ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024
Ethical conflicts in patient care situations of community pharmacists: a cross-sectional online survey.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Access to Nicotine Vaping Products for Smoking Cessation: Pharmacist Needs and Practice Implications in South-East Melbourne.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
- Ethical perspectives of Brazilian community pharmacists: a pilot study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Public Perceptions of Ethical and Professional Practice in Jordanian Community Pharmacies: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Fostering moral reflectivity in community pharmacists through moral case deliberation using the dilemma method.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity pharmacy practice is rarely considered in ethical research, although various ethical conflicts are known for this setting. Data on the actual frequency and perceived burden of ethical conflicts occurring in the community pharmacy setting are required.
aimThe survey aimed at investigating the frequency and perceived burden of ethical conflicts, reasons for the perceived burden and influences on decision-making in ethical conflicts in German community pharmacists.
methodAn online survey was conducted among community pharmacists. It contained 15 ethical conflicts in which the ethically required action conflicts with another principle (e.g. law). Basing on these conflicting principles, 12 considerations relevant for decision-making were defined (e.g. solidarity principle). Participants were asked to rate the ethical conflicts in terms of frequency and perceived burden and to rate the influence on decision-making for the considerations. Results were analysed descriptively.
resultsFive hundred and thirty-five questionnaires were evaluated. The participant's median age was 39 (min-max: 20-78) years, 378 (71%) were female. Seven of the 15 predefined ethical conflicts were rated as occurring predominantly at least once a week. "Generic drug is not most suitable" was rated as the most frequent. Three ethical conflicts were rated mainly with a (very) strong burden. "Concerns for an unborn child" was rated as the most burdensome. Three of the 12 predefined decision-making considerations: pharmaceutical knowledge, legal requirements and personal values were rated primarily as having a very strong influence on decision-making.
conclusionPharmacists in community pharmacies are frequently affected by burdensome ethical conflicts in patient care situations.
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.