ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2019
In search of good care: the methodology of phenomenological, theory-oriented 'N=N case studies' in empirically grounded ethics of care.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating ethics in digital mental healthcare technologies: a principle-based empirically grounded roadmap approach.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Factors limiting presence: Perceptions of nurses working in a public psychiatric hospital.Curationis · 2022Article
- The group home as moral laboratory: tracing the ethic of autonomy in Dutch intellectual disability care.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Professional Medical Discourse and the Emergence of Practical Wisdom in Everyday Practices: Analysis of a Keyhole Case.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020Article
- Training Actors' Knowledge of the Lived Experience of People With Advanced Dementia.Gerontology & geriatric medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper proposes a new perspective on the methodology of qualitative inquiry in (care) ethics, especially the interaction between empirical work and theory development, and introduces standards to evaluate the quality of this inquiry and its findings. The kind of qualitative inquiry the authors are proposing brings to light what participants in practices of care and welfare do and refrain from doing, and what they undergo, in order to offer 'stepping stones', political-ethical insights that originate in the practice studied and enable practitioners to deal with newly emerging moral issues. As the authors' aim is to study real-life complexity of inevitably morally imprinted care processes, their empirical material typically consists of extensive and comprehensive descriptions of exemplary cases. For their research aim the number of cases is not decisive, as long as the rigorous analysis of the cases studied provides innovative theoretical insights into the practice studied. Another quality criterion of what they propose that should be called 'N=N case studies' is the approval the findings receive from the participants in the practice studied.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30903407What 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.