ArticleBMC medical ethics2019
Implementing ethics reflection groups in hospitals: an action research study evaluating barriers and promotors.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- A framework and practical approach to identify and address ethical issues arising in interventional health systems research.International journal of nursing studies · 2026Review
- Meaningful and Successful Ethical Enactments: A Proposal from Deliberative Wisdom Theory.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Article
- How prehospital emergency personnel manage ethical challenges: the importance of confidence, trust, and safety.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- A systematic scoping review of group reflection in medical education.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Ethical Issues in Clinical Decision-Making about Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Training nurses to facilitate and implement CURA in palliative care institutions: development and evaluation of a blended learning program.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- Developing the CARE intervention to enhance ethical self-efficacy in dementia care through the use of literary texts.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Model for developing context-sensitive responses to vulnerability in research: managing ethical dilemmas faced by frontline research staff in Kenya.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Unintended consequences: a qualitative study exploring the impact of collecting implementation process data with phone interviews on implementation activities.Implementation science communications · 2020Article
- The Hidden Curriculum Challenges in Learning Professional Ethics Among Iranian Medical Students: A Qualitative Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2020Article
- Hospital ethics reflection groups: a learning and development resource for clinical practice.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Developing and Testing Digital Ethical Reflection in Long-Term Care: Nurses' Experiences.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.