Methodological Reflections on the Contribution of Qualitative Research to the Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services
This article describes a process of developing, implementing and evaluating a clinical ethics support service intervention with the goal of building up a context‐sensitive structure of minimal clinical‐ethics in an oncology department without prior clinical ethics structure. Scholars from different...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Bioethics 2017-05, Vol.31 (4), p.237-245 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 245 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 237 |
container_title | Bioethics |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Wäscher, Sebastian Salloch, Sabine Ritter, Peter Vollmann, Jochen Schildmann, Jan |
description | This article describes a process of developing, implementing and evaluating a clinical ethics support service intervention with the goal of building up a context‐sensitive structure of minimal clinical‐ethics in an oncology department without prior clinical ethics structure. Scholars from different disciplines have called for an improvement in the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) for different reasons over several decades. However, while a lot has been said about the concepts and methodological challenges of evaluating CESS up to the present time, relatively few empirical studies have been carried out. The aim of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it describes a process of development, modifying and evaluating a CESS intervention as part of the ETHICO research project, using the approach of qualitative‐formative evaluation. On the other hand, it provides a methodological analysis which specifies the contribution of qualitative empirical methods to the (formative) evaluation of CESS. We conclude with a consideration of the strengths and limitations of qualitative evaluation research with regards to the evaluation and development of context sensitive CESS. We further discuss our own approach in contrast to rather traditional consult or committee models. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/bioe.12347 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1891441526</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1889385603</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3907-35d5e4858bc8e545472977b4e2b3cf049fc8639c3bbc53ce84b9a5bb59ea40843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0UFrFDEUB_Agit1WL34ACXiRwtRkkkySoy5rW6gUrZ6HJPvGTclO1iSzUuiHb3a39eBBfJcHjx9_ePwRekPJGa3zwfoIZ7RlXD5DM8o72ShB9XM0I22nGy1Je4SOc74ldbQQL9FRqziV1czQ_Rcoq7iMIf70zgT8DYYArvg4ZhxHXFaA53Esydtpd8RxwF8nE3wxxW-h8gwmuRUucW8XWxMm8yTnwY_71EVZeZfxzbTZxFTwDaStd5BfoReDCRleP-4T9OPz4vv8orm6Pr-cf7xqHNNENkwsBXAllHUKBBdctlpKy6G1zA2E68GpjmnHrHWCOVDcaiOsFRoMJ4qzE_T-kLtJ8dcEufRrnx2EYEaIU-6p0pRzKtruP6jSTImOsErf_UVv45TG-shOVaO5pFWdHpRLMecEQ79Jfm3SXU9Jv6uv39XX7-ur-O1j5GTXsPxDn_qqgB7Abx_g7h9R_afL68Uh9AG2JaWk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1888569471</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Methodological Reflections on the Contribution of Qualitative Research to the Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Wäscher, Sebastian ; Salloch, Sabine ; Ritter, Peter ; Vollmann, Jochen ; Schildmann, Jan</creator><creatorcontrib>Wäscher, Sebastian ; Salloch, Sabine ; Ritter, Peter ; Vollmann, Jochen ; Schildmann, Jan</creatorcontrib><description>This article describes a process of developing, implementing and evaluating a clinical ethics support service intervention with the goal of building up a context‐sensitive structure of minimal clinical‐ethics in an oncology department without prior clinical ethics structure. Scholars from different disciplines have called for an improvement in the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) for different reasons over several decades. However, while a lot has been said about the concepts and methodological challenges of evaluating CESS up to the present time, relatively few empirical studies have been carried out. The aim of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it describes a process of development, modifying and evaluating a CESS intervention as part of the ETHICO research project, using the approach of qualitative‐formative evaluation. On the other hand, it provides a methodological analysis which specifies the contribution of qualitative empirical methods to the (formative) evaluation of CESS. We conclude with a consideration of the strengths and limitations of qualitative evaluation research with regards to the evaluation and development of context sensitive CESS. We further discuss our own approach in contrast to rather traditional consult or committee models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-9702</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-8519</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12347</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28417519</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Bioethics ; clinical ethics support services ; Communication ; Decision Making ; empirical ethics ; Ethical Analysis ; Ethics ; Ethics Consultation - standards ; Ethics, Clinical ; evaluation ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Evaluative research ; Humans ; Interventions ; Methodology ; Oncology ; Problem Solving ; Program Evaluation ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative Research ; Research Design ; Support services</subject><ispartof>Bioethics, 2017-05, Vol.31 (4), p.237-245</ispartof><rights>2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3907-35d5e4858bc8e545472977b4e2b3cf049fc8639c3bbc53ce84b9a5bb59ea40843</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fbioe.12347$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fbioe.12347$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,30980,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28417519$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wäscher, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salloch, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritter, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vollmann, Jochen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schildmann, Jan</creatorcontrib><title>Methodological Reflections on the Contribution of Qualitative Research to the Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services</title><title>Bioethics</title><addtitle>Bioethics</addtitle><description>This article describes a process of developing, implementing and evaluating a clinical ethics support service intervention with the goal of building up a context‐sensitive structure of minimal clinical‐ethics in an oncology department without prior clinical ethics structure. Scholars from different disciplines have called for an improvement in the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) for different reasons over several decades. However, while a lot has been said about the concepts and methodological challenges of evaluating CESS up to the present time, relatively few empirical studies have been carried out. The aim of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it describes a process of development, modifying and evaluating a CESS intervention as part of the ETHICO research project, using the approach of qualitative‐formative evaluation. On the other hand, it provides a methodological analysis which specifies the contribution of qualitative empirical methods to the (formative) evaluation of CESS. We conclude with a consideration of the strengths and limitations of qualitative evaluation research with regards to the evaluation and development of context sensitive CESS. We further discuss our own approach in contrast to rather traditional consult or committee models.