Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39557749›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025

Responsibilities of Medical Professionals Amidst Geopolitical Conflict.

Cassondra L Feldman, Nicole Z Spence

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Cassondra L FeldmanCollege of Psychology, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA. cs2196@nova.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0722-224X
Nicole Z SpenceDepartment of Anesthesiology, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ethical responsibilities of healthcare professionals amidst geopolitical conflict, particularly regarding their impact on patient care and healthcare delivery, present a significant challenge, especially during current strife. With the rise of national and international discord and debate, and the close relationship between war and healthcare, healthcare organizations are increasingly pressured to comment, which can reflect societal engagement, but also pose demands for maintaining professionalism. This article discusses the need for healthcare practitioners to navigate their roles in advocacy without compromising patient care, emphasizing the importance of self-reflection, adherence to ethical standards, and effective communication. We also address the implications of politicization within healthcare settings, offering strategies to uphold professional integrity and prioritize patient-centered care amidst the complexities of geopolitical tensions. While the premise of this paper was prompted by geopolitical conflict, the principles emphasized are broadly applicable to an array of controversial issues. By fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect, healthcare professionals can mitigate the risks associated with politicization and ensure a commitment to the fundamental principle of "do no harm."

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelPoliticsSocial ResponsibilityHumans

Identifiers

PMID39557749
PMCPMC11968607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.