Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33602193›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2021

Using practical wisdom to facilitate ethical decision-making: a major empirical study of phronesis in the decision narratives of doctors.

Mervyn Conroy, Aisha Y Malik, Catherine Hale, Catherine Weir, Alan Brockie, Chris Turner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Discovering clinical phronesis.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A virtuous framework for professional reflection.Future healthcare journal · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Phronesis in Medical Ethics: Courage and Motivation to Keep on the Track of Rightness in Decision-Making.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mervyn ConroyHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Aisha Y MalikWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. ath3@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1751-2806
Catherine HaleWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Catherine WeirHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alan BrockieHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Chris TurnerEmergency Medicine, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Arts and Humanities Research Council AH/M006646/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical ethics has recently seen a drive away from multiple prescriptive approaches, where physicians are inundated with guidelines and principles, towards alternative, less deontological perspectives. This represents a clear call for theory building that does not produce more guidelines. Phronesis (practical wisdom) offers an alternative approach for ethical decision-making based on an application of accumulated wisdom gained through previous practice dilemmas and decisions experienced by practitioners. Phronesis, as an 'executive virtue', offers a way to navigate the practice virtues for any given case to reach a final decision on the way forward. However, very limited empirical data exist to support the theory of phronesis-based medical decision-making, and what does exist tends to focus on individual practitioners rather than practice-based communities of physicians.

methodsThe primary research question was: What does it mean to medical practitioners to make ethically wise decisions for patients and their communities? A three-year ethnographic study explored the practical wisdom of doctors (n = 131) and used their narratives to develop theoretical understanding of the concepts of ethical decision-making. Data collection included narrative interviews and observations with hospital doctors and General Practitioners at all stages in career progression. The analysis draws on neo-Aristotelian, MacIntyrean concepts of practice- based virtue ethics and was supported by an arts-based film production process.

resultsWe found that individually doctors conveyed many different practice virtues and those were consolidated into fifteen virtue continua that convey the participants' 'collective practical wisdom', including the phronesis virtue. This study advances the existing theory and practice on phronesis as a decision-making approach due to the availability of these continua.

conclusionGiven the arguments that doctors feel professionally and personally vulnerable in the context of ethical decision-making, the continua in the form of a video series and app based moral debating resource can support before, during and after decision-making reflection. The potential implications are that these theoretical findings can be used by educators and practitioners as a non-prescriptive alternative to improve ethical decision-making, thereby addressing the call in the literature, and benefit patients and their communities, as well.

Indexed as

MoralsPhysiciansEthics, MedicalHumansNarrationVirtuesClinical leadershipDecision-makingNeo-AristoteleanPhronesisPractical wisdomPractice virtue ethics

Identifiers

PMID33602193
PMCPMC7890840
OpenAlexW3120124881

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.