| Title |
Novel Paths to Relevance: How Clinical Ethics Committees Promote Ethical Reflection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEC Forum, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10730-015-9291-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Morten Magelssen, Reidar Pedersen, Reidun Førde |
| Abstract |
How may clinical ethics committees (CECs) inspire ethical reflection among healthcare professionals? How may they deal with organizational ethics issues? In recent years, Norwegian CECs have attempted different activites that stretch or go beyond the standard trio of education, consultation, and policy work. We studied the novel activities of Norwegian CECs by examining annual reports and interviewing CEC members. Through qualitative analysis we identified nine categories of novel CEC activities, which we describe by way of examples. In light of the findings, we argue that some novel working methods may be well suited to promote ethical reflection among clinicians, and that the CEC may be a suitable venue for discussing issues of organizational ethics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 33% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 33% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,750,413
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#109
of 184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,547
of 264,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.