Empirical studies on the practice translation of ethical recommendations. Cross-sectional study on evaluation objects

Abstract Background: Empirical research can become relevant for bioethics in at least two ways. First, to inform the development or refinement of ethical recommendations. Second, to evaluate how effective, efficient, or valid ethical recommendations are translated into practice. This study aims to investigate the scope and objectives of empirical studies evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. Methods: A sample of the latest 400 publications from four bioethics journals was created and screened. All publications were included if they met one of the following three criteria: (1) evaluative empirical research, (2) non-evaluative empirical research and (3) borderline cases. For all publications categorized as evaluative empirical research we analyzed which objects (norms and recommendations) had been evaluated.Results: 234 studies were included of which 54% (n=126) were categorized as non-evaluative empirical studies, 36% (n=84) as evaluative empirical studies, and 10% (n=24) as borderline cases. The evaluation object reflected in five of all 84 evaluative empirical studies very broadly formulated aspirational norms, in 14 (16%) studies more specific norms and in 65 (77%) studies concrete best practices.Conclusions: This mapping study shows that empirical evaluative studies can be found at all stages in the translational process from theory to best practices. It thereby facilitates discussions on how to further develop and assure quality of the emerging field of empirical studies on the practice translation of ethical recommendations.Trial registration: The methodology used was described in a study protocol that was registered publicly on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r6h4y/).