Cargando…

Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives

BACKGROUND: Empirical research can become relevant for bioethics in at least two ways. First, by informing the development or refinement of ethical recommendations. Second, by evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. This study aims to investigate the scope and objectives...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwietering, Johannes, Langhof, Holger, Strech, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835353/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36631789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00873-x
_version_ 1784868650043310080
author Schwietering, Johannes
Langhof, Holger
Strech, Daniel
author_facet Schwietering, Johannes
Langhof, Holger
Strech, Daniel
author_sort Schwietering, Johannes
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Empirical research can become relevant for bioethics in at least two ways. First, by informing the development or refinement of ethical recommendations. Second, by evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. This study aims to investigate the scope and objectives of empirical studies evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. METHODS: A sample of the latest 400 publications from four bioethics journals was created and screened. All publications were included if they met one of the following three criteria: (1) evaluative empirical research, (2) non-evaluative empirical research and (3) borderline cases. For all publications categorized as evaluative empirical research we analyzed which objects (norms and recommendations) had been evaluated. RESULTS: 234 studies were included of which 54% (n = 126) were categorized as non-evaluative empirical studies, 36% (n = 84) as evaluative empirical studies, and 10% (n = 24) as borderline cases. The object of evaluation were aspirational norms in 5 of the 84 included evaluative empirical studies, more specific norms in 14 (16%) studies and concrete best practices in 65 (77%) studies. The specific best practices can be grouped under five broader categories: ethical procedures, ethical institutions, clinical or research practices, educational programs, and legal regulations. CONCLUSIONS: This mapping study shows that empirical evaluative studies can be found at all stages in the translational process from theory to best practices. Our study suggests two intertwined dimensions for structuring the field of evaluative/translational empirical studies in bioethics: First, three broader categories of evaluation objects and second five categories for types of best practices. Trial registration: The methodology used was described in a study protocol that was registered publicly on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r6h4y/). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00873-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9835353
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98353532023-01-13 Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives Schwietering, Johannes Langhof, Holger Strech, Daniel BMC Med Ethics Research BACKGROUND: Empirical research can become relevant for bioethics in at least two ways. First, by informing the development or refinement of ethical recommendations. Second, by evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. This study aims to investigate the scope and objectives of empirical studies evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. METHODS: A sample of the latest 400 publications from four bioethics journals was created and screened. All publications were included if they met one of the following three criteria: (1) evaluative empirical research, (2) non-evaluative empirical research and (3) borderline cases. For all publications categorized as evaluative empirical research we analyzed which objects (norms and recommendations) had been evaluated. RESULTS: 234 studies were included of which 54% (n = 126) were categorized as non-evaluative empirical studies, 36% (n = 84) as evaluative empirical studies, and 10% (n = 24) as borderline cases. The object of evaluation were aspirational norms in 5 of the 84 included evaluative empirical studies, more specific norms in 14 (16%) studies and concrete best practices in 65 (77%) studies. The specific best practices can be grouped under five broader categories: ethical procedures, ethical institutions, clinical or research practices, educational programs, and legal regulations. CONCLUSIONS: This mapping study shows that empirical evaluative studies can be found at all stages in the translational process from theory to best practices. Our study suggests two intertwined dimensions for structuring the field of evaluative/translational empirical studies in bioethics: First, three broader categories of evaluation objects and second five categories for types of best practices. Trial registration: The methodology used was described in a study protocol that was registered publicly on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r6h4y/). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00873-x. BioMed Central 2023-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9835353/ /pubmed/36631789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00873-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Schwietering, Johannes
Langhof, Holger
Strech, Daniel
Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives
title Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives
title_full Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives
title_fullStr Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives
title_full_unstemmed Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives
title_short Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives
title_sort empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835353/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36631789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00873-x
work_keys_str_mv AT schwieteringjohannes empiricalstudiesonhowethicalrecommendationsaretranslatedintopracticeacrosssectionstudyonscopeandstudyobjectives
AT langhofholger empiricalstudiesonhowethicalrecommendationsaretranslatedintopracticeacrosssectionstudyonscopeandstudyobjectives
AT strechdaniel empiricalstudiesonhowethicalrecommendationsaretranslatedintopracticeacrosssectionstudyonscopeandstudyobjectives