Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41717552›Full record

ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026

Design and validation of a bioethical assessment instrument for public health policies involving behavioral change: A mixed-methods study.

A Castillo Martínez, P Aristizábal Castrillón, L J Lopez Erazo, M Montoya Villegas, L A Tamayo, M Montagut Ascanio, J P Borda, E F Lasso

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

A Castillo MartínezMedicine and Surgery Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Psychiatry Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia.
P Aristizábal CastrillónPontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá, Colombia.
L J Lopez ErazoMedicine and Surgery Universidad del Valle, Colombia.
M Montoya VillegasPontificia Universidad Javeriana in Cali, Colombia.
L A TamayoUniversidad Nacional de Colombia. Master in Interculturality, Development and Territorial Peace from the Institute of Intercultural Studies of the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia.
M Montagut AscanioMedicine Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, MBA Healthcare from Strayer University, USA.
J P BordaPontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogota, Master of Public Health Candidate with Emphasis on Mental Health from King's College London, UK.
E F LassoMedicine and Surgery Universidad del Cauca Psychiatry Universidad del Valle Specialty in University Education Universidad IcesiBioethics Universidad El Bosque, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Growing interest in developing bioethical evaluation models for public health, together with limited consensus on fundamental moral values, highlights the need for a framework to guide ethical decision-making in this field. The Nuffield model has been proposed as an alternative for addressing ethical conflicts at the population level, as it offers a more suitable approach to the complexities of behavioral-change interventions than traditional clinical bioethics. Consequently, methodological tools are needed to guide decision-makers. This study sought to design and validate an instrument for the ethical evaluation of public health policies involving behavioral change. Study design: Scale development and validation content study. Methods: Reflective equilibrium was used as the overarching methodological strategy for instrument development. A three-phase mixed-methods (qualitative-quantitative) process was conducted, which included semi-structured interviews and expert validation using the Delphi technique. Results: We developed an instrument for the bioethical evaluation of public health policies that include a behavioral-change component, comprising nine domains and 32 items. Two Delphi rounds were carried out for expert validation, followed by a pilot test that informed adjustments to the final version of the instrument. Conclusions: The methodological approach enabled the construction of the instrument by contrasting and ensuring coherence among predefined domains and the theoretical frameworks analyzed. Through the application of reflective equilibrium, new domains, integrity, participation, and interculturality, emerged in addition to those identified in the literature, resulting in an instrument with a strong theoretical foundation and expert validation.

Indexed as

Bioethical issuesHealth policyValidation study

Identifiers

PMID41717552
PMCPMC12915271

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.