ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Understanding clinical ethics situations: a co-created repertoire of practices.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding moral problems in clinical settings is central to clinical ethics consultation practice. Although this process may seem straightforward, it is in fact complex, multifaceted, and ongoing throughout consultations. Oftentimes the moral aspects of a situation will be articulated vaguely by those involved based on feelings of uneasiness and discomfort. Thus, clinical ethicists play a key role in helping to characterize these tensions in more formal and explicit terms using references to values and principles. The clinical ethics consultation literature points to the importance of this task and to some recommended practices in this process, such as those referenced in ASBH's Core Competencies. However, there is a sizable gap between these practice guidelines and the actual methods, skills, and creativity deployed by clinical ethicists to accomplish this task.
methodsIn this paper, we report a co-creative effort to lay out practices for understanding moral problems and structure them into a repertoire of practices. We followed a co-creative process involving semi-structured interviews with 20 practicing clinical ethicists as well as an iterative process involving drafting the repertoire and revising it during meetings and in manuscript form.
resultsThe final repertoire structure and content includes: (1) elements considered to discern the moral nature of the problem; (2) actions and approaches taken to discern the moral nature of the problem; (3) elements considered in preparation for addressing the problem; (4) actions and approaches taken in preparation for addressing the problem; (5) modulating factors, and challenges and limits.
conclusionWe hope this work helps further ground the value of co-creative work in clinical ethics while also offering practical resources to support ongoing improvement of understanding moral problems in clinical ethics.
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.