Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33717274›Full record

ArticleAsian bioethics review2018

Jonsen's Four Topics Approach as a Framework for Clinical Ethics Consultation.

Hui Jin Toh, James Alvin Low, Zhen Yu Lim, Yvonne Lim, Shahla Siddiqui, Lawrence Tan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian bioethics review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hui Jin TohGeriCare@North, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-4439-7850
James Alvin LowGeriCare@North, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Zhen Yu LimYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yvonne LimClinical Services, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Shahla SiddiquiAnaesthesia, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Lawrence TanGeriatric Medicine, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Khoo Teck Puat Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This was an in-depth qualitative study that looked at the reasons patients were referred to the Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) of an acute hospital in Singapore and explore how the CEC approached cases referred. Jonsen's four topics approach was applied in the deliberative process for all cases. A comprehensive review of the case records of 28 patients referred consecutively to the CEC from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014 was conducted. Data and information was collated from the referral forms, patient medical records, and emails communicated among CEC members. A deductive approach to thematic analysis based on Jonsen's four topics approach was used to analyze the documents. Majority of the patients were male (94%), Chinese (76%), and above 65 years of age (41%). Ethical dilemmas surfaced due to differences in opinion regarding withholding of aggressive management (53%), withdrawing treatment (35%), and ascertaining patient's autonomy (12%). In most cases, the patients' preference on end-of-life care was unknown (82%). The main reasons for referral to the CEC were conflicts in clinical management and uncertainty about the decision-making capacity of patients. The CEC members tended to emphasize on "patient preference" more than the other quadrants in the four topics approach as they worked through each case. The Jonsen's four topics approach lays the groundwork to frame ethical dilemmas that can be easily applied in the clinical setting and is a useful tool for the CEC's teaching and discussion. Nonetheless, the approach only organizes ethical dilemmas and requires clinicians to apply own judgment in weighing ethical principles. Further studies can look into adapting the four topics approach to suit the local practices and context.

Indexed as

Clinical ethical decision makingClinical ethicsDocument analysisEthical dilemmaJonsen's four topics approachQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID33717274
PMCPMC7747427
OpenAlexW2804444850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.