ReviewFrontiers in public health2025
Ethical principles across countries: does 'ethical' mean the same everywhere?
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative study on buzzy device vs digital distraction technique for mitigating pain during venipuncture among hospitalised children: randomised controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- The Relationship Between Nurses' Approaches to Ethical Issues and Their Attitudes Towards Principles of Ethics: A Descriptive, Correlational Research Design.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Economic Disparities in Palliative Care Utilization Among Cancer Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Socioeconomic Stratification Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Undiagnosed Sacrococcygeal Fistulas: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Scenario-Based Ethical Reasoning Among Healthcare Trainees and Practitioners: Evidence from Dental and Medical Cohorts in Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ethical principles serve as the foundation of healthcare practice, guiding medical professionals in their interactions with patients and shaping healthcare policies worldwide. However, the interpretation and application of these principles can vary significantly across different cultural and socio-political contexts. Understanding these variations is essential for enhancing cross-cultural healthcare practices. The aim of this review was to identify and show the differences and similarities in understanding and implementation of four ethical principles in Poland, Ukraine, India and Thailand. The PubMed database was searched for articles, which resulted in 16 papers about the principle of non-maleficence, 36 papers about the principle of justice, 79 on autonomy and 16 on beneficence, all of which were included in the review. The results revealed ethical dilemmas encountered in routine healthcare practice, highlighting both commonalities and distinctions across the analyzed countries. This analysis offers valuable insights into how ethical challenges are addressed within diverse healthcare systems, contributing to a deeper understanding of the needs of both patients and medical personnel.
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.