ArticleCroatian medical journal2021
How health care professionals confront and solve ethical dilemmas - a tale of two countries: Slovenia and Croatia.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurses' Perspectives on Unmet Social, Psychological, and Spiritual Needs of Palliative Patients in Croatia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Conscience clause in brain death care: ethical and legal perspectives of young nurses and midwives in Poland.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Tough Clinical Decisions: Experiences of Polish Physicians.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2024Article
- Knowledge of and attitudes towards medical research ethics among first year doctoral students in Slovenia at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana.BMC medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the differences in the way how Slovenian and Croatian health care professionals (HCPs) confront ethical dilemmas and perceive the role of hospital ethics committees (HECs).
methodsThis cross-sectional, survey-based study involved HCPs from three Slovenian and five Croatian university medical centers (UMC). The final sample sizes were 308 (244 or 79.2% women) for Slovenia and 485 (398 or 82.1% women) for Croatia.
resultsCompared with Croatian physicians, Slovenian physicians reported a higher share of ethical dilemmas regarding waiting periods for diagnostics or treatment, suboptimal working conditions due to interpersonal relationships in the ward, and end-of-life treatment withdrawal, and a lower share regarding access to palliative care and patient information protection. Compared with Croatian nurses, Slovenian nurses reported a lower share of ethical dilemmas regarding the distribution of limited resources, recognizing the patient's best interests, and access to palliative care. Compared with Croatian other HCPs, Slovenian other HCPs reported a lower burden of ethical dilemmas regarding waiting periods for diagnostics or treatment, distribution of limited resources, and access to palliative care. When encountering an ethical dilemma, all HCPs in both countries would first consult their colleagues. Slovenian and Croatian HCPs recognized the importance of the HECs to a similar extent, but viewed their role differently.
conclusionCroatian and Slovenian HCPs are confronted with different ethical dilemmas and perceive the role of HECs differently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33938651PMC8107988What 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.