ArticleCureus2026
Medical Ethics Awareness Among Doctors at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives This study aims to determine the level of medical ethics awareness among doctors working at a tertiary care hospital and the factors related to adequate awareness. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted over a period of three months at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad. The study used a complete enumeration approach to include all eligible doctors who met the inclusion criteria, i.e., house officers, medical officers, postgraduate trainees, and consultants. A structured questionnaire, originally developed as the Omani Physicians Bioethics and Medical Law Awareness Tool and subsequently adapted and used in a Pakistani healthcare setting, was used for data collection. The questionnaire assessed awareness of ethical dilemmas and specific issues in medical ethics. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25 (Released 2017; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York) was used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the associations between ethical awareness and the study variables were assessed using appropriate statistical tests. A p-value of less than 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. Results A total of 265 doctors participated in our study. Overall, 64.5% of the participants showed adequate ethical awareness. The mean score for awareness of ethical dilemmas was 9.6 ± 2.8 out of a maximum of 14, while the mean score for awareness of specific issues in medical ethics was 27.4 ± 5.6 out of 40. Significantly higher ethical awareness was observed among senior doctors and participants with prior ethics training, whereas no significant association was found between ethical awareness and gender. Conclusion Most doctors exhibited a satisfactory baseline of ethical awareness, yet critical vulnerabilities remain among junior cohorts and those without prior training. To bridge these gaps, medical institutions must implement continuous, structured, and case-based ethics training within undergraduate curricula and mandatory clinical rotations. Standardizing mandatory ethics modules prior to clinical residency is essential to build foundational moral resilience early in medical careers.
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.