教育研究:讲授死亡哲学后医学生临床死亡知识和态度的变化

Nicholas Ludka, A. Brummett, J. Wasserman
{"title":"教育研究:讲授死亡哲学后医学生临床死亡知识和态度的变化","authors":"Nicholas Ludka, A. Brummett, J. Wasserman","doi":"10.1212/ne9.0000000000200055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Varied meanings of death within medicine, bioethics, and society at large often produce disagreement and frustration between physicians and surrogate decision makers. We investigated whether teaching medical students about the philosophical aspects of death would change their attitude toward surrogate decision makers who assert nonstandard views of death.An 80-minute lecture covering philosophical debates surrounding medico-legal standards of death was given to second-year medical students at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine during a neuroscience course. Participants completed a questionnaire containing Likert scale and open-ended questions before and after the intervention assessing their acceptance of, frustration toward, and likelihood of accommodating a request for surrogate decision makers who posited either a whole-brain, high-brain, or circulatory view of death. Change in knowledge was analyzed using the McNemar test, whereas attitudinal scores were compared with pairedttests. Open-ended responses were narratively analyzed to identify themes that elaborate quantitative findings.A total of 43 paired responses were analyzed from second-year medical students. Following the intervention, students expressed less frustration (χ¯diff= −0.64, 95% CI −0.15 to −1.15), greater likelihood of accommodating ventilator removal (χ¯diff= 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.85), and greater acceptance (χ¯diff= 0.63, 95% CI 0.28–0.91) of surrogates who endorsed a whole-brain view of death. Although students rated the high-brain view as more acceptable after the lecture (χ¯diff= 0.63, 95% CI 0.28–0.91), they were not more likely to remove a ventilator from a patient who had experienced high-brain death (χ¯diff= 0.19, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.67). Students were less likely to continue artificial ventilation for a brain-dead patient (χ¯diff= −0.61, 95% CI −0.91 to −0.30) despite no change in frustration toward the surrogate (χ¯diff= −0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to −0.70).Changes in attitudes across the 3 views of death suggest that increased awareness of the philosophical debate facilitates reflection of students' understanding and opinion of death. These findings support implementation of educational interventions to prepare students for future work with surrogate decision makers holding diverse sets of views on death.","PeriodicalId":273801,"journal":{"name":"Neurology: Education","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Education Research: Changes in Medical Students' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Clinical Death After Teaching the Philosophy of Death\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Ludka, A. Brummett, J. Wasserman\",\"doi\":\"10.1212/ne9.0000000000200055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Varied meanings of death within medicine, bioethics, and society at large often produce disagreement and frustration between physicians and surrogate decision makers. We investigated whether teaching medical students about the philosophical aspects of death would change their attitude toward surrogate decision makers who assert nonstandard views of death.An 80-minute lecture covering philosophical debates surrounding medico-legal standards of death was given to second-year medical students at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine during a neuroscience course. Participants completed a questionnaire containing Likert scale and open-ended questions before and after the intervention assessing their acceptance of, frustration toward, and likelihood of accommodating a request for surrogate decision makers who posited either a whole-brain, high-brain, or circulatory view of death. Change in knowledge was analyzed using the McNemar test, whereas attitudinal scores were compared with pairedttests. Open-ended responses were narratively analyzed to identify themes that elaborate quantitative findings.A total of 43 paired responses were analyzed from second-year medical students. Following the intervention, students expressed less frustration (χ¯diff= −0.64, 95% CI −0.15 to −1.15), greater likelihood of accommodating ventilator removal (χ¯diff= 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.85), and greater acceptance (χ¯diff= 0.63, 95% CI 0.28–0.91) of surrogates who endorsed a whole-brain view of death. Although students rated the high-brain view as more acceptable after