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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |