↓ Skip to main content

Teaching Medical Ethics in Graduate and Undergraduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in Academic Psychiatry, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Teaching Medical Ethics in Graduate and Undergraduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness
Published in
Academic Psychiatry, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40596-016-0608-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Santiago de la Garza, Vania Phuoc, Steven Throneberry, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby, Laurence McCullough, John Coverdale

Abstract

One objective was to identify and review studies on teaching medical ethics to psychiatry residents. In order to gain insights from other disciplines that have published research in this area, a second objective was to identify and review studies on teaching medical ethics to residents across all other specialties of training and on teaching medical students. PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched for controlled trials on teaching medical ethics with quantitative outcomes. Search terms included ethics, bioethics, medical ethics, medical students, residents/registrars, teaching, education, outcomes, and controlled trials. Nine studies were found that met inclusion criteria, including five randomized controlled trails and four controlled non-randomized trials. Subjects included medical students (5 studies), surgical residents (2 studies), internal medicine house officers (1 study), and family medicine preceptors and their medical students (1 study). Teaching methods, course content, and outcome measures varied considerably across studies. Common methodological issues included a lack of concealment of allocation, a lack of blinding, and generally low numbers of subjects as learners. One randomized controlled trial which taught surgical residents using a standardized patient was judged to be especially methodologically rigorous. None of the trials incorporated psychiatry residents. Ethics educators should undertake additional rigorously controlled trials in order to secure a strong evidence base for the design of medical ethics curricula. Psychiatry ethics educators can also benefit from the findings of trials in other disciplines and in undergraduate medical education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Other 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 34 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 32%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Philosophy 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 45 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,798,407
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Academic Psychiatry
#136
of 1,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,676
of 320,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Psychiatry
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 320,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.