Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41076596›Full record

ArticleHEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues2026

Case-Based Clinical Ethics Support - A Description and Normative Discussion of Methodological Issues from the Swedish Perspective.

Pernilla Pergert, Mia Svantesson, Cecilia Bartholdson, Anders Bremer, Margareta Brännström, Catarina Fischer Grönlund, Niklas Juth, Joar Björk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Pernilla PergertDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics (CRB), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. pernilla.pergert@uu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-4210-855X
Mia SvantessonFaculty of Medicine and Health, University Health Care Research Center, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0679-5695
Cecilia BartholdsonDepartment of Women's & Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5807-3438
Anders BremerFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7865-3480
Margareta BrännströmDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1688-8991
Catarina Fischer GrönlundDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8701-0169
Niklas JuthDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics (CRB), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1339-4956
Joar BjörkDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics (CRB), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7194-4875

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical Ethics Support (CES) includes various forms of systematic support to deal with ethical challenges in healthcare and case-based CES (C-CES) is used for CES in particular cases. The aim was to describe and normatively discuss organizational and methodological aspects of C-CES used in Swedish healthcare. A mixed-methods approach was used. A descriptive survey was answered regarding eight organizations on hospital, regional and national level, with large variations in the number of conducted C-CES activities. Data were compiled and frequencies calculated. Based on the survey results, normative questions were formulated. Six participants, with expertise of C-CES, participated in a normative group discussion. Field notes and transcribed data were analysed qualitatively. The top ranked goal of C-CES was "Supporting decision making". Mainly prospective cases were used and C-CES was carried out as un-planned and pre-planned sessions. The normative results showed the importance of avoiding making C-CES unattractive to clinicians, for instance by keeping the time frame. The professional backgrounds of C-CES leaders varied greatly and arguments were provided for the facilitating role and that C-CES leaders ought not facilitate where they have been clinically engaged. Identified challenges included variations in uptake of C-CES activities that do not mirror the ethical challenges of the context. The unfair uptake of C-CES can be compared with the uptake in Norway where there are legal requirements for CES. In this study patients and families were not reported to request or attend C-CES. Thus, further research and interventions are needed to ensure their representation in Swedish C-CES.

Indexed as

Ethics, ClinicalEthics Committees, ClinicalEthics ConsultationHumansQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenClinical ethics supportEthics case reflectionMixed-methodMoral case deliberationNormative discussionSurvey

Identifiers

PMID41076596
PMCPMC13194189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.