The use of systematic review methods in the research of bioethics is one that has sparked particular interest in recent years. As a result, there has been a need for greater transparency and rigor in the literature review processes that are followed in bioethics. Systematic reviews used in bioethics research are very valuable yet their appropriate application is quite limited. These review methods present bioethicists with a range of interconnected difficulties, and these are often centered on the quality of assessment articles and specificity of terminology. As a result, it has been possible to ensure that all the other literature review methods bear an important role that is prevalent in bioethics. The process followed in the review of bioethics literature ought to be rigorous as per the method of literature review used in the bioethics research. Non-systematic literature review in bioethics research mainly exists as critical interpretive and introductory reviews.
Analysis of the Different Methods of Reviewing Literature on Bioethics Research
There are two main types of literature review in bioethics research: systematic and nonsystematic reviews. While the systematic review process is the most commonly used today, the nonsystematic review processes still bear a great extent of popularity. Both of these techniques bear different aims when it comes to the literature review, and this means that their engagement with the literature also varies. There are two main types of nonsystematic review processes, and these include critical interpretive and introductory reviews. These three methods of the literature review are different from each other mainly in the types of literature that they are used to review, the core objectives, the comprehensiveness of the search, and whether the literature review contains a piece of research on its own. All the same, each other these three types have an important role when it comes to the overall study of bioethics.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Introductory Reviews
Just as the name suggests, introductory reviews are mainly conducted during the early stages of the bioethics project. The goal of this review is to help the researcher identify any gaps in the literature before justifying a research project. This review is mainly presented as the thesis or introductory material in a paper or in the research proposal. The review identifies the important findings and key concepts that shape the debate surrounding the topic without necessarily capturing all the work that is related to the topic. The literature may either be empirical or normative, and either type is considered relevant.
Systematic Reviews
Systematic reviews in bioethics are completely different from introductory reviews in that they make use of the methods used in biomedicine with the goal of evaluating the different interventions incorporated in healthcare. Systematic reviews are used in biomedicine with the goal of assembling and assessing the evidence that surrounds the effectiveness of a given healthcare intervention. Each of these reviews follows a structured method with the goal of minimizing bias, answer a given research question, and they aim at giving a comprehensive literature search and analysis. There are three models of systematic reviews that have been proposed for use in bioethics: systematic reviews of the reasons presented in normative bioethics literature, systematic reviews of normative bioethics literature, and systematic reviews of empirical bioethics. One of the key challenges of the systematic review in bioethics has to be a quality assessment of the papers included in the study. Systematic reviews are especially different from introductory reviews in that introductory reviews usually capture and integrate data drawn from empirical and normative work while systematic reviews focus on either empirical or normative literature alone. Also, the systematic review is a research piece that follows an already identified method of evaluating and synthesizing the existing studies with the goal of drawing new conclusions and not just identify existing gaps in research.
Critical Interpretive Reviews
The critical interpretive reviews is an ancient technique of bioethics research that focuses on the development of new knowledge by capturing and critiquing the main ideas from existing literature. In this case, there is a thorough and thoughtfully-designed literature search, which is not systematic when it comes to the assembly of all the articles that are related to the research question. All the same, a critical interpretive review is an intensive research activity. The questions that come up in the field of bioethics tend to differ greatly from the questions on how effective healthcare interventions are, which forms the foundation of the systematic review techniques. It is not necessary nor appropriate to try and capture all the topics related to bioethics research questions, and this is different from the effort in capturing all the studies related to a given healthcare intervention. Such comprehensive is essential when answering the biomedical research questions on how effective an intervention is.
Elements of an Appropriate Critical Interpretive Literature Review in Bioethics
It is important to understand that critical interpretive synthesis is used to synthesize an extensive chunk of evidence. However, the study of bioethics does not necessarily make use of evidence analysis. Also, the output of critical interpretive synthesis is suggested to be a ‘synthesizing argument’ focuses on the scholar’s understanding of a given phenomenon. This focus does not automatically translate into the conceptual analysis or ethical justifiability. All the same, there is a couple of elements that are common when it comes to critical interpretive synthesis:
A literature review should be an iterative instead of a linear process.
It should answer a specific research question that was already determined and refined during the process of a literature review.
Does a wholesome analysis of the literature and analyzes the individual arguments and literature within the literature.
Does not follow rigid criteria for quality assessment.
Puts forward an argument about the literature and generates theory.
Captures all the main ideas that are relevant to the research question within the existing literature.
Makes a record of the search strategy.
Conclusion
It is important that the empirical, conceptual, and moral problems be related to the received view, and they should draw a sharp distinction between clinical practice and clinical research. As such, a new ethical system is mainly focused on burden and risk and not the research-treatment distinction that needs to be developed. There is no clear process of a literature review that is discussed in the scholarly papers, and it is argued that this research is defined in the ethics literature and policy documents. The best way to justify the interpreting techniques of the authors is by explicitly reporting the review process and search strategy. There is a need to increase the rigor in the nonsystematic reviews as they also play a major part in the review and study of bioethics research, just like systematic reviews.
References
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2004). Ethics, social research and consulting with children and young people. Bulletin of Medical Ethics , 139 , 5-7.
Layson, R. T., Adelman, H. M., Wallach, P. M., Pfeifer, M. P., Johnston, S., & McNutt, R. A. (1994). Discussions about the use of life-sustaining treatments: a literature review of physicians' and patients' attitudes and practices. Journal of Clinical Ethics , 5 (3), 195-203.
McDougall, R. (2015). Reviewing Literature in Bioethics Research: Increasing Rigor in Non ‐ Systematic Reviews. Bioethics , 29 (7), 523-528.
