Media codes of ethics for health professionals and media professionals: a qualitative study.

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICAL ETHICS
Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Pub Date : 2022-03-15 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.18502/jmehm.v15i2.9036
Mohammad Kiasalar, Younes Shokrkhah, Saharnaz Nedjat, Hamidreza Namazi
{"title":"Media codes of ethics for health professionals and media professionals: a qualitative study.","authors":"Mohammad Kiasalar,&nbsp;Younes Shokrkhah,&nbsp;Saharnaz Nedjat,&nbsp;Hamidreza Namazi","doi":"10.18502/jmehm.v15i2.9036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Media is an opportunity for health professionals; however, it is not free of threats. Fixing the threats requires professional systematization through developing practical guidelines, which brings us to the goal this study was designed to achieve. The study was conducted qualitatively through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group discussion with health and media experts, as a result of which 486 codes were extracted and classified into 4 groups. The first group was addressed to media professionals and contained 126 codes in 5 categories: seeking and reporting the truth, harm minimization, integrity, independence, and respect for the rights of others. The second and third groups were addressed to health professionals, the former (150 codes) dealing with formal media, and the latter (190 codes) dealing with cyberspace. These groups were both categorized into 6 categories: scientific demeanor, beneficence, harm minimization, integrity, maintaining the dignity of the profession and professionals, and respect for the rights of others. The fourth group was addressed to the public audience and contained 20 codes categorized into 2 categories: ethics of belief, and ethics of (re-)publishing. Since the study was conducted during the pandemic/infodemic, the proposed codes can help reduce possible conflicts in similar future situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":45276,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/13/3d/JMEHM-15-2.PMC9376203.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v15i2.9036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Media is an opportunity for health professionals; however, it is not free of threats. Fixing the threats requires professional systematization through developing practical guidelines, which brings us to the goal this study was designed to achieve. The study was conducted qualitatively through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group discussion with health and media experts, as a result of which 486 codes were extracted and classified into 4 groups. The first group was addressed to media professionals and contained 126 codes in 5 categories: seeking and reporting the truth, harm minimization, integrity, independence, and respect for the rights of others. The second and third groups were addressed to health professionals, the former (150 codes) dealing with formal media, and the latter (190 codes) dealing with cyberspace. These groups were both categorized into 6 categories: scientific demeanor, beneficence, harm minimization, integrity, maintaining the dignity of the profession and professionals, and respect for the rights of others. The fourth group was addressed to the public audience and contained 20 codes categorized into 2 categories: ethics of belief, and ethics of (re-)publishing. Since the study was conducted during the pandemic/infodemic, the proposed codes can help reduce possible conflicts in similar future situations.

Abstract Image

卫生专业人员和媒体专业人员的媒体道德规范:一项定性研究。
媒体是卫生专业人员的机会;然而,它并非没有威胁。解决这些威胁需要通过制定实用指南来实现专业的系统化,这将我们带到了本研究旨在实现的目标。本研究通过文献综述、半结构化访谈和与卫生和媒体专家的焦点小组讨论进行定性研究,从中提取了486种编码,并将其分为4组。第一组是针对媒体专业人员的,包含5类126条准则:寻求和报道真相、尽量减少伤害、诚信、独立和尊重他人权利。第二组和第三组针对卫生专业人员,前一组(150条)涉及正式媒体,后一组(190条)涉及网络空间。这些群体都被分为6类:科学举止,慈善,危害最小化,诚信,维护职业和专业人员的尊严,尊重他人的权利。第四组是面向公众的,包含20条规范,分为两类:信仰伦理和(再)出版伦理。由于这项研究是在大流行/信息大流行期间进行的,拟议的守则有助于减少未来类似情况下可能发生的冲突。
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
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