</description><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>clinical ethics support services</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>empirical ethics</subject><subject>Ethical Analysis</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Ethics Consultation - standards</subject><subject>Ethics, Clinical</subject><subject>evaluation</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Evaluative research</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interventions</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Problem Solving</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Support services</subject><issn>0269-9702</issn><issn>1467-8519</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0UFrFDEUB_Agit1WL34ACXiRwtRkkkySoy5rW6gUrZ6HJPvGTclO1iSzUuiHb3a39eBBfJcHjx9_ePwRekPJGa3zwfoIZ7RlXD5DM8o72ShB9XM0I22nGy1Je4SOc74ldbQQL9FRqziV1czQ_Rcoq7iMIf70zgT8DYYArvg4ZhxHXFaA53Esydtpd8RxwF8nE3wxxW-h8gwmuRUucW8XWxMm8yTnwY_71EVZeZfxzbTZxFTwDaStd5BfoReDCRleP-4T9OPz4vv8orm6Pr-cf7xqHNNENkwsBXAllHUKBBdctlpKy6G1zA2E68GpjmnHrHWCOVDcaiOsFRoMJ4qzE_T-kLtJ8dcEufRrnx2EYEaIU-6p0pRzKtruP6jSTImOsErf_UVv45TG-shOVaO5pFWdHpRLMecEQ79Jfm3SXU9Jv6uv39XX7-ur-O1j5GTXsPxDn_qqgB7Abx_g7h9R_afL68Uh9AG2JaWk</recordid><startdate>201705</startdate><enddate>201705</enddate><creator>Wäscher, Sebastian</creator><creator>Salloch, Sabine</creator><creator>Ritter, Peter</creator><creator>Vollmann, Jochen</creator><creator>Schildmann, Jan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201705</creationdate><title>Methodological Reflections on the Contribution of Qualitative Research to the Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services</title><author>Wäscher, Sebastian ; Salloch, Sabine ; Ritter, Peter ; Vollmann, Jochen ; Schildmann, Jan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3907-35d5e4858bc8e545472977b4e2b3cf049fc8639c3bbc53ce84b9a5bb59ea40843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>clinical ethics support services</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>empirical ethics</topic><topic>Ethical Analysis</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Ethics Consultation - standards</topic><topic>Ethics, Clinical</topic><topic>evaluation</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Evaluative research</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interventions</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Problem Solving</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Support services</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wäscher, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salloch, Sabine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritter, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vollmann, Jochen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schildmann, Jan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Bioethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wäscher, Sebastian</au><au>Salloch, Sabine</au><au>Ritter, Peter</au><au>Vollmann, Jochen</au><au>Schildmann, Jan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Methodological Reflections on the Contribution of Qualitative Research to the Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services</atitle><jtitle>Bioethics</jtitle><addtitle>Bioethics</addtitle><date>2017-05</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>237</spage><epage>245</epage><pages>237-245</pages><issn>0269-9702</issn><eissn>1467-8519</eissn><abstract>This article describes a process of developing, implementing and evaluating a clinical ethics support service intervention with the goal of building up a context‐sensitive structure of minimal clinical‐ethics in an oncology department without prior clinical ethics structure. Scholars from different disciplines have called for an improvement in the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) for different reasons over several decades. However, while a lot has been said about the concepts and methodological challenges of evaluating CESS up to the present time, relatively few empirical studies have been carried out. The aim of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it describes a process of development, modifying and evaluating a CESS intervention as part of the ETHICO research project, using the approach of qualitative‐formative evaluation. On the other hand, it provides a methodological analysis which specifies the contribution of qualitative empirical methods to the (formative) evaluation of CESS. We conclude with a consideration of the strengths and limitations of qualitative evaluation research with regards to the evaluation and development of context sensitive CESS. We further discuss our own approach in contrast to rather traditional consult or committee models.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>28417519</pmid><doi>10.1111/bioe.12347</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0269-9702 |
ispartof | Bioethics, 2017-05, Vol.31 (4), p.237-245 |
issn | 0269-9702 1467-8519 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1891441526 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Bioethics clinical ethics support services Communication Decision Making empirical ethics Ethical Analysis Ethics Ethics Consultation - standards Ethics, Clinical evaluation Evaluation Studies as Topic Evaluative research Humans Interventions Methodology Oncology Problem Solving Program Evaluation Qualitative analysis Qualitative Research Research Design Support services |
title | Methodological Reflections on the Contribution of Qualitative Research to the Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T16%3A25%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Methodological%20Reflections%20on%20the%20Contribution%20of%20Qualitative%20Research%20to%20the%20Evaluation%20of%20Clinical%20Ethics%20Support%20Services&rft.jtitle=Bioethics&rft.au=W%C3%A4scher,%20Sebastian&rft.date=2017-05&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=237&rft.epage=245&rft.pages=237-245&rft.issn=0269-9702&rft.eissn=1467-8519&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bioe.12347&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1889385603%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1888569471&rft_id=info:pmid/28417519&rfr_iscdi=true |