4 found
  1.  42
    Field-testing the Euro-MCD Instrument: Experienced outcomes of moral case deliberation.Janine C. de Snoo-Trimp, Bert Molewijk, Gøril Ursin, Berit Støre Brinchmann, Guy A. M. Widdershoven, Henrica C. W. de Vet & Mia Svantesson - forthcoming - Nursing Ethics:096973301984945.
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  2.  27
    Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: a Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals’ priorities.Mia Svantesson, Janine C. de Snoo-Trimp, Göril Ursin, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Berit S. Brinchmann & Bert Molewijk - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (9):608-616.
    BackgroundThere is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation. Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation.MethodsA North European field survey (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  3.  29
    Defining and categorizing outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD): concept mapping with experienced MCD participants.Janine C. de Snoo-Trimp, Bert Molewijk & Henrica C. W. de Vet - 2018 - BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):1-14.
    To support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations, Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) are increasingly implemented. To assess the impact of CES, it is important to evaluate outcomes. Despite general claims about outcomes from MCD experts and some qualitative research, there exists no conceptual analysis of outcomes yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically define and categorize MCD outcomes. An additional aim was to compare these outcomes with the outcomes in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  4.  19
    Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015.Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, Lotty Hooft, Douglas G. Altman, Henrica C. W. de Vet, David Moher, Les Irwig, Paul P. Glasziou, Constantine A. Gatsonis, David E. Bruns, Johannes B. Reitsma, Jérémie F. Cohen & Daniël A. Korevaar - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
    BackgroundAlthough the number of reporting guidelines has grown rapidly, few have gone through an updating process. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy), published in 2003 to help improve the transparency and completeness of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, was recently updated in a systematic way. Here, we describe the steps taken and a justification for the changes made.ResultsA 4-member Project Team coordinated the updating process; a 14-member Steering Committee was regularly solicited by the Project Team when making critical (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Export citation