Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42165954›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

A Living Ethics Project to Address Inappropriate Levels of Care: Process and Outcomes.

Bénédicte D'Anjou, Eric Racine

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A Living Ethics Project to Address Psychological Distress in Chronic Illness: Process and Outcomes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bénédicte D'AnjouPragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Montreal Clinical Research Institute, 110 Avenue Des Pins Ouest, Montréal, QC, H2W 1R7, Canada.
Eric RacinePragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Montreal Clinical Research Institute, 110 Avenue Des Pins Ouest, Montréal, QC, H2W 1R7, Canada. eric.racine@ircm.qc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ethically charged question of what constitutes appropriate levels of care is both inevitable and particularly complex in intensive care units (ICUs), where limited resources, uncertain prognosis, and potentially conflicting values among patients, families, and ICU professionals all cohabit. While various tools have been developed to support discussions and decision-making around levels of care, they are often developed without the individuals who will ultimately use them and they fail to address the lack of interprofessional collaboration and communication between ICU professionals, a factor known to contribute to inappropriate levels of care. Living labs and the living ethics stance, which aim both to enhance collaboration and communication, represent promising research orientations for addressing this issue. This paper reports the process and outcomes of a living ethics project, which took the form of a living lab, to address the issue of inappropriate levels of care in the ICU. Special emphasis is granted to the evaluation of outcomes by participating stakeholders. This study highlights that, although inappropriate levels of care is a deeply concerning issue for which concrete contextual solutions can be envisioned, engaging in a participatory research process can be particularly challenging for overburdened critical care professionals. This difficulty stems not only from the multifactorial and emotionally charged nature of the issue, but also from the demanding context in which ICU professionals operate.

Indexed as

Inappropriate levels of careIntensive careLiving ethicsLiving lab

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.