MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1507385022 · doi:10.5055/ajdm.2009.0038

Resources and constraints for addressing ethical issues in medical humanitarian work: Experiences of expatriate healthcare professionals

2009· article· en· W1507385022 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthew Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Disaster Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealth careDeliberationExpatriatePublic relationsHumanitarian aidSociologyNursingEngineering ethicsMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: International nongovernmental organizations frequently provide emergency assistance in settings where armed conflict or natural disaster overwhelm the capacity of local and national agencies to respond to health and related needs of affected communities. Healthcare practice in humanitarian settings presents distinct clinical, logistical, and ethical challenges for clinicians and differs in important ways from clinical practice in the home countries of expatriate healthcare professionals. The aim of this research was to examine the moral experience of healthcare professionals who participate in humanitarian relief work. DESIGN: I conducted a qualitative research study using interpretive description methodology. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen Canadian healthcare professionals and three human resource or field coordination officers for nongovernmental organizations were interviewed. RESULTS: In this article, I present findings related to expatriate healthcare professionals' experiences of resources and constraints for addressing ethical issues in humanitarian crises. Resources for ethics deliberation and reflection include the following: opportunities for discussion; accessing and understanding local perspectives; access to outside perspectives; attitudes, such as humility, open-mindedness, and reflexivity; and development of good moral "reflexes." Constraints for deliberation and reflection relate to three domains: individual considerations, contextual features of humanitarian relief work, and local team and project factors. CONCLUSION: These findings illuminate the complex nature of ethical reflection, deliberation, and decision-making in humanitarian healthcare practice. Healthcare professionals and relief organizations should seek to build upon resources for addressing ethical issues. When possible, they should minimize the impact of features that function as constraints.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.027
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Disaster MedicineSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207