Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36624427›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2023

Exploring what is reasonable: uncovering moral reasoning of vascular surgeons in daily practice.

Kaja Heidenreich, Mia Svantesson, Marit Karlsson, Anders Bremer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kaja HeidenreichFaculty of Medicine and Health, University Health Care Research Centre, Örebro University, S-Huset, 2nd Floor, 70182, Örebro, Sweden. kaja.heidenreich@regionorebrolan.se.
Mia SvantessonFaculty of Medicine and Health, University Health Care Research Centre, Örebro University, S-Huset, 2nd Floor, 70182, Örebro, Sweden.
Marit KarlssonDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, 58183, Linköping, Sweden.
Anders BremerFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, 35195, Växjö, Sweden.
Örebro University · SELinköping University · SELinnaeus University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVascular surgery offers a range of treatments to relieve pain and ulcerations, and to prevent sudden death by rupture of blood vessels. The surgical procedures involve risk of injury and harm, which increases with age and frailty leading to complex decision-making processes that raise ethical questions. However, how vascular surgeons negotiate these questions is scarcely studied. The aim was therefore to explore vascular surgeons' moral reasoning of what ought to be done for the patient.

methodsQualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 vascular surgeons working at three Swedish university hospitals. Data were analysed according to systematic text condensation.

resultsThe surgeons' moral reasoning about what ought to be done comprised a quest to relieve suffering and avoid harm by exploring what is reasonable to do for the patient. Exploring reasonableness included to shift one´s perspective from the vessels to the whole person, to balance patient's conflicting needs and to place responsibility for right decision on one´s shoulders. The shift from blood vessels to the whole person implied gaining holistic knowledge in pondering of what is best, struggling with one´s authority for surgery through dialogue, and building relationship for mutual security. To balance patient's conflicting needs implied weighing the patient's independence and a sense of being whole against ease of suffering, respecting the patient's will against protecting life and well-being, and weighing longer life against protecting the present well-being. Finally, to place responsibility on one´s shoulders was conveyed as an urge to remind oneself of the risk of complications, withholding one's power of proficiency, and managing time during the illness course.

conclusionsThis study contributes to uncovering how moral reasoning is embodied in the vascular surgeons' everyday clinical discourse as a tangible part of their patient care. The results underpin the significance of moral considerations in the assemblage of medical knowledge and technical skills to further understand vascular surgeons' clinical practice. The clinical application of these results is the need of forums with sufficient possibilities for articulating these important moral considerations in everyday care.

Indexed as

MoralsSurgeonsHumansSwedenDecision-makingMedical ethicsPhysiciansQualitative researchSurgeons

Identifiers

PMID36624427
PMCPMC9827683
OpenAlexW4313814521

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.