Cargando…
An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals
BACKGROUND: A review of literature published a decade ago noted a significant increase in empirical papers across nine bioethics journals. This study provides an update on the presence of empirical papers in the same nine journals. It first evaluates whether the empirical trend is continuing as note...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5803920/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29415709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0246-9 |
_version_ | 1783298729759997952 |
---|---|
author | Wangmo, Tenzin Hauri, Sirin Gennet, Eloise Anane-Sarpong, Evelyn Provoost, Veerle Elger, Bernice S. |
author_facet | Wangmo, Tenzin Hauri, Sirin Gennet, Eloise Anane-Sarpong, Evelyn Provoost, Veerle Elger, Bernice S. |
author_sort | Wangmo, Tenzin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A review of literature published a decade ago noted a significant increase in empirical papers across nine bioethics journals. This study provides an update on the presence of empirical papers in the same nine journals. It first evaluates whether the empirical trend is continuing as noted in the previous study, and second, how it is changing, that is, what are the characteristics of the empirical works published in these nine bioethics journals. METHOD: A review of the same nine journals (Bioethics; Journal of Medical Ethics; Journal of Clinical Ethics; Nursing Ethics; Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics; Hastings Center Report; Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics; Christian Bioethics; and Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal) was conducted for a 12-year period from 2004 to 2015. Data obtained was analysed descriptively and using a non-parametric Chi-square test. RESULTS: Of the total number of original papers (N = 5567) published in the nine bioethics journals, 18.1% (n = 1007) collected and analysed empirical data. Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics led the empirical publications, accounting for 89.4% of all empirical papers. The former published significantly more quantitative papers than qualitative, whereas the latter published more qualitative papers. Our analysis reveals no significant difference (χ2 = 2.857; p = 0.091) between the proportion of empirical papers published in 2004–2009 and 2010–2015. However, the increasing empirical trend has continued in these journals with the proportion of empirical papers increasing from 14.9% in 2004 to 17.8% in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the current state of affairs regarding empirical research published nine bioethics journals. In the quarter century of data that is available about the nine bioethics journals studied in two reviews, the proportion of empirical publications continues to increase, signifying a trend towards empirical research in bioethics. The growing volume is mainly attributable to two journals: Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics. This descriptive study further maps the still developing field of empirical research in bioethics. Additional studies are needed to completely map the nature and extent of empirical research in bioethics to inform the ongoing debate about the value of empirical research for bioethics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5803920 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58039202018-02-14 An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals Wangmo, Tenzin Hauri, Sirin Gennet, Eloise Anane-Sarpong, Evelyn Provoost, Veerle Elger, Bernice S. BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: A review of literature published a decade ago noted a significant increase in empirical papers across nine bioethics journals. This study provides an update on the presence of empirical papers in the same nine journals. It first evaluates whether the empirical trend is continuing as noted in the previous study, and second, how it is changing, that is, what are the characteristics of the empirical works published in these nine bioethics journals. METHOD: A review of the same nine journals (Bioethics; Journal of Medical Ethics; Journal of Clinical Ethics; Nursing Ethics; Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics; Hastings Center Report; Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics; Christian Bioethics; and Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal) was conducted for a 12-year period from 2004 to 2015. Data obtained was analysed descriptively and using a non-parametric Chi-square test. RESULTS: Of the total number of original papers (N = 5567) published in the nine bioethics journals, 18.1% (n = 1007) collected and analysed empirical data. Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics led the empirical publications, accounting for 89.4% of all empirical papers. The former published significantly more quantitative papers than qualitative, whereas the latter published more qualitative papers. Our analysis reveals no significant difference (χ2 = 2.857; p = 0.091) between the proportion of empirical papers published in 2004–2009 and 2010–2015. However, the increasing empirical trend has continued in these journals with the proportion of empirical papers increasing from 14.9% in 2004 to 17.8% in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the current state of affairs regarding empirical research published nine bioethics journals. In the quarter century of data that is available about the nine bioethics journals studied in two reviews, the proportion of empirical publications continues to increase, signifying a trend towards empirical research in bioethics. The growing volume is mainly attributable to two journals: Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics. This descriptive study further maps the still developing field of empirical research in bioethics. Additional studies are needed to completely map the nature and extent of empirical research in bioethics to inform the ongoing debate about the value of empirical research for bioethics. BioMed Central 2018-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5803920/ /pubmed/29415709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0246-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wangmo, Tenzin Hauri, Sirin Gennet, Eloise Anane-Sarpong, Evelyn Provoost, Veerle Elger, Bernice S. An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals |
title | An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals |
title_full | An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals |
title_fullStr | An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals |
title_full_unstemmed | An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals |
title_short | An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals |
title_sort | update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5803920/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29415709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0246-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangmotenzin anupdateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT haurisirin anupdateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT genneteloise anupdateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT ananesarpongevelyn anupdateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT provoostveerle anupdateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT elgerbernices anupdateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT wangmotenzin updateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT haurisirin updateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT genneteloise updateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT ananesarpongevelyn updateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT provoostveerle updateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals AT elgerbernices updateontheempiricalturninbioethicsanalysisofempiricalresearchinninebioethicsjournals |