Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40437532›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2025

Aspects of patient rights in a developing country: a qualitative study.

Deedat Safeer, Sanduni Wijerathne, Pumudu Weerasekara, Udari Wickramasinghe, Sanidi Edirisinghe, Anuki Hewavithana, Nadeeka Chandraratne, Saroj Jayasinghe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Deedat SafeerFaculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka. deedatsafeer@gmail.com.
Sanduni WijerathneFaculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Pumudu WeerasekaraFaculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Udari WickramasingheFaculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Sanidi EdirisingheFaculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Anuki HewavithanaFaculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Nadeeka ChandraratneDepartment of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Saroj JayasingheDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients' rights are integral to ensuring ethical and humane healthcare delivery. Understanding these rights helps promote patient-centered care and strengthens trust in healthcare systems. Although international frameworks outline patients' rights comprehensively, Sri Lanka lacks specific legislative recognition and public awareness on the topic. This study aims to explore perspectives on patients' rights in Sri Lanka and identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted at the National Hospital of Sri Lanka, involving individual interviews with twenty participants, including patients (n = 16) from diverse backgrounds and healthcare professionals (n = 4). The study used a generic qualitative inquiry using inductive thematic analysis. Open-ended interviews were transcribed, and key themes were identified based on participants' descriptions of their experiences.

resultsThe study identified several key themes regarding patient rights: access to information and informed consent, respect and dignity, and quality of care. Patients were generally satisfied with the amount of information received, although healthcare providers desired more patient involvement in decision-making. Both patients and healthcare professionals stressed the importance of treating patients with respect and dignity. However, patients showed a tendency to defer to the expertise of doctors, placing less emphasis on informed consent and their own autonomy. Patients also expressed a right to high-quality care but experienced some delays and inefficiencies.

conclusionsThis study reveals both strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of patient rights within the Sri Lankan healthcare setting. A lack of formal recognition of patient rights and a cultural tendency for patients to trust doctors' judgement over their own autonomy are key findings. This study highlights the need to improve patient empowerment and education to promote autonomy and shared decision making in their own care. Future studies should include larger, multi-center samples, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of patient rights in Sri Lanka. Importantly, this study advocates for national policy reform, including the development and adoption of an officially recognized Patient Rights Charter.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDeveloping CountriesPatient RightsAdultAgedDecision MakingFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePatient ParticipationPersonal AutonomyQualitative ResearchHealthcarePatient rightsQualitative studySri Lanka

Identifiers

PMID40437532
PMCPMC12121050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.