ArticleBMC medical education2025
Construction of an ethical competency evaluation system for clinical physicians in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe improvement of the doctor-patient relationship is benefit for the clinic therapy. Thus improving doctors' ethical competence, and alleviating the extent of doctor-patient conflicts have become critical issues that need to be addressed. From an international perspective, owing to the development of ethical competency, there has been considerable progress in the management system of medical ethics. However, owing to cultural differences, China's ethical capabilities differ from those of the West. Research on medical ethics in China's medical field lacks systematic summarization. This study aimed to establish an evaluation system for Chinese doctors' ethical competency under the background of China's ethical environment, providing guidance and assistance for doctors to improve their ethical competency.
methodsThis study was conducted using a literature review, interviews, and the expert Delphi method. After interviewing 34 participants including 25 doctors, 3 ethics teachers, and 6 students, data analysis was conducted, and the initial version of the evaluation system was established. On this basis, by selecting 20 experts in the fields of medicine and ethics, amongst others, after two rounds of expert Delphi method questionnaire consultation, the indicators in the evaluation system were adjusted and modified; furthermore, the weight of each indicator was clarified to establish the evaluation system for doctors' ethical competency.
resultsBased on the five elements of knowledge, motivation, attitude, quality, and skills as a framework, an evaluation system for doctors' ethical competency was established, including 12 primary and 39 secondary indicators. The primary indicators included personal ethical level, legal regulations, respect, benefit, fairness, privacy protection, physician beliefs, professional ethics, research ethics, decision-making skills, communication skills, and exploratory skills.
conclusionIn this work, an ethical competency evaluation system for clinical physicians in China was constructed. This evaluation system can be developed into a questionnaire to measure the ethical competency of current Chinese clinical physicians, identify the strengths and weaknesses of their ethical competency, provide analysis from various perspectives, such as national policies and continued education, and explore paths to improve physicians' ethical competency, which can also give a useful reference for the education and training of medical students.
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.