BackgroundModern standards for evidence-based decision making in clinical care and public health still rely solely on eminence-based input when it comes to normative ethical considerations. Manuals for clinical guideline development or health technology assessment (HTA) do not explain how to search, analyze, and synthesize relevant normative information in a systematic and transparent manner. In the scientific literature, however, systematic or semi-systematic reviews of ethics literature already exist, and scholarly debate on their opportunities and limitations has recently bloomed.MethodsA systematic review was performed of all existing systematic or semi-systematic reviews for normative ethics literature on medical topics. The study further assessed how these reviews report on their methods for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis of ethics literature.ResultsWe identified 84 reviews published between 1997 and 2015 in 65 different journals and demonstrated an increasing publication rate for this type of review. While most reviews reported on different aspects of search and selection methods, reporting was much less explicit for aspects of analysis and synthesis methods: 31 % did not fulfill any criteria related to the reporting of analysis methods; for example, only 25 % of the reviews reported the ethical approach needed to analyze and synthesize normative information.ConclusionsWhile reviews of ethics literature are increasingly published, their reporting quality for analysis and synthesis of normative information should be improved. Guiding questions are: What was the applied ethical approach and technical procedure for identifying and extracting the relevant normative information units? What method and procedure was employed for synthesizing normative information? Experts and stakeholders from bioethics, HTA, guideline development, health care professionals, and patient organizations should work together to further develop this area of evidence-based health care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0688-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background(Semi-)systematic approaches to finding, analysing, and synthesising ethics literature on medical topics are still in their infancy. However, our recent systematic review showed that the rate of publication of such (semi-)systematic reviews has increased in the last two decades. This is not only true for reviews of empirical ethics literature, but also for reviews of normative ethics literature. In the latter case, there is currently little in the way of standards and guidance available. Therefore, the methods and reporting strategies of such reviews vary greatly. The purpose of the follow-up study we present was to obtain deeper methodological insight into the ways reviews of normative literature are actually conducted and to analyse the methods used.MethodOur search in the PubMed, PhilPapers, and Google Scholar databases led to the identification of 183 reviews of ethics literature published between 1997 and 2015, of which 84 were identified as reviews of normative and mixed literature. Qualitative content analysis was used to extract and synthesise descriptions of search, selection, quality appraisal, analysis, and synthesis methods. We further assessed quantitatively how often certain methods (e.g. search strategies, data analysis procedures) were used by the reviews.ResultsThe overall reporting quality varies among the analysed reviews and was generally poor even for major criteria regarding the search and selection of literature. For example, only 24 (29%) used a PRISMA flowchart. Also, only 55 (66%) reviews mentioned the information unit they sought to extract, and 12 (14%) stated an ethical approach as the theoretical basis for the analysis. Interpretable information on the synthesis method was given by 47 (60%); the most common methods applied were qualitative methods commonly used in social science research (83%).ConclusionReviews which fail to provide sufficient relevant information to readers have reduced methodological transparency regardless of actual methodological quality. In order to increase the internal validity (i.e. reproducibility) as well as the external validity (i.e. utility for the intended audience) of future reviews of normative literature, we suggest more accurate reporting regarding the goal of the review, the definition of the information unit, the ethical approach used, and technical aspects.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0661-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundPhysician rating websites (PRWs) allow patients to rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality. The ability of PRWs to influence patient decision making and health care quality is dependent, in part, on sufficient awareness and usage of PRWs. However, previous studies have found relatively low levels of awareness and usage of PRWs, which has raised concerns about the representativeness and validity of information on PRWs.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to examine (1) participants’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs and how this compares with other rating websites; (2) factors that predict awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs; and (3) participants’ attitudes toward PRWs in relation to selecting a physician.MethodsA mailed cross-sectional survey was sent to a random sample (N=1542) from four North German cities (Nordhorn, Hildesheim, Bremen, and Hamburg) between April and July 2016. Survey questions explored respondents’ awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on rating websites for service (physicians, hospitals, and hotels and restaurants) and products (media and technical) in general and the role of PRWs when searching for a new physician.ResultsA total of 280 completed surveys were returned (280/1542, 18.16% response rate), with the following findings: (1) Overall, 72.5% (200/276) of respondents were aware of PRWs. Of the respondents who were aware of PRWs, 43.6% (86/197) had used PRWs. Of the respondents who had used PRWs, 23% (19/83) had rated physicians at least once. Awareness, use, and contribution of ratings on PRWs were significantly lower in comparison with all other rating websites, except for hospital rating websites. (2) Except for the impact of responders’ gender and marital status on the awareness of PRWs and responders’ age on the use of PRWs, no other predictors had a relevant impact. (3) Whereas 31.8% (85/267) of the respondents reported that PRWs were a very important or somewhat important information source when searching for a new physician, respondents significantly more often reported that family, friends and colleagues (259/277, 93.5%), other physicians (219/274, 79.9%), and practice websites (108/266, 40.6%) were important information sources.ConclusionsWhereas awareness of German PRWs appears to have substantially increased, the use of PRWs and contribution of ratings remains relatively low. Further research is needed to examine the reasons why only a few patients are rating physicians. However, given the information inequality between provider and consumer will always be higher for consumers using the services of physicians, it is possible that people will always rely more on interpersonal recommendations than impersonal public information before selecting a physician.