Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31066707›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2019

Testing a Communication Assessment Tool for Ethically Sensitive Scenarios: Protocol of a Validation Study.

Thierry Daboval, Natalie Ward, Jordan R Schoenherr, Gregory P Moore, Caitlin Carew, Alicia Lambrinakos-Raymond, Emanuela Ferretti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Development of a checklist for evaluation of shared decision-making in consultation for extremely preterm delivery.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thierry DabovalDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5321-6193
Natalie WardPerformance and Evaluation, Genome Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8365-332X
Jordan R SchoenherrDepartment of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9636-3874
Gregory P MooreDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2430-7835
Caitlin CarewDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1765-0670
Alicia Lambrinakos-RaymondDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8201-2467
Emanuela FerrettiDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1741-4333
University of Ottawa · CACarleton University · CAGenome Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough well-designed instruments to assess communication during medical interviews and complex encounters exist, assessment tools that differentiate between communication, empathy, decision-making, and moral judgment are needed to assess different aspects of communication during situations defined by ethical conflict. To address this need, we developed an assessment tool that differentiates competencies associated with practice in ethically challenging situations. The competencies are grouped into three distinct categories: communication skills, civility and respectful behavior, clinical and ethical judgment and decision-making.

objectiveThe overall objective of this project is to develop an assessment tool for ethically sensitive scenarios that measures the degree of respect for the attitudes and beliefs of patients and family members, the demands of clinical decision-making, and the success in dealing with ethical conflicts in the clinical context. In this article, we describe the research method we will use during the pilot-test study using the neonatal context to provide validity evidence to support the features of the Assessment Communication Tool for Ethics (ACT4Ethics) instrument.

methodsThis study is part of a multiphase project designed according to modern validity principles including content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and social consequences. The design considers threats to validity such as construct underrepresentation and factors exerting nonrandom influence on scores. This study consists of two primary steps: (1) train the raters in the use of the new tool and (2) pilot-test a simulation using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination. We aim to obtain a total of 90 independent assessments based on the performance of 30 trainees rated by 15 trained raters for analysis. A comparison of raters' responses will allow us to compute a measure of interrater reliability. We will additionally compare the results of ACT4Ethics with another existing instrument.

resultsThis study will take approximately 18 months to complete and the results should be available by September 2019.

conclusionsACT4Ethics should allow clinician-teachers to assess and monitor the development of competency of trainees' judgments and communication skills when facing ethically sensitive clinical situations. The instrument will also guide the provision of meaningful feedback to ensure that trainees develop specific communication, empathy, decision-making, and ethical competencies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/12039.

Indexed as

assessment toolcommunicationethicsmedical educationneonatology

Identifiers

PMID31066707
PMCPMC6530261
OpenAlexW2929122648

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.