Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYoon, Nicholas Yue Shuenen_US
dc.contributor.authorOng, Yun Tingen_US
dc.contributor.authorYap, Hong Weien_US
dc.contributor.authorTay, Kuang Tecken_US
dc.contributor.authorLim, Elijah Ginen_US
dc.contributor.authorCheong, Clarissa Wei Shuenen_US
dc.contributor.authorLim, Wei Qiangen_US
dc.contributor.authorChin, Annelissa Mien Chewen_US
dc.contributor.authorToh, Ying Pinen_US
dc.contributor.authorChiam, Minen_US
dc.contributor.authorMason, Stephenen_US
dc.contributor.authorKrishna, Lalit Kumar Radhaen_US
dc.identifier.citationYoon, N. Y. S., Ong, Y. T., Yap, H. W., Tay, K. T., Lim, E. G., Cheong, C. W. S., . . . Krishna, L. K. R. (2020). Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 51-. doi:10.1186/s12910-020-00492-4en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons. Methods: Guided by Levac et al’s (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings. Results: Nine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified – the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations. Conclusion: This review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Medical Ethicsen_US
dc.rights© 2020 The Author(s). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.en_US
dc.titleEvaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.contributor.schoolLee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine)en_US
dc.description.versionPublished versionen_US
dc.subject.keywordsClinical Ethics Committeesen_US
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
Appears in Collections:LKCMedicine Journal Articles
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
s12910-020-00492-4.pdf1.05 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Page view(s)

Updated on Jul 5, 2022

Download(s) 50

Updated on Jul 5, 2022

Google ScholarTM




Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.