Exploring Ethicists' Perspectives of Healthcare Ethics Program Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proliferation of ethics programs in healthcare organizations has occurred without rigorous evaluation. This qualitative study explored what makes an ethics program effective from the \nperspective of 15 practising ethicists across Canada. Objectives were to: describe how practising ethicists define ethics program effectiveness, identify evaluation strategies, and identify critical \nsuccess factors. \nEthicists defined effectiveness as: 1) meeting standards; 2) making a difference; and 3) delivering value for investment. To evaluate, ethicists assessed: ethics program activity data, qualitative feedback, relevant accreditation results, peer review, and pre- and post- results. Ethicist competencies and attributes, organizational understanding of, and support for, the ethics program, and a community of practice were critical success factors. \nEffectiveness emerged as a multi-dimensional concept. Findings provide a preliminary outline of what an ethics program evaluation framework might include and inform practice standard development, ethicist training programs, and organizational oversight for ethics programs.
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 | 0.082 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".