Observational studyBMJ open2024
Assessment of the understanding and awareness of bioethics among healthcare professionals in all public and private hospitals of Haripur district, Pakistan: a multicentre cross-sectional study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development and validation of an ethical monopoly board game to teach bioethics to undergraduate medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the level of bioethics awareness among healthcare professionals in Pakistan, focusing on the associations with sociodemographic characteristics, training and teaching of ethics, medical ethics practice and specific ethical issues.
designCross-sectional study.
settingPublic and private hospitals in Haripur, Pakistan.
participantsA total of 647 healthcare professionals participated in this study.
methodsThis study was conducted between March and May 2023, following Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist criterion, involving healthcare professionals with at least 6 months of experience in patient care practice. Providers under close supervision are advised not to respond to the bioethics knowledge, attitudes and practices survey form due to potential ethical dilemmas.
resultsBoth physicians and non-physicians need to know more about bioethics. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in ethical training and teaching based on job categories/designations, with ethical views differing greatly by job designation. Specific ethical issues, such as accepting gifts from patients and pharmaceutical companies, referral fees, advising specific products, disclosure of medical errors, patient confidentiality, not informing patients fully about treatment and performing tasks for financial gain, showed significant associations (p<0.05) with healthcare professional's designation. Ethical awareness scores also showed significant differences (p<0.05) based on age, ethnicity, place of posting, professional experience and the organisation's ethical guidelines.
conclusionThis study highlighted a notable gap in the understanding of certain ethical concerns among healthcare professionals, with nurses showing relatively lower awareness of healthcare practice compared with other professionals. Addressing these issues through targeted training and robust ethical guidelines is critical to improving patient care in Pakistan's healthcare system.
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.