斯洛文尼亚家庭实践中普遍存在的伦理困境

Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš, Janko Kersnik
{"title":"斯洛文尼亚家庭实践中普遍存在的伦理困境","authors":"Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš, Janko Kersnik","doi":"10.18690/actabiomed.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To determine the perceived prevalence of ethical dilemmas in family practice. Methods: Self-administered questionnaire sent to a random sample of 259 Slovenian family physicians. The main outcome measure was the percentage of doctors reporting the frequency of ethical dilemmas on a 5-point scale.Results: Ethical dilemmas were common (mean score ± standard deviation, 36.2±12.5, out of a maximum of 100). The most common dilemmas involved decision-making regarding use of limited resources (23.9%), patient attempts to abuse the health care service (20.4%) and interfacing with the rest of the health care system (20.4%). Dealing with patients suspected of being physically abused, sexually abused, or involved in other violent acts was the least common ethical dilemma (<0.1%), followed by issues involving breaking bad news (<0.1%) and special situations regarding adolescents (0.7%). Older physicians and those with more experience reported ethical dilemmas less commonly (32.3±11.9 vs. 40.1±11.9, P < 0.001; 32.4±11.8 vs. 39.5±12.2, P = 0.001, respectively). Specialists in family medicine and family medicine residents reported ethical dilemmas more commonly than general practitioners without specialist training (37.0±12.6 vs. 30.7±10.8, P = 0.05 and 39.5±12.5 vs. 30.7±10.8, P = 0.04, respectively).Conclusions: Ethical issues are common in Slovenian family practice and are most often reported by residents in specialist training. This supports the need to continue and even improve specialist training in recognizing and comprehending ethical dilemmas.","PeriodicalId":186880,"journal":{"name":"Acta Medico-Biotechnica","volume":"132 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of ethical dilemmas in Slovenian family practice\",\"authors\":\"Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš, Janko Kersnik\",\"doi\":\"10.18690/actabiomed.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To determine the perceived prevalence of ethical dilemmas in family practice. Methods: Self-administered questionnaire sent to a random sample of 259 Slovenian family physicians. The main outcome measure was the percentage of doctors reporting the frequency of ethical dilemmas on a 5-point scale.Results: Ethical dilemmas were common (mean score ± standard deviation, 36.2±12.5, out of a maximum of 100). The most common dilemmas involved decision-making regarding use of limited resources (23.9%), patient attempts to abuse the health care service (20.4%) and interfacing with the rest of the health care system (20.4%). Dealing with patients suspected of being physically abused, sexually abused, or involved in other violent acts was the least common ethical dilemma (<0.1%), followed by issues involving breaking bad news (<0.1%) and special situations regarding adolescents (0.7%). Older physicians and those with more experience reported ethical dilemmas less commonly (32.3±11.9 vs. 40.1±11.9, P < 0.001; 32.4±11.8 vs. 39.5±12.2, P = 0.001, respectively). Specialists in family medicine and family medicine residents reported ethical dilemmas more commonly than general practitioners without specialist training (37.0±12.6 vs. 30.7±10.8, P = 0.05 and 39.5±12.5 vs. 30.7±10.8, P = 0.04, respectively).Conclusions: Ethical issues are common in Slovenian family practice and are most often reported by residents in specialist training. This supports the need to continue and even improve specialist training in recognizing and comprehending ethical dilemmas.\",\"PeriodicalId\":186880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Medico-Biotechnica\",\"volume\":\"132 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Medico-Biotechnica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18690/actabiomed.12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Medico-Biotechnica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18690/actabiomed.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:了解家庭实践中道德困境的感知普遍性。方法:随机抽取259名斯洛文尼亚家庭医生进行问卷调查。主要的结果测量是医生报告道德困境频率的百分比(5分制)。结果:道德困境普遍存在(平均得分±标准差,36.2±12.5,满分100分)。最常见的困境包括关于有限资源使用的决策(23.9%),患者试图滥用医疗保健服务(20.4%)以及与医疗保健系统其他部分的接口(20.4%)。处理涉嫌身体虐待、性虐待或涉及其他暴力行为的患者是最不常见的道德困境(<0.1%),其次是涉及突发坏消息(<0.1%)和青少年特殊情况(0.7%)的问题。年龄较大的医生和经验丰富的医生较少报告道德困境(32.3±11.9比40.1±11.9,P < 0.001;32.4±11.8 vs. 39.5±12.2,P = 0.001)。家庭医学专科医师和家庭医学住院医师的道德困境发生率高于全科医师(分别为37.0±12.6比30.7±10.8,P = 0.05和39.5±12.5比30.7±10.8,P = 0.04)。结论:道德问题在斯洛文尼亚的家庭实践中很常见,并且最常由接受专业培训的居民报告。这支持了继续甚至改进识别和理解道德困境的专家培训的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prevalence of ethical dilemmas in Slovenian family practice
Purpose: To determine the perceived prevalence of ethical dilemmas in family practice. Methods: Self-administered questionnaire sent to a random sample of 259 Slovenian family physicians. The main outcome measure was the percentage of doctors reporting the frequency of ethical dilemmas on a 5-point scale.Results: Ethical dilemmas were common (mean score ± standard deviation, 36.2±12.5, out of a maximum of 100). The most common dilemmas involved decision-making regarding use of limited resources (23.9%), patient attempts to abuse the health care service (20.4%) and interfacing with the rest of the health care system (20.4%). Dealing with patients suspected of being physically abused, sexually abused, or involved in other violent acts was the least common ethical dilemma (<0.1%), followed by issues involving breaking bad news (<0.1%) and special situations regarding adolescents (0.7%). Older physicians and those with more experience reported ethical dilemmas less commonly (32.3±11.9 vs. 40.1±11.9, P < 0.001; 32.4±11.8 vs. 39.5±12.2, P = 0.001, respectively). Specialists in family medicine and family medicine residents reported ethical dilemmas more commonly than general practitioners without specialist training (37.0±12.6 vs. 30.7±10.8, P = 0.05 and 39.5±12.5 vs. 30.7±10.8, P = 0.04, respectively).Conclusions: Ethical issues are common in Slovenian family practice and are most often reported by residents in specialist training. This supports the need to continue and even improve specialist training in recognizing and comprehending ethical dilemmas.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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