Relational autonomy in pediatric healthcare: A scoping review.

IF 2.7 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Amarens Matthiesen, Nicole Drumm, Alison J Gerlach, Donna Koller, Tieghan Killackey
{"title":"Relational autonomy in pediatric healthcare: A scoping review.","authors":"Amarens Matthiesen, Nicole Drumm, Alison J Gerlach, Donna Koller, Tieghan Killackey","doi":"10.1177/09697330251366601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThe concept of relational autonomy has gained popularity for accentuating the social embeddedness of autonomy. In pediatrics, relational autonomy provides a framework for conceptualizing the complexities of healthcare processes, such as shared decision-making and children's transitions to adult care systems. However, a lack of clarity exists regarding how to define and operationalize relational autonomy in pediatric healthcare. To our knowledge, no reviews of literature have been conducted to better understand this concept in pediatrics and guide further research.Research AimThe purpose of this scoping review was to describe literature focusing on relational approaches to autonomy in the context of pediatric healthcare.Research designA scoping review methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guided this review. Seven databases were searched for literature published between 2004 and 2024. Out of 2895 potentially relevant publications, a total of 28 articles were included for review.Ethical ConsiderationsThis study was conducted and reported in accordance with recognized scientific scoping review guidelines.FindingsVarious terms were used to describe relational approaches to autonomy in pediatrics. These terms shared a common goal of promoting a more holistic view of children and their decision-making processes in pediatric care. Most articles relied on adult perspectives (e.g., caregivers and healthcare providers) to shed light on shared decision-making processes. The perspectives of children and nurses were underrepresented in the literature, especially in the context of the Global South.ConclusionAdditional research is needed to capture the lived experiences of a wider range of individuals with developing and exercising autonomy using diverse research methods. As the perspectives of nurses and children remain excluded from literature, new knowledge on their experiences with autonomy can inform the delivery of care that is ethically and morally sound.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"9697330251366601"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","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/10.1177/09697330251366601","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

BackgroundThe concept of relational autonomy has gained popularity for accentuating the social embeddedness of autonomy. In pediatrics, relational autonomy provides a framework for conceptualizing the complexities of healthcare processes, such as shared decision-making and children's transitions to adult care systems. However, a lack of clarity exists regarding how to define and operationalize relational autonomy in pediatric healthcare. To our knowledge, no reviews of literature have been conducted to better understand this concept in pediatrics and guide further research.Research AimThe purpose of this scoping review was to describe literature focusing on relational approaches to autonomy in the context of pediatric healthcare.Research designA scoping review methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guided this review. Seven databases were searched for literature published between 2004 and 2024. Out of 2895 potentially relevant publications, a total of 28 articles were included for review.Ethical ConsiderationsThis study was conducted and reported in accordance with recognized scientific scoping review guidelines.FindingsVarious terms were used to describe relational approaches to autonomy in pediatrics. These terms shared a common goal of promoting a more holistic view of children and their decision-making processes in pediatric care. Most articles relied on adult perspectives (e.g., caregivers and healthcare providers) to shed light on shared decision-making processes. The perspectives of children and nurses were underrepresented in the literature, especially in the context of the Global South.ConclusionAdditional research is needed to capture the lived experiences of a wider range of individuals with developing and exercising autonomy using diverse research methods. As the perspectives of nurses and children remain excluded from literature, new knowledge on their experiences with autonomy can inform the delivery of care that is ethically and morally sound.

关系自治在儿科医疗保健:范围审查。
关系自治的概念因强调自治的社会嵌入性而受到欢迎。在儿科学中,关系自治提供了一个框架,用于概念化医疗保健过程的复杂性,例如共同决策和儿童向成人护理系统的过渡。然而,缺乏明确存在关于如何定义和操作关系自治在儿科医疗保健。据我们所知,还没有文献综述来更好地理解儿科学中的这一概念并指导进一步的研究。研究目的本综述的目的是描述在儿科医疗保健背景下的自主性相关方法的文献。研究设计Arksey和O'Malley以及Joanna Briggs研究所提出的范围审查方法指导了这次审查。在7个数据库中检索了2004年至2024年间发表的文献。在2895篇可能相关的出版物中,共有28篇文章被纳入审查。本研究是按照公认的科学范围审查指南进行和报告的。研究结果不同的术语被用来描述关系方法的自主权在儿科。这些术语有一个共同的目标,即促进对儿童及其在儿科护理中的决策过程的更全面的看法。大多数文章依赖于成人的观点(例如,照顾者和医疗保健提供者)来阐明共同的决策过程。儿童和护士的观点在文献中代表性不足,特别是在全球南方的背景下。结论需要更多的研究来捕捉更广泛的个体发展和行使自主权的生活经验,使用不同的研究方法。由于护士和儿童的观点仍然被排除在文献之外,关于他们自主经验的新知识可以为在伦理和道德上健全的护理提供信息。
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