ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Patient autonomy in inpatient medical rehabilitation in Germany-study protocol of a multicenter cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe bioethical principle of respect for patients' autonomy should be implemented in every area of health care. The German rehabilitation system has some characteristics (e.g. the prevalence of inpatient rehabilitation) that make the topic particularly relevant. The aim of the study is to determine the current state of respecting patient autonomy in inpatient medical rehabilitation in Germany and to identify barriers and promoting factors from the perspective of relevant groups.
methodsA multi-center, prospective, cross-sectional study is being conducted, including interviews with patients (n = 24), interviews with professionals (n = 21) and a survey of medical directors (n = 900). The empirical findings are then reviewed in three validation workshops. In addition, consensus recommendations for practice are derived by means of a Delphi process with experts (n = 30). DISCUSSION: This study will address an important gap in the empirical literature by identifying the current state and needs of patients, professionals and medical directors of rehabilitation clinics regarding the practice of respecting patient autonomy in inpatient medical rehabilitation in Germany. It is expected that the results can contribute to coming closer to the ideal of respect for patient autonomy in rehabilitation practice.
trial registrationThe study was registered with the German Clinical Trials Registry (ID: DRKS00035893).
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.