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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Bioethics 2017-05, Vol.31 (4), p.237-245
Hauptverfasser: Wäscher, Sebastian, Salloch, Sabine, Ritter, Peter, Vollmann, Jochen, Schildmann, Jan
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 &amp; 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 &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2017 John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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