ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Training pediatric residents on navigating moral events in contemporary ethical practice: curriculum design and evaluation.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMorally challenging situations arise frequently in contemporary pediatric practice. Despite this, few pediatric studies have examined how to support residents navigating these experiences or measure growth in this domain. To address this gap, we developed and piloted a longitudinal, multimodal curriculum designed to prepare residents to recognize and respond to moral challenges.
methodsCurriculum development followed Kern's six-step model and was informed by a previously published needs assessment and review of existing literature. A mixed-methods design evaluated the intervention across Kirkpatrick's levels of evaluation. We designed two complementary tools: (a) an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) emphasizing applied ethical reasoning and professional accountability, and (b) the Cognitive Affective Reflection on Ethical Experiences: Moral Encounters Tool (CARE-MET), which provided preliminary validity evidence for assessing residents' perceived self-efficacy in navigating moral events. Thematic and content analyses were conducted on qualitative data. Paired analyses of matched participants at timepoint 1 (T1) and timepoint 2 (T2) were conducted using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and Cohen's d effect sizes.
resultsOf 81 eligible residents, 65 completed the CARE-MET at T1 and 52 of 57 eligible residents completed it at T2. Most participants (64/65, 97%) rated the curriculum as valuable. Residents identified value in the use of real clinical cases, diverse perspectives, and protected space for emotional processing. Paired analyses revealed significant improvements across five of six CARE-MET domains with large Cohens d (> 0.7). Experiencing moral distress was unchanged pre- and post-curriculum. Two separate cohorts of PGY-3 residents completed the OSCE at T1 (n = 12) and T2 (n = 14). Residents in both cohorts scored similarly high in empathic practice. Communicating the possibility of death without treatment was one significant difference between cohorts. This shift occurred more frequently at T2 than T1 (36% vs 0%, p = 0.024).
conclusionsThis curriculum offers a promising framework for preparing pediatric residents to navigate care that might be morally distressing yet ethically permissible. Gaps persisted in applied decision-making, legal understanding, and professional accountability. These findings support the need for longitudinal instruction in the moral, ethical, and legal dimensions of pediatric practice and highlight the value of developing tools capable of measuring growth in these domains.
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.