ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Ethics support personnel's perceptions of patient and parent participation in clinical ethics support services in pediatric oncology.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case-Based Clinical Ethics Support - A Description and Normative Discussion of Methodological Issues from the Swedish Perspective.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026Article
- Carrying the Facilitator Responsibility: Experiences of Healthcare Professionals Under Training to Become Facilitators of Ethics Case Reflection Rounds in Paediatric Oncology.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026Article
- Medical experience of family members of children in pediatric infusion room: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an ongoing discourse about patient and parent participation (PPP) in Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS), and this paper focuses specifically on case-based CESS. Participation in CESS is increasing slowly in many contexts due to practical and moral complexity. To gain deeper understanding of PPP in CESS, we need to delve into stakeholders' perspectives and the landscape in which they operate. The aim of the study was to explore perceptions regarding feasibility and moral appropriateness of PPP in CESS in pediatric oncology.
methodsNordic healthcare personnel (n = 26) working as ethics support personnel in pediatric oncology (and/or pediatrics in general) participated in focus group interviews (n = 6). Data was analyzed with qualitative inductive content analysis.
resultsDespite engagement in CESS, most ethics support personnel had no former experience of PPP in CESS. The ethics support personnel expressed potential benefits with PPP in CESS, but these were overshadowed by fear of causing participant harm. The potential benefits and harms included to deepen understanding and trust, to catalyze confrontation and to create dilemmas of decision-making participation. Reported strategies to mitigate potential negative consequences and reduce risk of causing harm were at organizational, relational and individual levels.
conclusionsDespite seeing positive reasons for PPP in CESS, the ethics support personnel were mainly concerned about the potential participant harm and wanted to protect the child and the parent. This could be interpreted as a form of disguised paternalism. The perceived appropriateness of PPP in CESS in pediatric oncology seems to depend on the situation. Furthermore, in cases where it can be considered, there is no universal way of doing it. An important enabler may be to customize PPP in CESS on a case-by-case basis and to apply the identified strategies to reduce potential risk of causing harm. This study contributes to increased knowledge about PPP in CESS from the perspectives of ethics support personnel in pediatric oncology and informs us about what is needed to carefully foster PPP in CESS, both practically and morally.
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.