A quantitative survey measure of moral evaluations of patient substance misuse among health professionals in California, urban France, and urban China.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Anna Yu Lee, Curtis Lehmann, Pengchong Zhou, Bin Xie, Kim D Reynolds, Alan W Stacy
{"title":"A quantitative survey measure of moral evaluations of patient substance misuse among health professionals in California, urban France, and urban China.","authors":"Anna Yu Lee, Curtis Lehmann, Pengchong Zhou, Bin Xie, Kim D Reynolds, Alan W Stacy","doi":"10.1186/s13010-023-00148-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The merits and drawbacks of moral relevance models of addiction have predominantly been discussed theoretically, without empirical evidence of these potential effects. This study develops and evaluates a novel survey measure for assessing moral evaluations of patient substance misuse (ME-PSM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This measure was tested on 524 health professionals (i.e., physicians, nurses, and other health professionals) in California (n = 173), urban France (n = 102), and urban China (n = 249). Demographic factors associated with ME-PSM were investigated using analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and t-tests, with results suggesting that ME-PSM is higher among younger health professionals, nurses (when compared with physicians and other health professionals), and Chinese health professionals (when compared with French and American health professionals).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results provide preliminary support for the psychometric quality of the survey measure introduced in this study, including the existence of a single latent structure and partial invariance of collected data across countries.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The survey measure for ME-PSM which was developed and tested in the current study appears to hold potential utility for use as a measure of moral views of patient substance misuse. With development, this measure may be used to examine moral evaluations, both as factors of stigma and of other clinical factors associated with the treatment of patients with substance use disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":56062,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","volume":"18 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10696895/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-023-00148-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The merits and drawbacks of moral relevance models of addiction have predominantly been discussed theoretically, without empirical evidence of these potential effects. This study develops and evaluates a novel survey measure for assessing moral evaluations of patient substance misuse (ME-PSM).

Methods: This measure was tested on 524 health professionals (i.e., physicians, nurses, and other health professionals) in California (n = 173), urban France (n = 102), and urban China (n = 249). Demographic factors associated with ME-PSM were investigated using analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and t-tests, with results suggesting that ME-PSM is higher among younger health professionals, nurses (when compared with physicians and other health professionals), and Chinese health professionals (when compared with French and American health professionals).

Results: Results provide preliminary support for the psychometric quality of the survey measure introduced in this study, including the existence of a single latent structure and partial invariance of collected data across countries.

Conclusion: The survey measure for ME-PSM which was developed and tested in the current study appears to hold potential utility for use as a measure of moral views of patient substance misuse. With development, this measure may be used to examine moral evaluations, both as factors of stigma and of other clinical factors associated with the treatment of patients with substance use disorders.

美国加州、法国城市和中国城市卫生专业人员对病人药物滥用的道德评价的定量调查。
背景:成瘾的道德相关模型的优点和缺点主要是在理论上讨论,没有这些潜在影响的经验证据。本研究开发并评估了一种评估患者药物滥用(ME-PSM)道德评价的新调查方法。方法:对524名卫生专业人员(即医生、护士和其他卫生专业人员)进行了测试,分别来自加利福尼亚(n = 173)、法国城市(n = 102)和中国城市(n = 249)。使用方差分析(anova)和t检验调查了与ME-PSM相关的人口统计学因素,结果表明ME-PSM在年轻卫生专业人员、护士(与医生和其他卫生专业人员相比)和中国卫生专业人员(与法国和美国卫生专业人员相比)中较高。结果:结果为本研究中引入的调查措施的心理测量质量提供了初步支持,包括存在单一潜在结构和各国收集数据的部分不变性。结论:在当前研究中开发和测试的ME-PSM调查措施似乎具有潜在的效用,可用于衡量患者药物滥用的道德观。随着发展,这一措施可用于检查道德评价,既作为耻辱的因素,也作为与药物使用障碍患者治疗相关的其他临床因素。
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
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine considers articles on the philosophy of medicine and biology, and on ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of the philosophy of medicine and biology, and the ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. It also considers papers at the intersection of medicine and humanities, including the history of medicine, that are relevant to contemporary philosophy of medicine and bioethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is the official publication of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center.
×
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