ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Knowledge and practice of healthcare ethics among doctors and nurses in two Ghanaian hospitals: a comparative cross-sectional study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEthical practice is central to patient trust, safety, and quality healthcare delivery. This study compared healthcare ethics knowledge and practice among doctors and nurses in two Ghanaian hospitals and identified factors associated with ethical practice.
methodsAn analytical cross-sectional study was conducted among 382 doctors and nurses in two government hospitals in Ghana. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire assessing healthcare ethics knowledge and self-reported practice. Bivariate analysis was conducted using Chi-square tests and T-tests, while Random Forest analysis was applied to identify variables of relative importance to healthcare ethics (HCE) practice.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed between facilities in mean healthcare ethics knowledge (26.3 ± 2.83; p = 0.98) and practice (23.5 ± 2.94; p = 0.16) scores. Healthcare ethics knowledge was significantly positively associated with practice (p < 0.05). Random Forest analysis identified age, knowledge, education, and gender as the most important predictors of ethical practice based on variable importance rankings, with differences observed in their relative contribution across facilities.
conclusionHealthcare professionals demonstrated moderate-to-high knowledge and practice of healthcare ethics, with no significant institutional differences. Ethical practice was influenced by demographic and educational factors, highlighting the need for context-specific strategies. Strengthening ethical decision-making may require integrating structured and continuous ethics training into professional development, alongside mentorship approaches that reinforce ethical standards in clinical 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.