ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Validity and reliability of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale among obstetricians and gynecologists.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUtilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that evaluates moral decisions based on their consequences, emphasizing the maximisation of overall well-being/outcomes for the greatest number. It serves as an important framework in clinical settings, where ethical dilemmas frequently arise. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (OUS) among obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs).
methodsA total of 194 obstetricians and gynecologists participated in this online study and completed the OUS alongside a brief sociodemographic questionnaire. Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was evaluated via internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) and corrected item–total correlations. Additionally, measurement invariance analyses by sex were performed.
resultsCFA confirmed a two-dimensional structure— impartial beneficence and instrumental harm—with good fit indices. High reliability was indicated by both internal consistency coefficients and corrected item-total correlations. The results of the measurement invariance analyses showed similar measurement properties across genders.
conclusionsThe Turkish OUS demonstrated adequate construct validity and acceptable internal consistency in this OB/GYN sample. It can be used as a reliable and valid tool to support research, ethics education, and structured ethical reflection in obstetric practice.
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.