![]() ![]() We recently conducted a systematic review examining ‘ethical challenges’ as reported by specialist palliative care practitioners. Improving the quality of empirical bioethics is also itself an ethical imperative. Aligned with this aim for rigour, definitional clarity of key terms used within a research project is a component of research quality. Within both empirical bioethics and descriptive ethics, there has been an accompanying increase in the acknowledgment of the importance of methodological rigour in the empirical elements, including within the recent consensus statement on quality standards in empirical bioethics research by Ives et al. Across the range of empirical methodologies, a broad collection of protocol development tools, methodology guidelines, and reporting guidelines have been developed and evidence of their use is increasingly required by journals. Methodological rigour within research is a cornerstone in the production of high-quality findings and recommendations. ![]() Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, with significant variety in scope and complexity. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to ‘ethical challenge(s)’ within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices definition by participants and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Resultsģ93 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021. Data were analysed using content analysis. Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in any context, extracting data on definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase ‘ethical challenge(s)’ appears to lack an agreed definition. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |