Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31311525›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Implementing ethics reflection groups in hospitals: an action research study evaluating barriers and promotors.

Henriette Bruun, Reidar Pedersen, Elsebeth Stenager, Christian Backer Mogensen, Lotte Huniche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Henriette BruunFocused Research Unit in Psychiatry, Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19,3, 5000, Odense C, Denmark. henriette.bruun@rsyd.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-3955-269X
Reidar PedersenCenter for medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Kirkevejen 166, 0450, Oslo, Norway.
Elsebeth StenagerFocused Research Unit in Psychiatry, Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19,3, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Christian Backer MogensenFocused Research Unit in Emergency Medicine Institute for Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19,3, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Lotte HunicheDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a range of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the implementation process of interdisciplinary ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ERG implementation to include both psychiatric and general hospital departments.

methodsThe implementation and evaluation strategies are inspired by action research, using a qualitative approach and systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers.

resultsThe implementation process was influenced by both structural factors and factors related to clinicians having different values, interests and experiences. Structural barriers and promotors in the process to implement ERG included the following sub-categories: Organizational factors, recruitment and training of ethics facilitators, the deliberation model, planning and recruitment of participants to the ERGs, the support of the ward managers and the project group. Barriers and promotors found among clinicians included the following sub-categories: Expectations and pre-understandings of ERGs, understandings of a physician's job, challenges experienced by ethics facilitators. At the end of the study, when it was decided that the ERGs should be continued, the implementation strategies were remodeled by the participants to meet new challenges.

conclusionThe study of ERG implementation identified important structural and professional barriers and promotors that are likely to be relevant to anyone wanting to implement ethics support services across various types of healthcare services.

Indexed as

Ethics, ClinicalEthics Committees, ClinicalFocus GroupsHealth Services ResearchHospital DepartmentsHumansInterviews as TopicProgram DevelopmentAction researchEmergency hospitalERGEvaluationImplementationPsychiatric hospital

Identifiers

PMID31311525
PMCPMC6636139

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.