ArticleBMC medical education2025
Development and validation of an ethical monopoly board game to teach bioethics to undergraduate medical students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a serious game for nursing leadership in Primary Health Care.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIneffective teaching practices of bioethics are responsible for the rampant incidents of litigation, reports of misconduct, and complaints of unethical behaviors among medical professionals in various healthcare settings. There is a limited body of research on the implementation of innovative approaches for teaching ethical reasoning. One such approach is game-based learning, with board games emerging as a cost-effective and accessible tool for bioethics education.
aimTo develop a board game to improve the teaching of bioethics and evaluate the effects of this board game on student satisfaction, engagement, and knowledge gain regarding bioethics.
methodsThe board game 'Ethical Monopoly' was developed and validated using a mixed-methods study design, following the steps of AMEE Guide 87. This study was conducted at the University of Lahore and Al-Aleem Medical College, from 2021-2023. The game's content, design, and mechanics were developed using the combined results of a literature review and four focus group discussions with 16 undergraduate medical students and 11 faculty members. Situational Judgment tests were designed to familiarize the players with ethical dilemmas. A panel of 16 multidisciplinary expert judges evaluated the content validity of the Ethical Monopoly in a single round of the Delphi technique. The response process validity of the game was measured through observation and cognitive interviews with a group of eight undergraduate medical students.
resultsThe Ethical Monopoly game was validated using a data collection instrument comprising 55 items on Game Rules (15 items), Game Design (four items), Game Cards (12 items), Game Relevance and Satisfaction (24 items). The content validity index, Scale-Level Content Validity Index Average (S-CVI/Ave) for board games was 0.93. Qualitative analysis of the cognitive interviews showed excellent response process validity. Students appreciated the user-friendly and colourful game design and the use of diverse and realistic scenarios in Situational Judgment tests.
conclusionExpert judges positively received an ethical monopoly prototype. It is a valid board game for teaching ethics with relevant learning objectives, attractive design, and game mechanics that are suitable for improving student motivation, interaction, and interest in learning bioethics.
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.