ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Risk management during times of health uncertainty in Spain: A qualitative analysis of ethical challenges.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Risk management during times of health uncertainty in Spain: A qualitative analysis of ethical challenges.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study examines the reflections of various experts in risk management when asked about uncertainty generated by a health threat and the response to such a threat: what criteria should guide action when potential harm is anticipated, but not known with certainty? The objective of the research is to obtain a holistic perspective of ethical conflicts in risk management, based on experts' accounts within the Spanish territory. A qualitative study was conducted through semi-structured interviews with 27 experts from various fields related to health risk management and its ethical implications, following the grounded theory method. The method includes theory generation through an inductive approach, based on the identified categories. The 27 narratives obtained revealed a variety of fundamental issues grouped into 8 subcategories and subsequently grouped into three main categories. The first category focuses on human vulnerability in health matters. The second category explores the agents and instruments for decision-making that arise from uncertain or traumatic social events. The third category refers to the need for common ethical paradigms for all humanity that implement justice over universal values. A main theory was suggested on the concept of responsibility in a global common good. There is an urgent need to assume this integrative responsibility as an inherent strategy in decision-making. To achieve this, the involved actors must acquire specific humanistic training, conceptualizing fundamental ethical principles, and emphasizing skills more related to humanistic virtues than technical knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.