Ethical self-efficacy among healthcare professionals caring for people with dementia: a brief pre- and post-report on the CARE intervention.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Frederik Schou-Juul, Lucca-Mathilde Thorup Ferm, Simon Kinch, Sofie Smedegaard Skov, Christian Ritz, Sigurd Lauridsen
{"title":"Ethical self-efficacy among healthcare professionals caring for people with dementia: a brief pre- and post-report on the CARE intervention.","authors":"Frederik Schou-Juul, Lucca-Mathilde Thorup Ferm, Simon Kinch, Sofie Smedegaard Skov, Christian Ritz, Sigurd Lauridsen","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01106-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventions targeting healthcare professionals' confidence in managing ethical issues in dementia care are limited despite documented positive effects of educational programs on staff knowledge and self-efficacy. However, inconsistencies in the literature regarding the impact of educational programs underscore the need for targeted interventions. The CARE intervention, specifically designed to enhance confidence in ethical decision-making, aims to address this gap. This study evaluates the effectiveness of the CARE intervention in enhancing the ethical self-efficacy of healthcare professionals caring for people with dementia, particularly those with initially low levels of self-efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a non-experimental pre-post evaluation design, the CARE intervention was administered to healthcare professionals (n = 86), measuring ethical self-efficacy pre-and post-intervention. We hypothesized significant differences in ethical self-efficacy mean scores pre- and post-intervention for all participants, particularly those with low pre-measurement scores, whom we expected to benefit most from the intervention. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests and Wilcoxon tests for the low pre-measurement subgroup analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While no significant change was observed in the entire sample, participants with low initial self-efficacy showed a statistically significant improvement post-intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CARE intervention holds promise in improving ethical self-efficacy among healthcare professionals with initial low confidence levels. Targeted interventions are essential in addressing confidence gaps in managing ethical challenges in dementia care, with implications for professional well-being and quality of care. Further research should explore long-term effects and expand sample size to enhance generalizability and sustainability of findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11463077/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01106-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interventions targeting healthcare professionals' confidence in managing ethical issues in dementia care are limited despite documented positive effects of educational programs on staff knowledge and self-efficacy. However, inconsistencies in the literature regarding the impact of educational programs underscore the need for targeted interventions. The CARE intervention, specifically designed to enhance confidence in ethical decision-making, aims to address this gap. This study evaluates the effectiveness of the CARE intervention in enhancing the ethical self-efficacy of healthcare professionals caring for people with dementia, particularly those with initially low levels of self-efficacy.

Methods: Using a non-experimental pre-post evaluation design, the CARE intervention was administered to healthcare professionals (n = 86), measuring ethical self-efficacy pre-and post-intervention. We hypothesized significant differences in ethical self-efficacy mean scores pre- and post-intervention for all participants, particularly those with low pre-measurement scores, whom we expected to benefit most from the intervention. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests and Wilcoxon tests for the low pre-measurement subgroup analysis.

Results: While no significant change was observed in the entire sample, participants with low initial self-efficacy showed a statistically significant improvement post-intervention.

Conclusions: The CARE intervention holds promise in improving ethical self-efficacy among healthcare professionals with initial low confidence levels. Targeted interventions are essential in addressing confidence gaps in managing ethical challenges in dementia care, with implications for professional well-being and quality of care. Further research should explore long-term effects and expand sample size to enhance generalizability and sustainability of findings.

护理痴呆症患者的医护人员的伦理自我效能感:CARE 干预前后的简要报告。
背景:尽管有文献记载教育项目对员工的知识和自我效能有积极影响,但针对医护人员在处理痴呆症护理中的伦理问题时的信心的干预措施却很有限。然而,有关教育项目影响的文献并不一致,这凸显了有针对性干预的必要性。CARE 干预方案专门用于增强道德决策的信心,旨在弥补这一不足。本研究评估了 CARE 干预在提高医护人员护理痴呆症患者(尤其是最初自我效能水平较低者)的伦理自我效能方面的有效性:采用非实验性的前后评估设计,对医护专业人员(n = 86)实施 CARE 干预,测量干预前后的伦理自我效能。我们假设所有参与者在干预前和干预后的道德自我效能感平均得分存在显著差异,尤其是那些干预前得分较低的参与者,我们预计他们将从干预中获益最多。统计分析包括配对 t 检验和 Wilcoxon 检验,用于对测量前得分低的亚组进行分析:结果:虽然在整个样本中没有观察到明显的变化,但初始自我效能感低的参与者在干预后有了统计学意义上的明显改善:CARE干预有望提高最初自信水平较低的医护人员的道德自我效能感。有针对性的干预措施对于解决在应对痴呆症护理中的伦理挑战方面存在的信心差距至关重要,这将对专业人员的福祉和护理质量产生影响。进一步的研究应探讨长期效果并扩大样本量,以提高研究结果的普遍性和可持续性。
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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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