in mental healthcare structured ethical analyses of ethical challenges and makes a thorough written case-report.

resultsThe ethical challenges are grouped into three overarching topics: 1. Clinicians and their relation to patients and relatives. 2. Clinicians and institutional aspects of mental healthcare 3. Clinicians and mental healthcare in a wider social context. Through presentation of illustrative examples the complexity of daily clinical life in mental healthcare becomes evident, as well as typical interests, values and arguments.

conclusionsThis qualitative study indicates that difficult ethical challenges are an inherent part of mental healthcare that requires time, space and competence to be dealt with adequately.

Indexed as

Ethics CommitteesDenmarkFamilyGuideline AdherenceHumansMental DisordersPaternalismPersonal AutonomyPsychiatryPsychotic DisordersQualitative ResearchRespectClinical ethics committeeEthical challengesHealth-care professionalsMental healthcareQualitative content analysis

Identifiers

PMID29914461
PMCPMC6006832

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.