↓ Skip to main content

Interprofessional Clinical Ethics Education: The Promise of Cross-Disciplinary Problem-Based Learning

Overview of attention for article published in AMA Journal of Ethics, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
34 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Interprofessional Clinical Ethics Education: The Promise of Cross-Disciplinary Problem-Based Learning
Published in
AMA Journal of Ethics, September 2016
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.9.nlit1-1609
Pubmed ID
Abstract

A review of Lin et al.'s pilot study exploring the effects of an interprofessional, problem-based learning clinical ethics curriculum on Taiwanese medical and nursing students' attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration highlights the benefits of interprofessional collaboration and offers insight into how problem-based learning might be universally applied in ethics education. Interprofessional collaboration is an ideal approach for exploring ethical dilemmas because it involves all relevant professionals in discussions about ethical values that arise in patient care. Interprofessional ethics collaboration is challenging to implement, however, given time constraints and organizational and practice demands. Nevertheless, we suggest that when professionals collaborate, they can collectively express greater commitment to the patient. We also suggest future research avenues that can explore additional benefits of interprofessional collaboration in clinical ethics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 38%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 6 21%