Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36494709›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical ethics2022

Research, education, ethics consultation: evaluating a Bioethics Unit in an Oncological Research Hospital.

Ludovica De Panfilis, Morten Magelssen, Massimo Costantini, Luca Ghirotto, Giovanna Artioli, Elena Turola, Marta Perin

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Ludovica De PanfilisBioethics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Morten MagelssenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Massimo CostantiniScientific Directorate, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Luca GhirottoQualitative Research Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giovanna ArtioliDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Elena TurolaScientific Directorate, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Marta PerinBioethics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. marta.perin@ausl.re.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the activities of a Bioethics Unit (BU) 5 years since its implementation (2016-2020). The BU is a research unit providing empirical research on ethical issues related to clinical practice, clinical ethics consultation, and ethical education for health care professionals (HPS).

methodsWe performed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method, observational study, using the subsequent qualitative data to explain the initial quantitative findings. Quantitative data were collected from an internal database and analyzed by descriptive analysis. Qualitative evaluation was performed by semi-structured interviews with 18 HPs who were differently involved in the BU's activities and analyzed by framework analysis.

resultsQuantitative results showed an extensive increment of the number of BU research projects over the years and the number of work collaborations with other units and wards. Qualitative findings revealed four main themes, concerning: 1. the reasons for contacting the BU and the type of collaboration; 2. the role of the bioethicist; 3. the impact of BU activities on HPs, in terms of developing deeper and more mature thinking; 4. the need to extend ethics support to other settings. Overall, our results showed that performing both empirical bioethics research and more traditional clinical ethics activities at the same unit would produce an impetus to increase collaboration and spread an 'ethical culture' among local HPs.

conclusionsOur findings contribute to a growing body of literature on the models of clinical ethics support services and the role of empirical research in bioethics internationally. They also prepare the ground for the implementation of a multidisciplinary Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) that aims to support the BU's ethics consultation service within the local context.

Indexed as

BioethicsEthics ConsultationEthicistsEthics, ClinicalHospitalsHumansClinical ethicsEmpirical bioethicsEthicsEthics support servicesMixed-method research

Identifiers

PMID36494709
PMCPMC9733101

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.