ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Effectiveness of formal training in bioethics of 3
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bioethical knowledge in students and health professionals: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Bioethics training needs assessment for HIV research in vulnerable populations: a survey of trainees at college of health sciences, Makerere university.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Development and validation of an ethical monopoly board game to teach bioethics to undergraduate medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Knowledge and perception about bioethics: A comparative study of private and government medical college students of Karachi Pakistan.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite well-described code of conduct for physician the recent increase in litigation against doctors is an issue of concern which says that doctors and health professionals are confronted with many ethical problems regularly. The aim of the present study was to see the ability to recognize different bioethical issues in relation to patient care among 3
methodsThis cross-sectional study was carried out using self-administered questionnaire among the fifty 3
resultsAll of the respondents in the study group were of the opinion that medical ethics is very important but only 24% aware about existence of ethics committee in the institute. Changes has been observed after clinical exposure in response like disclosure of patient's condition to close relatives (agreed 54% versus 84% pre and postexposure, respectively) and discussion of related ethical issues with clinical case discussion (agreed 74% versus 94% pre and postexposure, respectively). Some of the issues needs further clarification even after clinical exposure like doctors must not refuse to do abortion (56% disagreed and 38% agreed), consent regarding treatment in children (60% disagreed and 32% agreed), and uses of branded versus generic drugs (76% generic and 26% branded).
conclusionThere is a need to stress the importance of ethical practice in the undergraduate curriculum to make the doctors confident enough to deal the ethical dilemma for themselves and better professional efficiency.
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.