The Moral Development Based on Kohlberg's Theory among Medical Students

R. Bidaki, Fatemeh Saghafc, Mohammad Mansouri Majoumard, Mahshid Nadershahbaz, M. Hadavi, M. Sajadi, Fariba Sepehrig, Hadi Ghazalbash, A. Sahebnasagh
{"title":"The Moral Development Based on Kohlberg's Theory among Medical Students","authors":"R. Bidaki, Fatemeh Saghafc, Mohammad Mansouri Majoumard, Mahshid Nadershahbaz, M. Hadavi, M. Sajadi, Fariba Sepehrig, Hadi Ghazalbash, A. Sahebnasagh","doi":"10.18502/jsbch.v6i1.9519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: One of the main issues in treating, preserving and promoting the human dignity is caring for patients' satisfaction and preventing harm, maltreatment, or damage to the patient. Therefore, the level of moral development based on Kohlberg's theory was studied among medical students of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences. \nMethods: In the current cross-sectional study, eligible medical students (N=220) of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences were enrolled over a 12-months period. Data were collected by demographic checklist and Kohlberg's ethical evolution questionnaires. Data were analyzed using SPSS-20, by Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, ANOVA, and t-tests. \nResults: There were no significant differences in terms of gender, educational level, marital status, and place of residence for decision-making positions and questions The mean and standard deviation of the scores related to “questions, priority, decision-making position and degree” showed that the highest mean was obtained in “priority” with 17.9 ± 3.6 and the lowest in “degree” with 1. 9 ± 1.09. The frequency and percentage of similar decision-making were reported in the study participants; the highest score was related to the decision-making in position 3 (Adults death wish) with frequency of 94 and percentage of 41.6% and the lowest score was related to position 5 (Patient at the end stage of disease) with frequency of 8 and percentage of 3.5%. None of the indicators of age, sex, marital status, and the level of admission was not significant in this study and cannot be mentioned as a predicator in the stages of moral evolution. \nConclusion: Given the importance of discussing ethics as one of the most important modalities of the human and social sciences and its impressive impact on all aspects of human life, it is clear that applying a scientific approach can determine all aspects of the factors that affect the observance of ethical principles. \n ","PeriodicalId":414959,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Behavior and Community Health","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Behavior and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jsbch.v6i1.9519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: One of the main issues in treating, preserving and promoting the human dignity is caring for patients' satisfaction and preventing harm, maltreatment, or damage to the patient. Therefore, the level of moral development based on Kohlberg's theory was studied among medical students of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences. Methods: In the current cross-sectional study, eligible medical students (N=220) of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences were enrolled over a 12-months period. Data were collected by demographic checklist and Kohlberg's ethical evolution questionnaires. Data were analyzed using SPSS-20, by Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, ANOVA, and t-tests. Results: There were no significant differences in terms of gender, educational level, marital status, and place of residence for decision-making positions and questions The mean and standard deviation of the scores related to “questions, priority, decision-making position and degree” showed that the highest mean was obtained in “priority” with 17.9 ± 3.6 and the lowest in “degree” with 1. 9 ± 1.09. The frequency and percentage of similar decision-making were reported in the study participants; the highest score was related to the decision-making in position 3 (Adults death wish) with frequency of 94 and percentage of 41.6% and the lowest score was related to position 5 (Patient at the end stage of disease) with frequency of 8 and percentage of 3.5%. None of the indicators of age, sex, marital status, and the level of admission was not significant in this study and cannot be mentioned as a predicator in the stages of moral evolution. Conclusion: Given the importance of discussing ethics as one of the most important modalities of the human and social sciences and its impressive impact on all aspects of human life, it is clear that applying a scientific approach can determine all aspects of the factors that affect the observance of ethical principles.  
基于柯尔伯格理论的医学生道德发展
背景:关怀患者的满意度和防止对患者的伤害、虐待或损害是治疗、维护和促进人的尊严的主要问题之一。因此,本文基于Kohlberg理论对拉夫桑詹医科大学医学生的道德发展水平进行了研究。方法:在当前的横断面研究中,纳入了拉夫桑詹医科大学符合条件的医学生(N=220),为期12个月。采用人口统计学检查表和Kohlberg伦理演变问卷收集数据。数据分析采用SPSS-20,采用Kruskal-Wallis、Mann-Whitney、ANOVA和t检验。结果:不同性别、文化程度、婚姻状况、居住地对决策职位和问题的得分差异无统计学意义。“问题、优先级、决策职位和程度”得分的均值和标准差显示,“优先级”得分均值最高,为17.9±3.6,“程度”得分均值最低,为1。9±1.09。报告了研究参与者类似决策的频率和百分比;与第3位(成人死亡愿望)决策相关的得分最高,频率为94,百分比为41.6%;与第5位(疾病终末期患者)决策相关的得分最低,频率为8,百分比为3.5%。年龄、性别、婚姻状况、入学水平等指标在本研究中均不显著,不能作为道德进化阶段的预测指标。结论:考虑到伦理作为人类和社会科学最重要的模式之一的重要性,以及它对人类生活的各个方面的深刻影响,很明显,应用科学的方法可以确定影响遵守伦理原则的因素的各个方面。
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