Field-Testing the Euro-MCD Instrument: Important Outcomes According to Participants Before and After Moral Case Deliberation.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
J C de Snoo-Trimp, A C Molewijk, M Svantesson, G A M Widdershoven, H C W de Vet
{"title":"Field-Testing the Euro-MCD Instrument: Important Outcomes According to Participants Before and After Moral Case Deliberation.","authors":"J C de Snoo-Trimp,&nbsp;A C Molewijk,&nbsp;M Svantesson,&nbsp;G A M Widdershoven,&nbsp;H C W de Vet","doi":"10.1007/s10730-020-09421-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethics support services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) intend to support healthcare professionals in ethically difficult situations. To assess outcomes of MCD, the Euro-MCD Instrument has been developed. Field studies to test this instrument are needed and have been conducted, examining important outcomes before MCD participation and experienced outcomes. The current study aimed to (1) describe how participants' perceive the importance of MCD outcomes after MCD; (2) compare these perceptions with those before MCD participation; and (3) test the factor structure of these outcomes. Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch healthcare professionals rated the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument after four and eight MCDs. Ratings were compared with those before MCD participation using paired and independent samples t-tests. The factor structure was tested using exploratory factor analyses. After 4 and 8 MCDs, 443 respectively 247 respondents completed the instrument. More than 69% rated all MCD outcomes as 'quite' or 'very' important, especially outcomes from Enhanced Collaboration, Improved Moral Reflexivity and Improved Moral Attitude. Significant differences for 16 outcomes regarding ratings before and after MCD participation were not considered meaningful. Factor analyses suggested three categories, which seemingly resemble the domains Improved Moral Reflexivity, Enhanced Collaboration and a combination of Improved Moral Attitude and Enhanced Emotional Support. After participation in MCDs, respondents confirmed the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument. The question on perceived importance and the categorization of outcomes need reconsideration. The revised instrument will be presented elsewhere, based on all field studies and theoretical reflections.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10730-020-09421-9","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09421-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Ethics support services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) intend to support healthcare professionals in ethically difficult situations. To assess outcomes of MCD, the Euro-MCD Instrument has been developed. Field studies to test this instrument are needed and have been conducted, examining important outcomes before MCD participation and experienced outcomes. The current study aimed to (1) describe how participants' perceive the importance of MCD outcomes after MCD; (2) compare these perceptions with those before MCD participation; and (3) test the factor structure of these outcomes. Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch healthcare professionals rated the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument after four and eight MCDs. Ratings were compared with those before MCD participation using paired and independent samples t-tests. The factor structure was tested using exploratory factor analyses. After 4 and 8 MCDs, 443 respectively 247 respondents completed the instrument. More than 69% rated all MCD outcomes as 'quite' or 'very' important, especially outcomes from Enhanced Collaboration, Improved Moral Reflexivity and Improved Moral Attitude. Significant differences for 16 outcomes regarding ratings before and after MCD participation were not considered meaningful. Factor analyses suggested three categories, which seemingly resemble the domains Improved Moral Reflexivity, Enhanced Collaboration and a combination of Improved Moral Attitude and Enhanced Emotional Support. After participation in MCDs, respondents confirmed the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument. The question on perceived importance and the categorization of outcomes need reconsideration. The revised instrument will be presented elsewhere, based on all field studies and theoretical reflections.

现场测试Euro-MCD工具:道德案例审议前后参与者的重要结果。
道德支持服务,如道德案例审议(MCD),旨在支持医疗保健专业人员在道德困难的情况下。为了评估MCD的结果,开发了欧洲-MCD工具。需要进行实地研究以检验这一工具,并且已经进行了实地研究,在MCD参与之前审查重要的成果和已有的成果。本研究旨在(1)描述参与者在MCD后如何感知MCD结果的重要性;(2)将这些认知与参与MCD前的认知进行比较;(3)检验这些结果的因素结构。瑞典、挪威和荷兰的医疗保健专业人员在4次和8次mcd后对Euro-MCD仪器结果的重要性进行了评级。使用配对和独立样本t检验比较MCD参与前的评分。采用探索性因子分析对因子结构进行检验。经过4次和8次mcd,分别有443名247名受访者完成了测试。超过69%的受访者认为MCD的所有结果“相当”或“非常”重要,尤其是加强合作、改善道德反思和改善道德态度的结果。参与MCD之前和之后的16项评分结果的显著差异被认为没有意义。因子分析提出了三个类别,似乎类似于改善道德反射、加强合作以及改善道德态度和加强情感支持的组合。在参与mcd之后,受访者确认了欧洲- mcd工具结果的重要性。关于感知重要性和结果分类的问题需要重新考虑。根据所有实地研究和理论思考,订正的文书将在其他地方提出。
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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
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