Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40033816›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025

A Scoping Review of Comparative Healthcare Codes of Ethics Studies.

Ryan Essex, Lydia Mainey, Francine Gonzales-Walters, Phil Gurnett, Sharon Marie Weldon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

5 authors.

Ryan EssexInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3497-3137
Lydia MaineySchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1438-8061
Francine Gonzales-WaltersInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Phil GurnettInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Sharon Marie WeldonInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCodes of ethics are, for many, important documents that define the key values and behaviours expected of healthcare professionals. They are also documents that have been widely criticised. These criticisms range from being vague to failing to provide guidance on many important issues. Codes, however, vary substantially in their scope, content and the guidance they provide.

aimThis scoping review sought, in the context of comparative studies of codes, to examine the form (i.e., the structure of the code, its contents, principles or rules for example) and function (what the code says it does, either explicitly or implicitly) of codes, along with their points of con/divergence.

methodA systematic search was carried out using Scopus, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Medline.

findingsThirty-one papers met inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Results suggest that while there were a number of similarities seen across codes, there were also substantial points of divergence related to the content of codes and structure. These differences were seen across professions, countries and time, suggesting that culture, history, politics and perhaps even geography influence the content of codes. DISCUSSION: These findings are discussed in light of the broader literature that examines and critiques codes.

Indexed as

Codes of EthicsDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumanscodescodes of ethicscomparative studyscoping review

Identifiers

PMID40033816
PMCPMC12623699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.