ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Decision-making and ethical dilemmas experienced by hospital physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics and determinants of artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in Chinese nursing students: A cross-sectional study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- The 7E Teaching Model in Emergency Obstetrics and Gynecology Training: Enhancing Clinical Competency in Residency Education.Emergency medicine international · 2026Article
- Family satisfaction with the end-of-life discussions and resuscitation orders for patients with severe COVID-19: a multicenter study in Saudi Arabia.BMC medical ethics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, global healthcare systems faced unprecedented challenges, with a lack of resources and suboptimal patient care emerging as primary concerns.
methodsOur research, using a comprehensive 24-item electronic questionnaire, "Reflections on the Provision of Healthcare during the COVID-19 Pandemic," delved into the experiences of 938 physicians across the Czech Republic.
resultsOver fifty per cent observed a "lower standard of care" compared to pre-pandemic levels. A division arose among physicians regarding a decision's medical, ethical, or legal basis, with a notable gender disparity: male doctors leaned towards medical perspectives, whereas females accented the ethical perspective. Decision-making concerning health care limitations required agreement among the physicians on duty, interdisciplinary teams, or shift supervisors. Physicians reported varying degrees of patient or family participation in health care decisions. Variables such as age, pre-existing health conditions, and life expectancy influenced care decisions. Surprisingly, half of the physicians faced refusals of patients' transportation to better-equipped facilities due to resource constraints. One-third of physicians never discuss the decision about care limitation and other options with patients or their families. As a result, almost fifty per cent of the physicians rarely or never imparted information about care limitations to patients.
conclusionThe survey shed light on the profound ethical dilemmas hospital physicians face across different types of healthcare facilities during the pandemic. It uncovered the need for open dialogue and scholarly debate on resource allocation and strengthening the role of patients and their families in care decisions in future healthcare crises.
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.