Table 2 Critical appraisal of the normative ethical literature
Does the article address a focused ethics question? | Are the arguments that support the results of the article valid? | What are the results? What are the conclusions of the paper’s ethical analysis and argument? | Will the results help me in clinical practice? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bailey et al. (2003) (33) | Yes. | In part: This paper is a commentary rather than a formal ethical analysis. | Obstacles to effective transition are detailed and authors conclude that a formal transition program should be in place to promote autonomy and self-determination in the young person and the carer/family members. | A little: Although statements about developing a more effective transition program are made, how this should be achieved is not operationalized. |
Kaufman et al. (2010) (31) | Yes. | In Part: The authors drew on arguments, mixing differing ethical issues, theories (starting with a duties-based approach and ending with consequentialist outcomes) and principals. | A number of ethical issues are identified, including dignity and respect, trust, graduated capacity, promoting autonomy, duties (including beneficence, non-maleficence, truth-telling, advocacy and providing developmentally-appropriate care) | Yes: Numerous recommendations are made about how to act on the identified ethical issues. |
Racine et al. (2014) (29) | Yes | Yes | Four ethical considerations are identified: autonomy in transition; youth-provider relationships; development of ethics in transition programs; and the ethical challenges during transition among young people with neurodevelopmental disabilities. | Yes. A paradigm of personalized transition is elucidated, including suggestions on how to overcome barriers. |