ArticleJournal of medical ethics2019
Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: a Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals' priorities.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing ethical competence and ethical climate: development and psychometric testing of the Clinical Ethics Support Measurement Instrument (CES-MI).BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- 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
- What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2024Article
- Stretching oneself too thin and facing ethical challenges: Healthcare professionals' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.Nursing ethics · 2024Article
- Integrating the Teaching and Assessment of Moral Reasoning into Undergraduate Medical Education to Advance Health Equity.Medical science educator · 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
- Descriptions of long-term impact from inter-professional ethics communication in groups.Nursing ethics · 2023Article
- A vulnerable journey towards professional empathy and moral courage.Nursing ethics · 2022Article
- 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
- "There Was a Sense That Our Load Had Been Lightened": Evaluating Outcomes of Virtual Ethics Rounds for Veterinary Team Members.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Perceptions of important outcomes of moral case deliberations: a qualitative study among healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process.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
backgroundThere is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument (Euro-MCD) instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation.
methodsA North European field survey among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used.
resultsAll outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%-97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. 'Better interactions with patient/family' emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents.
conclusionsThe findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as
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.