| Literature DB >> 32998715 |
Morten Magelssen1, Heidi Karlsen2, Reidar Pedersen2, Lisbeth Thoresen3.
Abstract
An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32998715 PMCID: PMC7526179 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-020-00534-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Ethics ISSN: 1472-6939 Impact factor: 2.834
Data sources in the project and the main topics they address
| 1 | Three focus group interviews with key persons, in addition to audio recordings and notes from all dialogue seminars | Key persons’ experiences with work in the CECs, experienced challenges, and perceived impact of the training received |
| 2 | One focus group interview with each of the participating CECs in full, towards the end of the study period | Experiences and challenges with work in the CEC, including case deliberation. Perceived impact on services, municipality and CEC members |
| 3 | Individual interviews with the head of each municipality’s health and care sector | Perceived impact on services and municipality. Municipal support for the CEC |
| 4 | Individual interviews (up to 20) with professionals who have been involved in a case discussed in the CEC | Practical consequences of CEC involvement. Experiences with taking part in CEC deliberations |
| 5 | Individual interviews (up to 15) with patients and next of kin who have been involved in a CEC deliberation | Practical consequences of CEC involvement. Experiences with taking part in CEC deliberations |
| 6 | CEC deliberation reports (anonymized) | Nature of ethical issues. Characteristics of the CECs’ ethical reasoning |
| 7 | Observation of CEC deliberations (1-2 per CEC) | Deliberation process. Involvement of stakeholders |
| 8 | CECs’ yearly reports | CEC activities such as seminars, other outreach, number of attendees, services involved. CEC members |
| 9 | CEC deliberation reports (anonymized) and committee’s self-evaluation form for each case | Quantitative data about CEC cases |