A Scoping Review of Comparative Healthcare Codes of Ethics Studies

Codes of ethics are, for many, important documents that define the key values and behaviours expected of healthcare professionals. They are also documents that have been widely criticised. These criticisms range from being vague to failing to provide guidance on many important issues. Codes, however, vary substantially in their scope, content and the guidance they provide.

This scoping review sought, in the context of comparative studies of codes, to examine the form (i.e., the structure of the code, its contents, principles or rules for example) and function (what the code says it does, either explicitly or implicitly) of codes, along with their points of con/divergence.

A systematic search was carried out using Scopus, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Medline.

Thirty-one papers met inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Results suggest that while there were a number of similarities seen across codes, there were also substantial points of divergence related to the content of codes and structure. These differences were seen across professions, countries and time, suggesting that culture, history, politics and perhaps even geography influence the content of codes.

These findings are discussed in light of the broader literature that examines and critiques codes.