ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2022
Knowledge and practices of bioethics - Need for periodic assessment and reinstatement for budding family physicians.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioethical knowledge in students and health professionals: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study has been designed to assess the knowledge of ethics amongst young students and professionals, and practices of health care ethics among medical professionals in a government teaching hospital in India. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was carried out at one of the teaching hospitals in Southern India with a sample size of 84 among fresh medical graduates, post-graduate trainees, and young consultants with work experience of 6 months to 8 years. The data were collected by means of a structured and validated questionnaire, and the questionnaire was administered before and after a lecture/seminar on ethical principles, and results were analyzed using SPSS software. Results: The maximum participants were in the age group of 20 to 24 years with 0-2 years of clinical experience. The basic awareness and practices before the workshop were quite less when compared to after the workshop which showed a very good improvement in the correct responses to the questions. The maximum change seen, reflected in curiosity to learn bioethics. The workshop was an eye-opener for many participants in terms of the Nuremberg Code and its origin. The ethics committee was an alien concept to many participants, and it was reflected in the response postworkshop. The students felt a strong need to discuss ethics and implement them postworkshop. The segment on attitudes in clinical practice showed an impact on autonomy and truth-telling (32% to 50%). The segment on ethical practices reflected a confused audience. The increase in sensitivity to police information, and the concept of error of judgment and negligence were positive. The fact that medical practitioners are legally bound to help accident victims showed a positive response. Conclusion: Based on the assessment of pre-and post-workshop, there is a strong need to stress the ethical principles and revision of these ideas from time to time. Workshops and interactive sessions are a good way for periodic assessment and reinstatement of these values in our research and clinical practice. Thus, these should be part of the curriculum across all educational institutions for budding primary care providers and family physicians.
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.