ArticlePloS one2025
How to implement a clinical ethics committee in an oncological research hospital: Qualitative results from a process evaluation study using normalization process theory (EVACEC).
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) of the Local Health Authority (LHA) of Reggio Emilia, Italy, is a multi-professional service established in 2020 to support healthcare professionals (HPs) in dealing with ethical issues in clinical practice. We evaluated the integration of the CEC into routine practice, 24 months after its implementation.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with CEC members and LHA stakeholders involved in the service implementation. The interview scripts were outlined and transcript analysis was carried out following the four concepts of Normalization Process Theory (NPT): coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring.
resultsBetween June 2022 and January 2023, 15 participants were interviewed (12 CEC members and 3 LHA directors). All participants consider the service an important opportunity for HPs to be supported in complex situations (coherence). The CEC's President, a bioethicist working at the LHA, played a key role ensuring the CEC's participation and activation (cognitive participation). The main barriers to the CEC implementation were: financial sustainability, CEC members' lack of training, absence of in-person relationships (collective action). Overall, participants reported a positive experience with the CEC, however recommended several modifications (reflexive monitoring).
conclusionsWe identified key components to support the normalization of CECs and enable their activation within a clinical setting. An active and sustainable CEC must be visible, accessible, understood and trusted, clear in purpose, sufficiently integrated into the life of the organisation, adequately resourced, appropriately constituted and competent, accountable and independent. These findings can inform the development of practical strategies for CECs implementation and of appropriate outcomes for further evaluation.
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.