ArticleBMC medical ethics2019
Do we understand the intervention? What complex intervention research can teach us for the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS).
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Should Artificial Intelligence be used to support clinical ethical decision-making? A systematic review of reasons.BMC medical ethics · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of ethics communication in health care: a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC medical ethics · 2025Trial
- 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 · 2026Article
- Experiences with remote ethics consultation: a qualitative study with ethics consultants in Germany.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Applications of Medical Mediation: A Systematic Review of Its Role in Healthcare Dispute Resolution and Bioethical Decision-Making.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Blurred lines: Ethical challenges related to autonomy in home-based care.Nursing ethics · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of CURA: Healthcare professionals' moral resilience and moral competences.Nursing ethics · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients: a survey among German anesthesiologists and internists.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- CURA-An Ethics Support Instrument for Nurses in Palliative Care. Feasibility and First Perceived Outcomes.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2023Article
- Two years of ethics reflection groups about coercion in psychiatry. Measuring variation within employees' normative attitudes, user involvement and the handling of disagreement.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Article
- Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Framework for evaluation research on clinical ethical case interventions: the role of ethics consultants.Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- Field-Testing the Euro-MCD Instrument: Important Outcomes According to Participants Before and After Moral Case Deliberation.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2022Article
- Conceptualizing the impact of moral case deliberation: a multiple-case study in a health care institution for people with intellectual disabilities.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Methods for the health technology assessment of complex interventions: a protocol for a scoping review.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Implementing clinical ethics committees as a complex intervention: presentation of a feasibility study in community care.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been hailed as important research task. At the same time, there is considerable debate about how to evaluate CESS appropriately. The criticism, which has been aired, refers to normative as well as empirical aspects of evaluating CESS. MAIN BODY: In this paper, we argue that a first necessary step for progress is to better understand the intervention(s) in CESS. Tools of complex intervention research methodology may provide relevant means in this respect. In a first step, we introduce principles of "complex intervention research" and show how CESS fulfil the criteria of "complex interventions". In a second step, we develop a generic "conceptual framework" for "ethics consultation on request" as standard for many forms of ethics consultation in clinical ethics practice. We apply this conceptual framework to the model of "bioethics mediation" to make explicit the specific structural and procedural elements of this form of ethics consultation on request. In a final step we conduct a comparative analysis of two different types of CESS, which have been subject to evaluation research: "proactive ethics consultation" and "moral case deliberation" and discuss implications for evaluating both types of CESS.
conclusionTo make explicit different premises of implemented CESS interventions by means of conceptual frameworks can inform the search for sound empirical evaluation of CESS. In addition, such work provides a starting point for further reflection about what it means to offer "good" CESS.
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.