Theory and practice in interprofessional ethics: A framework for understanding ethical issues in health care teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional teamwork is an essential and expanding form of health care practice. While moral issues arising in teamwork relative to the patient have been explored, the analysis of ethical issues regarding the function of the team itself is limited. This paper develops a conceptual framework for organizing and analyzing the different types of ethical issues in interprofessional teamwork. This framework is a matrix that maps the elements of principles, structures, and processes against individual, team, and organizational levels. A case study is presented that illustrates different dimensions of these topics, based on the application of this framework. Finally, a set of conclusions and recommendations is presented to summarize the integration of theory and practice in interprofessional ethics, including: (i) importance of a framework, (ii) interprofessional ethics discourse, and (iii) interprofessional ethics as an emerging field. The goal of this paper is to begin a dialogue and discussion on the ethical issues confronting interprofessional teams and to lay the foundation for an expanding discourse on interprofessional ethics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.116 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".