Knowledge, attitude, and practice of advocates regarding dental jurisprudence in Chennai: A cross-sectional study

B. Brinda, P. Madan Kumar, Shyam Sivasamy, I. Balan
{"title":"Knowledge, attitude, and practice of advocates regarding dental jurisprudence in Chennai: A cross-sectional study","authors":"B. Brinda, P. Madan Kumar, Shyam Sivasamy, I. Balan","doi":"10.4103/JEED.JEED_7_15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: With the advent of Consumer Protection Act in 1986, awareness among the public on their consumer rights has increased. Health professionals can be litigated for medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act. This had led to an increase in medicolegal issues in the recent past. The advocates (Doctors of Law) play a vital role in solving these issues and delivering justice to the victims. Hence, a sound knowledge on medical and dental jurisprudence is mandatory for these legal professionals. Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding dental jurisprudence among the advocates practising in Chennai, India. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 180 advocates belonging to three groups each with sixty advocates namely: Group I (advocates completed under graduation in law), Group II (advocates specialized in Criminology), and Group III (advocates specialized in other fields of law). A 26 item questionnaire was used for the study. Based on the responses given, the knowledge score was calculated with one point assigned for each correct response. The knowledge score of the three groups was compared between the three groups statistically. Results: The mean KAP score of Group I was 6.8 ± 2.1, Group II was 9.0 ± 2.1, Group III was 6.8 ± 2.4, and this difference was statistically highly significant (P = 0.001 and F = 16.007). Nearly 71% of the advocates handle medicolegal cases issues of which issues related to unethical practice (31%) was very frequent. 92% of them felt the coverage of dental jurisprudence in their study curriculum was not adequate and they required extra reading to handle such cases. Conclusion: The present study concludes that almost all the advocates who participated in the study had inadequate knowledge in medical and dental jurisprudence, including those specialized in criminology, who fared better than the other groups.","PeriodicalId":348927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education and Ethics in Dentistry","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Education and Ethics in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/JEED.JEED_7_15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: With the advent of Consumer Protection Act in 1986, awareness among the public on their consumer rights has increased. Health professionals can be litigated for medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act. This had led to an increase in medicolegal issues in the recent past. The advocates (Doctors of Law) play a vital role in solving these issues and delivering justice to the victims. Hence, a sound knowledge on medical and dental jurisprudence is mandatory for these legal professionals. Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding dental jurisprudence among the advocates practising in Chennai, India. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 180 advocates belonging to three groups each with sixty advocates namely: Group I (advocates completed under graduation in law), Group II (advocates specialized in Criminology), and Group III (advocates specialized in other fields of law). A 26 item questionnaire was used for the study. Based on the responses given, the knowledge score was calculated with one point assigned for each correct response. The knowledge score of the three groups was compared between the three groups statistically. Results: The mean KAP score of Group I was 6.8 ± 2.1, Group II was 9.0 ± 2.1, Group III was 6.8 ± 2.4, and this difference was statistically highly significant (P = 0.001 and F = 16.007). Nearly 71% of the advocates handle medicolegal cases issues of which issues related to unethical practice (31%) was very frequent. 92% of them felt the coverage of dental jurisprudence in their study curriculum was not adequate and they required extra reading to handle such cases. Conclusion: The present study concludes that almost all the advocates who participated in the study had inadequate knowledge in medical and dental jurisprudence, including those specialized in criminology, who fared better than the other groups.
知识,态度,并主张在金奈牙科法学实践:横断面研究
背景:随着1986年消费者保护法的出台,公众对消费者权利的认识有所提高。根据《消费者保护法》,医疗专业人员可以因医疗过失而受到诉讼。这导致最近的医疗法律问题有所增加。倡导者(法律博士)在解决这些问题和为受害者伸张正义方面发挥着至关重要的作用。因此,这些法律专业人员必须具备良好的医学和牙科法学知识。目的:本研究的目的是评估在印度金奈执业的律师中有关牙科法学的知识、态度和实践。材料与方法:采用横断面研究方法,对180名倡导者进行调查,分为三组,每组60人,分别是:第一组(法学本科毕业的倡导者)、第二组(犯罪学专业的倡导者)和第三组(其他法律专业的倡导者)。本研究采用26项问卷调查。根据给出的答案,知识得分计算为每一个正确的答案加一分。对三组间的知识得分进行统计学比较。结果:ⅰ组患者KAP平均评分为6.8±2.1分,ⅱ组为9.0±2.1分,ⅲ组为6.8±2.4分,差异有显著统计学意义(P = 0.001, F = 16.007)。近71%的律师处理医法案件,其中与不道德行为有关的问题(31%)非常频繁。百分之九十二的受访者认为他们的学习课程中有关牙科法学的内容不够,他们需要额外阅读才能处理这类案件。结论:本研究得出的结论是,几乎所有参与研究的辩护人在医学和牙科法学方面的知识都不足,包括那些专门从事犯罪学的辩护人,他们的情况比其他组要好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信