ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Ethics Committees' Practices in Healthcare, Banking and Research: Key Requirements for Their Functionality.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleTo meet concerns about ethical and unethical behavior in their work environments and workplaces, organizations began establishing ethics programs that contain ethics committees (ECs). There is now a tradition and diverse use of ECs for ethical decision-making in many different organizational settings. In addition, ECs have been subject to many publications in books and articles in the scientific literature. Yet, until now no comparative analysis has been published that brings together ECs' practices in different sectors. AIMS AND
objectivesThis article aims to bridge this knowledge gap and illustrate which main requirements for ECs' practices need to be addressed to help ECs meet their anticipated functions.
methodTo do so, this paper lays out a study based on an exploratory, qualitative design using focus groups and individual expert interviews that compare ECs' practices in the healthcare, banking, and scientific research sectors (as far as dual use of research is concerned).
resultsBased on the results of this study we were able to make a distinction between two main categories: moral authority and trustworthiness. We were also able to identify three sub-categories: legitimation, mode, and outreach.
conclusionBased on the exploratory analysis in this study, we conclude that there are the following three distinct main requirements for the functionality of ECs: (1) a dialog between EC members and other stakeholders, (2) an approach that considers various possible modes (reactive, screening, moderating, and preventive) to enhance the quality of ECs' decision-making processes and (3) an outreach to all relevant EC stakeholders for the further validation of the main requirements found for ECs functionality.
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.