Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32616048›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2020

Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process.

J C de Snoo-Trimp, H C W de Vet, G A M Widdershoven, A C Molewijk, M Svantesson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  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.

J C de Snoo-TrimpAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.desnoo@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6344-4886
H C W de VetAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5454-2804
G A M WiddershovenAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7620-6812
A C MolewijkAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1944-9759
M SvantessonFaculty of Medicine and Health, University Health Care Research Center, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0679-5695

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process.

methodsThe revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes.

resultsThe Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. 'now') instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. 'better') and we omitted the question about perceived importance.

conclusionsThe Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.

Indexed as

Ethics ConsultationHumansMoralsNetherlandsNorwaySwedenClinical ethics supportEvaluation researchInstrument revisionMixed methodsMoral case deliberationOutcomesRevision process

Identifiers

PMID32616048
PMCPMC7331166

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.