Cited by 56Ethics and bioethics in healthcareEthics in medical practiceEthics in Clinical Research

Hypothetical Vignettes in Empirical Bioethics Research

Ulrich, Connie M., Ratcliffe, Sarah J.·2007·Advances in Bioethics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1479-3709(07)11008-6

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of hypothetical scenarios has disadvantages but also important advantages as a practical, flexible, and efficient way to study complex ethical concerns, and in the face of emerging issues, they can be used to anticipate public reactions, manipulate key contextual variables, and contribute to the development of evidence-based interventions to preempt adverse outcomes.

    “The use of hypothetical scenarios—like all methodologies—has disadvantages, but it also has important advantages as a practical, flexible, and efficient way to study complex ethical concerns (142). In the face of emerging issues, hypothetical scenarios can be used to anticipate public reactions, manipulate key contextual variables, and contribute to the development of evidence-based interventions”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ulrich, C. M., & Ratcliffe, S. J.
Venue
Advances in Bioethics
Publisher
Elsevier
Published
2007
Pages
161-181
ISSN
1479-3709 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W160474542
Cited by
56
References
65
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.00
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Advances in bioethics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
empirical bioethics, psychometric properties, ethical decision-making, clinical ethics, research ethics, bioethics education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review