ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2019
Medicine and the media: the ethics of virtual medical encounters.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Professional regulation in the digital era: A qualitative case study of three professions in Ontario, Canada.PloS one · 2024Article
- Media codes of ethics for health professionals and media professionals: a qualitative study.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The expansion of new forms of public media, including social media, exposes clinicians to more illness experiences/narratives than ever before and increases the range of ways to interact with the people depicted. Existing professional regulations and ethics codes offer very limited guidance for such situations. We discuss the ethics of responding to such scenarios through presenting three cases of clinicians encountering television or social media stories involving potential unmet healthcare needs. We offer a structured framework for health workers to think through their responses to such situations, based around four key questions for the clinician to deliberate upon: who is vulnerable to harm; what can be done; who is best placed to do it; and what could go wrong? We illustrate the application of this framework to our three cases.
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.