ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Research on medical students' medical ethics reasoning ability-analysis based on the intermediate concept measurement method.
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
Abstract
objectiveBy establishing an ethical assessment framework to evaluate the medical ethical reasoning ability of medical students, systematically reveal the current actual situation and problems of medical ethics education in medical schools, and provide empirical evidence and improvement directions for optimizing the medical ethics education system and enhancing educational effectiveness.
methodThis study was based on the Medical Ethics Intermediate Concept Measurement (MD-ICM) questionnaire developed by Ponsopa Pinijphon from the University of Alabama in the United States. For the first time in China, it conducted a localization and cultural adaptation of the questionnaire. The questionnaire covers principles such as patient autonomy, confidentiality, beneficence, and fair distribution. The survey subjects were selected through a multi-stage random sampling method. A database was established using EpiData 3.1 software, and the data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 21.0 software.
resultStudents who have studied medical ethics performed significantly better in making correct reasoning decisions compared to those who haven't; in terms of "the teaching methods of the Medical Ethics Course", students who chose scenario simulation and audio-visual learning methods scored significantly higher in ethical reasoning ability than those who chose theoretical lectures and case analysis; in terms of "the assessment methods of the Medical Ethics Course", students who chose ethical reasoning tests and did not undergo test assessment scored significantly higher in ethical reasoning ability than those who chose theoretical concept tests and case reflection essays; in terms of "the learning needs of the Medical Ethics Course", students with learning needs usually have stronger ethical emotions and ethical awareness.
conclusionThe medical ethics reasoning ability of medical students is significantly influenced by their medical ethics learning experiences, teaching methods of courses, assessment methods, and learning needs. Currently, there are shortcomings in medical ethics education in medical colleges. To enhance the ethical reasoning ability of medical students, it is necessary to strengthen the foundational position of medical ethics education, optimize the practice-oriented teaching mode, improve the diversified formative evaluation, and create a supportive educational atmosphere.
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.