Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35773683›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

Ethical issues in oncology practice: a qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences and expectations.

Chiara Crico, Virginia Sanchini, Paolo G Casali, Gabriella Pravettoni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2026
    Article
  4. Scoping review of oncology clinical trials nursing: Roles, competencies, and evolving practice in cancer research.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Therapeutic breakthroughs in oncology: Enhancing treatment and management.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Chiara CricoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9742-515X
Virginia SanchiniDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. virginia.sanchini@unimi.it.ORCID 0000-0001-7756-3010
Paolo G CasaliDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4056-8023
Gabriella PravettoniDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4843-4663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) have been established to support healthcare professionals in addressing ethically sensitive issues in clinical practice and, in many countries, they are under development. In the context of growing CESS, exploring how healthcare professionals experience and address clinical ethics issues in their daily practice represents a fundamental step to understand their potential needs. This is even more relevant in the context of extremely sensitive diseases, such as cancer. On this basis, we carried out a qualitative study conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of a major comprehensive cancer centre in Italy, with the twofold aim of investigating what ethical issues arise in the context of clinical oncology and how they are addressed, as well as stakeholders' expectations about a potential CESS to be implemented within the Institution.

methodsThe study was conducted within the theoretical framework of Grounded Theory. Participants were healthcare professionals and other key stakeholders working within the cancer centre. The semi-structured interview aimed at exploring common ethical aspects of oncology, investigating stakeholders' professional experience in dealing with clinical ethics issues, their expectations and requests regarding ethics support services. Transcripts of the interviews were coded and analysed according to the principles of Grounded Theory.

resultsTwenty-one stakeholders were interviewed. Our analysis showed a wide consensus on the identification of ethically relevant issues, above all those concerning communication, end-of-life, and resource allocation. The absence of institutional tools or strategies to address and manage ethical issues at the patient bedside emerged, and this is reflected in the widespread request for their development in the future. The ideal support service should be fast and flexible in order to adapt to different needs and clinical cases.

conclusionsThe interviewees showed a limited degree of 'ethical awareness': despite having reported many issues in clinical practice, they could hardly identify and describe the ethical aspects, while  complaining about a lack of ethical resources in their management. To build a truly effective support service, it therefore seems appropriate to take such context into consideration and address the emerged needs. Ethical sensitivity seems to be key and it becomes even more relevant in critical clinical areas, such as the therapeutic pathways of terminally ill patients.

Indexed as

Ethics, ClinicalMotivationHealth PersonnelHumansMedical OncologyQualitative ResearchClinical Ethics CommitteeClinical ethics supportEnd-of-lifeEthical issue(s)Medical communicationResources allocationSemi-structured interviews

Identifiers

PMID35773683
PMCPMC9248199

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.