Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36894200›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Evaluating a clinical ethics committee (CEC) implementation process in an oncological research hospital: protocol for a process evaluation study using normalisation process theory (EvaCEC).

Marta Perin, Morten Magelssen, Luca Ghirotto, Ludovica De Panfilis

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05466292 (Evaluation of a Clinical Ethics Committee), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT05466292 completednot on this map

Evaluation of a Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) Implementation Process in an Oncological Research Hospital. A Process Evaluation Study Using Normalization Process Theory

TypeobservationalSponsorAzienda USL Reggio Emilia - IRCCSRan2022 to 2023Enrolled20ConditionsService EvaluationArmsSurvey1, semi-structured interview_1, semi-structured interview_2, semi-structured interview_3, survey_2
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  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.

Marta PerinBioethics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy marta.perin@ausl.re.it.ORCID 0000-0003-4631-7380
Morten MagelssenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Luca GhirottoQualitative Research Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Ludovica De PanfilisBioethics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) is a multi-professional service whose aim is to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organisations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice.Although CEC are quite common worldwide, their successful implementation in a hospital setting presents many challenges.EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC) will evaluate the implementation of a CEC in a comprehensive cancer centre in Northern Italy 16 months after its establishment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EvaCEC is a mixed-method study with a retrospective quantitative analysis and a prospective qualitative evaluation by a range of data collection tools to enable the triangulation of data sources and analysis. Quantitative data related to the amount of CEC activities will be collected using the CEC's internal databases. Data on the level of knowledge, use and perception of the CEC will be collected through a survey with closed-ended questions disseminated among all the HPs employed at the healthcare centre. Data will be analysed with descriptive statistics.The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) will be used for the qualitative evaluation to determine whether and how the CEC can be successfully integrated into clinical practice. We will perform one-to-one semistructured interviews and a second online survey with different groups of stakeholders who had different roles in the implementation process of the CEC. Based on NPT concepts, the interviews and the survey will assess the acceptability of the CEC within the local context and needs and expectations to further develop the service. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the local ethics committee. The project is co-chaired by a PhD candidate and by a healthcare researcher with a doctorate in bioethics and expertise in research. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05466292.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEthics Committees, ClinicalHospitalsHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesETHICS (see Medical Ethics)MEDICAL ETHICSPUBLIC HEALTHQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36894200
PMCPMC10008162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.