« Sédation » ou « pratiques sédatives à visée palliative en fin de vie » ? Une étude linguistique des recommandations francophones en matière de sédation en soins palliatifs chez l’adulte.

IF 0.3 Q4 Medicine
Martyna Tomczyk, Marcel-Louis Viallard, Sadek Beloucif
{"title":"« Sédation » ou « pratiques sédatives à visée palliative en fin de vie » ? Une étude linguistique des recommandations francophones en matière de sédation en soins palliatifs chez l’adulte.","authors":"Martyna Tomczyk,&nbsp;Marcel-Louis Viallard,&nbsp;Sadek Beloucif","doi":"10.3917/rsi.143.0106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction&#160;: Despite the number and importance of French-language guidelines related to palliative sedation for adults, these texts have never been the subject of a linguistic analysis.Objectives&#160;: This study aimed to explore and analyze the terms used for sedation and their definitions in Belgian, French, Quebec, and Swiss guidelines.Methods&#160;: Current documents were subjected to textual, terminological, and conceptual analysis.Results&#160;: Belgian, Quebec, and Swiss guidelines use the same term to refer to sedation, without, however, conceptualizing it in a consistent way. By contrast, guidelines developed in France use various terms but define sedation in a similar (but not identical) way. Cultural specificities linked to end-of-life legislation in those countries and region were identified as a potential causal factor.Discussion and conclusion&#160;: The diversity of terms and definitions inevitably reinforces the imprecision of the medical language, and the terminology in particular. This is likely to have a negative impact on communication between healthcare professionals, patients, and their families. Efforts should be made to homogenize the terminology and definitions used in guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":44071,"journal":{"name":"Recherche en Soins Infirmiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recherche en Soins Infirmiers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rsi.143.0106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction : Despite the number and importance of French-language guidelines related to palliative sedation for adults, these texts have never been the subject of a linguistic analysis.Objectives : This study aimed to explore and analyze the terms used for sedation and their definitions in Belgian, French, Quebec, and Swiss guidelines.Methods : Current documents were subjected to textual, terminological, and conceptual analysis.Results : Belgian, Quebec, and Swiss guidelines use the same term to refer to sedation, without, however, conceptualizing it in a consistent way. By contrast, guidelines developed in France use various terms but define sedation in a similar (but not identical) way. Cultural specificities linked to end-of-life legislation in those countries and region were identified as a potential causal factor.Discussion and conclusion : The diversity of terms and definitions inevitably reinforces the imprecision of the medical language, and the terminology in particular. This is likely to have a negative impact on communication between healthcare professionals, patients, and their families. Efforts should be made to homogenize the terminology and definitions used in guidelines.

“镇静”还是“临终姑息性镇静实践”?一项关于成人姑息治疗镇静的法语建议的语言学研究。
前言 :尽管与成人姑息性镇静相关的法语指南数量和重要性,但这些文本从未成为语言分析的主题。目的 :本研究旨在探索和分析比利时、法国、魁北克和瑞士指南中用于镇静的术语及其定义。方法 :对现有文件进行文本、术语和概念分析。比利时、魁北克和瑞士的指导方针使用相同的术语来指代镇静,但没有以一致的方式概念化它。相比之下,法国制定的指南使用了各种术语,但以类似(但不完全相同)的方式定义镇静。这些国家和地区与临终立法有关的文化特点被认为是一个潜在的因果因素。讨论和结论:术语和定义的多样性不可避免地加强了医学语言的不精确性,特别是术语。这可能会对医疗保健专业人员、患者及其家属之间的沟通产生负面影响。应努力统一准则中使用的术语和定义。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
25
×
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