ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2024
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionIn their practice, pharmacists are confronted with situations that may pose ethical problems. They must make decisions based on scientific knowledge as well as the principles of bioethics.
aimTo evaluate pharmacists' attitudes towards specific ethical dilemmas.
methodsWe conducted our study using a validated English questionnaire, containing 9 ethical scenarios to be rated by participants on a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was distributed via Google Forms on Facebook pages and Messenger and WhatsApp groups. The data were processed with Microsoft Excel and statistical tests were performed using SPSS version 23.
resultsThe participants in our study achieved 70% of the total score for all encountered situations. We found that in response to the non-maleficence scenario of "Dispensing amphetamines to a medical student," pharmacists exhibited the most ethical attitude compared to other studied situations. In general, confidentiality scenarios received the highest number of "disagree" responses, while the least ethical attitude concerned justice scenarios. We also found a significant correlation between supplementary ethics training and the dimensions of confidentiality and non-maleficence .
conclusionOur study, the first of its kind in Tunisia, highlighted the need to strengthen medical ethics training for pharmacists.
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.