ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Regulating professional ethics in a context of technological change.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Organizational determinants of professional ethics among healthcare workers: implications for health system performance.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnological change is impacting the work of health professionals, especially with recent developments in artificial intelligence. Research has raised many ethical considerations respecting clinical applications of artificial intelligence, and it has identified a role for professional regulation in helping to guide practitioners in the ethical use of technology; however, regulation in this area has been slow to develop. This study seeks to identify the challenges that health professionals face in the context of technological change, and whether regulators' codes of ethics and guidance are sufficient to help workers navigate these changes.
methodsWe conducted mixed methods research in Ontario, Canada, using qualitative content analysis of regulators' codes of ethics and practice guidance (26 regulators, 63 documents analysed), interviews with 7 representatives from 5 health profession regulatory bodies, and focus groups with 17 healthcare practitioners across 5 professions in the province. We used thematic analysis to analyse the data and answer our core research questions.
resultsWe find that codes of ethics focus more on general principles and managing practitioners' relationships with clients/patients; hence, it is not clear that these documents can successfully guide professional practice in a context of rapid technological change. Practitioners and regulatory body staff express ambivalence and uncertainty about regulators' roles in regulating technology use. In some instances, health professionals experience conflict between the expectations of their regulator and their employer. These gaps and conflicts leave some professionals uncertain about how to practice ethically in a digital age.
conclusionsThere is a need for more guidance and regulation in this area, not only for practitioners, but with respect to the application of technology within the environments in which health professionals work.
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.