Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37589807›Full record

ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2023

Values, decision-making and empirical bioethics: a conceptual model for empirically identifying and analyzing value judgements.

Marcel Mertz, Ilvie Prince, Ines Pietschmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Marcel MertzInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. mertz.marcel@mh-hannover.de.ORCID 0000-0002-4871-4219
Ilvie PrinceInstitute of Philosophy, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Ines PietschmannDepartment for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Goettingen University Medical Center, Goettingen, Germany.

Funding

Niedersächsische Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur R2N
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It can be assumed that value judgements, which are needed to judge what is 'good' or 'better' and what is 'bad' or 'worse', are involved in every decision-making process. The theoretical understanding and analysis of value judgements is, therefore, important in the context of bioethics, for example, to be able to ethically assess real decision-making processes in biomedical practice and make recommendations for improvements. However, real decision-making processes and the value judgements inherent in them must first be investigated empirically ('empirical bioethics'). For this to succeed, what exactly a 'value judgement' is and of what components it might consist must initially be theoretically clarified. A corresponding conceptual model can then support or even enable empirical data collection and analysis and, above all, subsequent ethical analysis and evaluation. This paper, therefore, presents a value judgement model with its theoretical derivation. It also illustrates its application in an interview study of decision-making between animal experimentation and alternative methods in the context of biomedical research. Though the model itself can be theoretically deepened and extended, the application of the model works in general and helps to uncover what value judgements can enter into decision-making. However, the empirical methods, for example, qualitative interviews, can also be better oriented towards eliciting value judgements (as understood according to the model). Further applications of the model to other topics or by means of other empirical methods are conceivable.

Indexed as

BioethicsBiomedical ResearchEthical AnalysisHumansJudgmentAnimal research ethicsDecision-makingEmpirical bioethicsEthical theoryValue judgementValues

Identifiers

PMID37589807
PMCPMC10643456

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.