Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30400913›Full record

ReviewBMC medical ethics2018

Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review.

Maaike M Haan, Jelle L P van Gurp, Simone M Naber, A Stef Groenewoud

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Case-Based Clinical Ethics Support - A Description and Normative Discussion of Methodological Issues from the Swedish Perspective.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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
  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

4 authors.

Maaike M HaanRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21, P.O. Box 9101 (114), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Maaike.Haan@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8430-2564
Jelle L P van GurpRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21, P.O. Box 9101 (114), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Simone M NaberRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21, P.O. Box 9101 (114), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
A Stef GroenewoudRadboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21, P.O. Box 9101 (114), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn important and supposedly impactful form of clinical ethics support is moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical evidence, however, is limited with regard to its actual impact. With this literature review, we aim to investigate the empirical evidence of MCD, thereby a) informing the practice, and b) providing a focus for further research on and development of MCD in healthcare settings.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science (June 2016). Both the data collection and the qualitative data analysis followed a stepwise approach, including continuous peer review and careful documentation of our decisions. The qualitative analysis was supported by ATLAS.ti.

resultsBased on a qualitative analysis of 25 empirical papers, we identified four clusters of themes: 1) facilitators and barriers in the preparation and context of MCD, i.e., a safe and open atmosphere created by a facilitator, a concrete case, commitment of participants, a focus on the moral dimension, and a supportive organization; 2) changes that are brought about on a personal and inter-professional level, with regard to professional's feelings of relief, relatedness and confidence; understanding of the perspectives of colleagues, one's own perspective and the moral issue at stake; and awareness of the moral dimension of one's work and awareness of the importance of reflection; 3) changes that are brought about in caring for patients and families; and 4) changes that are brought about on an organizational level.

conclusionsThis review shows that MCD brings about changes in practice, mostly for the professional in inter-professional interactions. Most reported changes are considered positive, although challenges, frustrations and absence of change were also reported. Empirical evidence of a concrete impact on the quality of patient care is limited and is mostly based on self-reports. With patient-focused and methodologically sound qualitative research, the practice and the value of MCD in healthcare settings can be better understood, thus making a stronger case for this kind of ethics support.

Indexed as

Ethics, ClinicalEthics ConsultationMoralsHumansCaregivers (MeSH)Clinical ethics (MeSH)Clinical ethics supportHealthcare professionalsHealth personnel (MeSH)Moral case deliberationMoral reflectionOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID30400913
PMCPMC6219174

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.