Instrument choice for assessing ethical sensitivity in nursing students.

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Ting Zhang, Dan Su, Xiaotong Ding, Qiang Wei
{"title":"Instrument choice for assessing ethical sensitivity in nursing students.","authors":"Ting Zhang, Dan Su, Xiaotong Ding, Qiang Wei","doi":"10.1177/09697330251346080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundComplex health care environments present moral dilemmas for clinical nurses and nursing students that challenge their professional development as well as their physical and mental health. Ethical sensitivity (ES) is seen as a prerequisite that enables clinical nurses to make appropriate ethical decisions when facing a dilemma; therefore, ES should be a development focus for nursing students.PurposeThe aim of this study is to conduct a systematic evaluation of existing instruments to assess moral sensitivity (MS) or ES in nursing students. We subsequently provide recommendations of the proper research tools that can be used in future studies based on our study results.MethodsA systematic literature search across nine databases from their inception to November 17, 2024 was first conducted. Two researchers then independently screened these studies, which were published in English or Chinese. The studies evaluated were designed to develop or validate a scale used to measure ES or MS among nursing students. The COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines were followed to evaluate both the methodological quality and the quality of the psychometric properties of the identified tools. Finally, data synthesis was performed.ResultsWe ultimately included 13 assessment tools used for the assessment of ES or MS among nursing students. Only one tool was rated A, and four tools were rated C and not recommended for use. The remaining tools were rated B, and they have potential for assessing MS and ES among nursing students.ConclusionA majority of the tools included in this study still require further revision to enhance their quality prior to their effective use in MS and ES assessments. The COSMIN guidelines indicated that future studies should describe the development and validation of measurement tools in detail and improve their current data analysis methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"9697330251346080"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330251346080","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

BackgroundComplex health care environments present moral dilemmas for clinical nurses and nursing students that challenge their professional development as well as their physical and mental health. Ethical sensitivity (ES) is seen as a prerequisite that enables clinical nurses to make appropriate ethical decisions when facing a dilemma; therefore, ES should be a development focus for nursing students.PurposeThe aim of this study is to conduct a systematic evaluation of existing instruments to assess moral sensitivity (MS) or ES in nursing students. We subsequently provide recommendations of the proper research tools that can be used in future studies based on our study results.MethodsA systematic literature search across nine databases from their inception to November 17, 2024 was first conducted. Two researchers then independently screened these studies, which were published in English or Chinese. The studies evaluated were designed to develop or validate a scale used to measure ES or MS among nursing students. The COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines were followed to evaluate both the methodological quality and the quality of the psychometric properties of the identified tools. Finally, data synthesis was performed.ResultsWe ultimately included 13 assessment tools used for the assessment of ES or MS among nursing students. Only one tool was rated A, and four tools were rated C and not recommended for use. The remaining tools were rated B, and they have potential for assessing MS and ES among nursing students.ConclusionA majority of the tools included in this study still require further revision to enhance their quality prior to their effective use in MS and ES assessments. The COSMIN guidelines indicated that future studies should describe the development and validation of measurement tools in detail and improve their current data analysis methods.

护生伦理敏感性评估的工具选择。
复杂的卫生保健环境给临床护士和护理学生带来了道德困境,挑战了他们的专业发展以及他们的身心健康。伦理敏感性(ES)被视为使临床护士在面临困境时做出适当伦理决定的先决条件;因此,ES应该成为护生的发展重点。目的本研究的目的是对现有的护生道德敏感性(MS)或ES评估工具进行系统的评估。我们随后根据我们的研究结果提供了合适的研究工具的建议,可以在未来的研究中使用。方法首次对9个数据库自建库至2024年11月17日的文献进行系统检索。随后,两名研究人员独立筛选了这些以英文或中文发表的研究。评估的研究旨在开发或验证用于测量护理学生ES或MS的量表。遵循了基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)准则,以评估所确定工具的方法学质量和心理测量特性的质量。最后进行数据综合。结果我们最终纳入了13种评估工具,用于评估护生的ES或MS。只有一个工具被评为A级,四个工具被评为C级,不推荐使用。其余工具被评为B级,它们有潜力评估护理学生的MS和ES。结论本研究中纳入的大多数工具在有效用于MS和ES评估之前仍需要进一步修订以提高其质量。COSMIN指南指出,未来的研究应详细描述测量工具的开发和验证,并改进其当前的数据分析方法。
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
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信