ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Pharmacy ethical reasoning: a comparison of Australian pharmacists and interns.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 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.
- Ethical conflicts in patient care situations of community pharmacists: a cross-sectional online survey.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an interactive education workshop on hospital pharmacists' ethical reasoning: an observational study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Observational
- Situational judgment using ethical reasoning in Saudi undergraduate pharmacy students.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Perspectives of community pharmacists in Pakistan about practice change and implementation of extended pharmacy services: a mixed method study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- How do healthcare professionals respond to ethical challenges regarding information management? A review of empirical studies.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Ethical reasoning informs decision making and professional judgement, is guided by codes of ethics and conduct, and requires navigation through a regulatory framework. Ethical reasoning should evolve throughout the pharmacy internship year and prepare interns for independent practice. Objective To explore the ethical reasoning and processes of Australian pharmacists and pharmacy interns. Setting Queensland community pharmacists and interns. Method A survey to determine use of resources to guide ethical decisions, management of ethical dilemmas, and exposure to potential practice privacy breaches. Participants were recruited at pharmacy intern training events, a pharmacist education session and through telephone contact of randomised community pharmacies. Main outcome measure Comparison between pharmacist and intern responses using 5-point Likert scales, listings and prioritising. Results In total 218 completed surveys were analysed: 121 pharmacy interns and 97 pharmacists. The Code of Ethics was identified as the resource most frequently consulted when faced with ethical dilemmas. Interns were more likely to consult legislation and regulatory authorities whereas pharmacists with colleagues. Responses to ethical vignette scenarios and exposure to privacy breaches varied between interns and pharmacists, with some scenarios revealing significant differences. Most participants had been exposed to a variety of potential privacy breaches in practice. Conclusion Interns focussed on legislation and guidelines when presented with hypothetical ethical dilemmas. In contrast to this positivist approach, pharmacists reported using a social constructionist approach with peers as a reference. Pharmacists avoided ethical scenario options that required complex management. Interns reported more exposure to potential practice privacy breaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31093939What 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.