Macro-Level Factors Influencing the Adoption and Early Implementation of Clinical Ethics Support Services: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.2 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Gilles Bernard, Michael Fischer
{"title":"Macro-Level Factors Influencing the Adoption and Early Implementation of Clinical Ethics Support Services: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Gilles Bernard, Michael Fischer","doi":"10.1007/s10730-025-09555-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical ethics are becoming increasingly important in the twenty-first century. Value-laden cases and moral dilemmas in healthcare have led to the creation of clinical ethics support structures. The last decades have shown their implementation in hospitals around the globe. Recent literature investigates their value, function, and integration. Many conclude that they do valuable work yet remain inadequately integrated, lack institutionalization, and struggle with resource shortages. To gain an understanding of this development and pave the way for future implementation and research, a scoping review was chosen to determine which macro-level factors currently influence the heterogeneous approaches. This review used the scientific research databases Medline and CINAHL in April 2025. It included studies, opinion papers, and book chapters in English and German offering explanations, analysis, discussion, and examples of macro-level clinical ethics support structures' adoption and implementation influences. An inductive qualitative content analysis was conducted to extract the desired information. The resulting categories were formatted into an overview frame. The literature search yielded 400 publications, full-text analysis and snowball search resulted in 47 eligible for analysis. Eight main factors with respective subcategories were identified. These vary in their degree of binding authority, ranging from clearly defined regulations, such as national laws, to more ambiguous influences, such as public opinion and advocacy. Further insights reveal that the effectiveness of these factors cannot yet be determined, and their influence may vary based on the values and political context of the country where a support structure is implemented.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-025-09555-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical ethics are becoming increasingly important in the twenty-first century. Value-laden cases and moral dilemmas in healthcare have led to the creation of clinical ethics support structures. The last decades have shown their implementation in hospitals around the globe. Recent literature investigates their value, function, and integration. Many conclude that they do valuable work yet remain inadequately integrated, lack institutionalization, and struggle with resource shortages. To gain an understanding of this development and pave the way for future implementation and research, a scoping review was chosen to determine which macro-level factors currently influence the heterogeneous approaches. This review used the scientific research databases Medline and CINAHL in April 2025. It included studies, opinion papers, and book chapters in English and German offering explanations, analysis, discussion, and examples of macro-level clinical ethics support structures' adoption and implementation influences. An inductive qualitative content analysis was conducted to extract the desired information. The resulting categories were formatted into an overview frame. The literature search yielded 400 publications, full-text analysis and snowball search resulted in 47 eligible for analysis. Eight main factors with respective subcategories were identified. These vary in their degree of binding authority, ranging from clearly defined regulations, such as national laws, to more ambiguous influences, such as public opinion and advocacy. Further insights reveal that the effectiveness of these factors cannot yet be determined, and their influence may vary based on the values and political context of the country where a support structure is implemented.

影响临床伦理支持服务采用和早期实施的宏观因素:范围综述。
临床伦理学在21世纪变得越来越重要。医疗保健中的价值负载案例和道德困境导致了临床伦理支持结构的创建。在过去的几十年里,它们在全球各地的医院得到了应用。最近的文献研究了它们的价值、功能和整合。许多人得出结论,他们做了有价值的工作,但仍然没有充分整合,缺乏制度化,并与资源短缺作斗争。为了了解这一发展并为未来的实施和研究铺平道路,选择了范围审查,以确定当前影响异构方法的宏观层面因素。本综述使用的是2025年4月的科研数据库Medline和CINAHL。它包括用英语和德语进行的研究、意见论文和书籍章节,提供了宏观层面临床伦理支持结构的采用和实施影响的解释、分析、讨论和示例。采用归纳定性含量分析方法提取所需信息。生成的类别被格式化为概述框架。文献检索产生了400份出版物,全文分析和滚雪球搜索产生了47份符合分析条件的出版物。确定了具有各自子类别的八个主要因素。这些措施具有约束力的程度各不相同,既有界定明确的规章,如国家法律,也有较为模糊的影响,如公众舆论和宣传。进一步的见解表明,这些因素的效力尚无法确定,其影响可能因实施支助结构的国家的价值观和政治背景而异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信