ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
A multi-systemic ethical dilemma model in hemodialysis patients: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn hemodialysis, patients navigate ethical tensions arising from the intersection of clinical demands, personal values, and systemic constraints. While existing research has focused largely on clinician perspectives, limited attention has been paid to how patients themselves experience and interpret these ethical dilemmas. This study aims to identify and analyze the ethical dilemmas experienced by hemodialysis patients, and to construct a multi-level conceptual model that articulates how these ethical issues manifest across different systemic dimensions.
methodsThis study employed a qualitative descriptive design. 35 hemodialysis patients were purposely selected from four traditional Chinese medicine hospitals in Shandong Province, China. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews between September and December 2025 and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The framework of Ecological Systems Theory was applied to determine how multilevel systemic interactions give rise to ethical dilemmas, leading to the construction of a multidimensional conceptual model.
resultsEthical dilemmas experienced by hemodialysis patients were grouped into three themes with 12 subthemes and 19 subcategories. A multi-systemic ethical dilemma model was developed, encompassing macro-level dilemmas involving policy, organization, culture, and community dimensions; mezzo-level interactions among healthcare providers, family members, and other patients; and micro-level individual struggles. Furthermore, we illustrate how dilemmas at one level can directly generate, or indirectly exacerbate dilemmas at other levels through dynamic interplay.
conclusionThis study introduces a multi-systemic ethical dilemma model grounded in patients' experiences, revealing how ethical challenges in hemodialysis operate across macro, mezzo, and micro levels of the care ecosystem. By reframing dilemmas as embedded rather than isolated, the model underscores the need for systemic solutions that address structural and policy-level factors alongside individual support. These findings call for holistic approaches in research, practice, and policy to foster ethically sustainable environments for patients.
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.