the lecture (χ¯diff= 0.63, 95% CI 0.28–0.91), they were not more likely to remove a ventilator from a patient who had experienced high-brain death (χ¯diff= 0.19, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.67). Students were less likely to continue artificial ventilation for a brain-dead patient (χ¯diff= −0.61, 95% CI −0.91 to −0.30) despite no change in frustration toward the surrogate (χ¯diff= −0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to −0.70).Changes in attitudes across the 3 views of death suggest that increased awareness of the philosophical debate facilitates reflection of students' understanding and opinion of death. These findings support implementation of educational interventions to prepare students for future work with surrogate decision makers holding diverse sets of views on death.\",\"PeriodicalId\":273801,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology: Education\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology: Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1212/ne9.0000000000200055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology: Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/ne9.0000000000200055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在医学、生物伦理学和整个社会中,死亡的不同含义经常导致医生和替代决策者之间的分歧和沮丧。我们调查了教授医学生关于死亡的哲学观点是否会改变他们对主张非标准死亡观点的代理决策者的态度。在奥克兰大学威廉博蒙特医学院的一门神经科学课程上,一场80分钟的讲座涵盖了围绕死亡的医学法律标准的哲学辩论。参与者在干预前后完成了一份问卷,其中包含李克特量表和开放式问题,评估他们对替代决策者的接受程度、挫败感和适应的可能性,这些替代决策者假设了全脑、高脑或循环死亡观。知识的变化是用McNemar测试来分析的,而态度得分是用配对测试来比较的。对开放式回答进行叙述性分析,以确定阐述定量发现的主题。对医二学生的43份配对问卷进行分析。干预后,学生表现出较少的挫败感(χ¯diff= - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.15至- 1.15),更有可能接受取下呼吸机(χ¯diff= 0.60, 95% CI 0.41-0.85),并且更容易接受支持全脑死亡观的替代物(χ¯diff= 0.63, 95% CI 0.28-0.91)。尽管学生在讲座结束后认为高脑死亡率观点更容易被接受(χ¯diff= 0.63, 95% CI 0.28-0.91),但他们不太可能从经历高脑死亡率的患者身上取下呼吸机(χ¯diff= 0.19, 95% CI - 0.30至0.67)。学生对脑死亡患者继续人工通气的可能性较小(χ¯diff= - 0.61, 95% CI - 0.91至- 0.30),尽管对替代物的沮丧感没有变化(χ¯diff= - 0.26, 95% CI 0.20至- 0.70)。三种死亡观点态度的变化表明,提高对哲学辩论的认识有助于反映学生对死亡的理解和看法。这些发现支持实施教育干预措施,使学生为将来与对死亡持有不同看法的替代决策者一起工作做好准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Education Research: Changes in Medical Students' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Clinical Death After Teaching the Philosophy of Death
Varied meanings of death within medicine, bioethics, and society at large often produce disagreement and frustration between physicians and surrogate decision makers. We investigated whether teaching medical students about the philosophical aspects of death would change their attitude toward surrogate decision makers who assert nonstandard views of death.An 80-minute lecture covering philosophical debates surrounding medico-legal standards of death was given to second-year medical students at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine during a neuroscience course. Participants completed a questionnaire containing Likert scale and open-ended questions before and after the intervention assessing their acceptance of, frustration toward, and likelihood of accommodating a request for surrogate decision makers who posited either a whole-brain, high-brain, or circulatory view of death. Change in knowledge was analyzed using the McNemar test, whereas attitudinal scores were compared with pairedttests. Open-ended responses were narratively analyzed to identify themes that elaborate quantitative findings.A total of 43 paired responses were analyzed from second-year medical students. Following the intervention, students expressed less frustration (χ¯diff= −0.64, 95% CI −0.15 to −1.15), greater likelihood of accommodating ventilator removal (χ¯diff= 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.85), and greater acceptance (χ¯diff= 0.63, 95% CI 0.28–0.91) of surrogates who endorsed a whole-brain view of death. Although students rated the high-brain view as more acceptable after the lecture (χ¯diff= 0.63, 95% CI 0.28–0.91), they were not more likely to remove a ventilator from a patient who had experienced high-brain death (χ¯diff= 0.19, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.67). Students were less likely to continue artificial ventilation for a brain-dead patient (χ¯diff= −0.61, 95% CI −0.91 to −0.30) despite no change in frustration toward the surrogate (χ¯diff= −0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to −0.70).Changes in attitudes across the 3 views of death suggest that increased awareness of the philosophical debate facilitates reflection of students' understanding and opinion of death. These findings support implementation of educational interventions to prepare students for future work with surrogate decision makers holding diverse sets of views on death.
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