ArticlePloS one2026
Peer‑led bioethics education in clinical rotations: Three generalisable lessons from a CFIR‑informed implementation case study.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntegrating bioethics into clinical training is challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Scalable and low‑cost models are needed but are under‑evaluated. This implementation case study assessed the feasibility and perceived impact of a peer-led, case-based bioethics discussion model. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe conducted a single embedded case study at the College of Medicine in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Forty-four final-year medical students participated in structured peer‑led discussions of authentic clinical ethics cases using a four‑step analytical framework. Quantitative data (post-intervention Likert questionnaire) were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative data (open‑ended responses, case summaries) underwent deductive thematic analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify barriers and facilitators across five domains. Students strongly endorsed the intervention: 59.1% strongly agreed that ethics education is important (mean 4.51/5.0). Enjoyment was high (75% agreed/strongly agreed). Self-efficacy was variable (54.5% confident, 29.5% uncertain). CFIR analysis revealed key implementation determinants: low cost and high perceived relevance (facilitators), supportive peer culture (facilitator), limited time (barrier), and need for faculty orientation (barrier). From these findings, we derived three generalizable propositions for implementing low‑cost ethics curricula. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: A peer-led, case-based bioethics model is feasible and well received. Three generalizable lessons are offered: (1) peer‑led models require protected time and leveraged peer cultures; (2) single sessions raise awareness, but longitudinal reinforcement is essential for self‑efficacy; and (3) CFIR reporting enables analytical generalizability for single‑case studies. These propositions provide a blueprint for replication and further testing in low‑resource settings.
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.