dc.contributor.author
Schwietering, Johannes
dc.contributor.author
Langhof, Holger
dc.contributor.author
Strech, Daniel
dc.date.accessioned
2025-08-05T13:29:16Z
dc.date.available
2025-08-05T13:29:16Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/48583
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-48307
dc.description.abstract
Background
Empirical research can become relevant for bioethics in at least two ways. First, by informing the development or refinement of ethical recommendations. Second, by evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. This study aims to investigate the scope and objectives of empirical studies evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice.
Methods
A sample of the latest 400 publications from four bioethics journals was created and screened. All publications were included if they met one of the following three criteria: (1) evaluative empirical research, (2) non-evaluative empirical research and (3) borderline cases. For all publications categorized as evaluative empirical research we analyzed which objects (norms and recommendations) had been evaluated.
Results
234 studies were included of which 54% (n = 126) were categorized as non-evaluative empirical studies, 36% (n = 84) as evaluative empirical studies, and 10% (n = 24) as borderline cases. The object of evaluation were aspirational norms in 5 of the 84 included evaluative empirical studies, more specific norms in 14 (16%) studies and concrete best practices in 65 (77%) studies. The specific best practices can be grouped under five broader categories: ethical procedures, ethical institutions, clinical or research practices, educational programs, and legal regulations.
Conclusions
This mapping study shows that empirical evaluative studies can be found at all stages in the translational process from theory to best practices. Our study suggests two intertwined dimensions for structuring the field of evaluative/translational empirical studies in bioethics: First, three broader categories of evaluation objects and second five categories for types of best practices.
Trial registration: The methodology used was described in a study protocol that was registered publicly on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r6h4y/).
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
empirical bioethics
en
dc.subject
translational ethics
en
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.articlenumber
2
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1186/s12910-022-00873-x
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
BMC Medical Ethics
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
1
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishername
Springer Nature
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
24
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
refubium.funding
Springer Nature DEAL
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pmid
36631789
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1472-6939