ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2022
Media codes of ethics for health professionals and media professionals: a qualitative study.
Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical challenges in conducting research in low and middle income setting during public health emergencies: a qualitative evidence of a COVID-19 pandemic: the experience of Iran.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- COVID-19 and Biopolitics: An Essay on Iran.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Media is an opportunity for health professionals; however, it is not free of threats. Fixing the threats requires professional systematization through developing practical guidelines, which brings us to the goal this study was designed to achieve. The study was conducted qualitatively through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group discussion with health and media experts, as a result of which 486 codes were extracted and classified into 4 groups. The first group was addressed to media professionals and contained 126 codes in 5 categories: seeking and reporting the truth, harm minimization, integrity, independence, and respect for the rights of others. The second and third groups were addressed to health professionals, the former (150 codes) dealing with formal media, and the latter (190 codes) dealing with cyberspace. These groups were both categorized into 6 categories: scientific demeanor, beneficence, harm minimization, integrity, maintaining the dignity of the profession and professionals, and respect for the rights of others. The fourth group was addressed to the public audience and contained 20 codes categorized into 2 categories: ethics of belief, and ethics of (re-)publishing. Since the study was conducted during the pandemic/infodemic, the proposed codes can help reduce possible conflicts in similar future situations.
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.