医护人员对生命末期人类尊严受损情况的量化评估:德国试点研究。

Florian Derler, Emilia L Mielke
{"title":"医护人员对生命末期人类尊严受损情况的量化评估:德国试点研究。","authors":"Florian Derler, Emilia L Mielke","doi":"10.1177/10499091241268573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Empirical investigations on health care professionals' (HCPs) perception of dignity have already spotted common themes in preserving dignity in end-of-life care. However, heterogenic assessment results of varying HCP groups exist. This pilot study wants to provide further evidence on HCPs' rating of dignity-impairing aspects based on a patient-centered concept, especially regarding different underlying job profiles and other professional characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a quantitative study design, the rating of dignity-impairing factors in end-of-life care via an adapted version of the <i>Patient Dignity Inventory</i> (aPDI) was assessed. Participants of the relevant professional groups were recruited via convenience sampling from a region of Germany.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the final sample of participants, 229 questionnaires were analyzed. The overall importance of each dignity-impairing aspect in end-of-life care was considered to be very high by all different HCP groups. Nonetheless, ratings differed between professions: nursing staff had the highest ratings of importance compared to both physicians and individuals with multiple occupations. Participants with previous knowledge in bioethics also rated some aspects as more important compared to those without this feature.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the findings of this investigation, an insight of how professionals rate impairments of dignity at the end of life based on a patient-centered concept is given. Thus, a link between empirical research and medical ethics is added. Potential normative implications for HCPs in practice of a dignified care can be derived, consisting of actively addressing social topics as well as further stressing ethics as a fundamental subject in the training and continuing education.</p>","PeriodicalId":94222,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impairments of Human Dignity at the End of Life Quantitatively Assessed by Health Care Professionals: A Pilot Study From Germany.\",\"authors\":\"Florian Derler, Emilia L Mielke\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10499091241268573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Empirical investigations on health care professionals' (HCPs) perception of dignity have already spotted common themes in preserving dignity in end-of-life care. However, heterogenic assessment results of varying HCP groups exist. This pilot study wants to provide further evidence on HCPs' rating of dignity-impairing aspects based on a patient-centered concept, especially regarding different underlying job profiles and other professional characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a quantitative study design, the rating of dignity-impairing factors in end-of-life care via an adapted version of the <i>Patient Dignity Inventory</i> (aPDI) was assessed. Participants of the relevant professional groups were recruited via convenience sampling from a region of Germany.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the final sample of participants, 229 questionnaires were analyzed. The overall importance of each dignity-impairing aspect in end-of-life care was considered to be very high by all different HCP groups. Nonetheless, ratings differed between professions: nursing staff had the highest ratings of importance compared to both physicians and individuals with multiple occupations. Participants with previous knowledge in bioethics also rated some aspects as more important compared to those without this feature.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the findings of this investigation, an insight of how professionals rate impairments of dignity at the end of life based on a patient-centered concept is given. Thus, a link between empirical research and medical ethics is added. Potential normative implications for HCPs in practice of a dignified care can be derived, consisting of actively addressing social topics as well as further stressing ethics as a fundamental subject in the training and continuing education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American journal of hospice & palliative care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American journal of hospice & palliative care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091241268573\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091241268573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关于医护人员(HCPs)对尊严的感知的实证调查已经发现了在临终关怀中维护尊严的共同主题。然而,不同医护人员群体的评估结果存在差异。本试验性研究希望为医护人员基于以患者为中心的理念对有损尊严的方面进行评分提供进一步的证据,尤其是针对不同的基本工作特征和其他专业特征:方法:采用定量研究设计,通过改编版患者尊严量表(aPDI)对临终关怀中损害尊严因素的评分进行评估。相关专业团体的参与者是通过方便抽样的方式从德国的一个地区招募的:结果:对最终样本中的 229 份问卷进行了分析。所有不同的保健医生群体都认为临终关怀中每一个有损尊严的方面的整体重要性都很高。然而,不同职业的人对重要性的评价也不尽相同:与医生和从事多种职业的人相比,护理人员对重要性的评价最高。与没有生物伦理知识的人相比,有生物伦理知识的人对某些方面的评价也更高:通过本调查的结果,我们可以了解到专业人员是如何基于以患者为中心的理念来评价生命末期尊严受损的。因此,实证研究与医学伦理学之间增加了联系。同时,还可以得出在有尊严的护理实践中对人类保健工作者的潜在规范意义,包括积极解决社会问题,以及进一步强调伦理是培训和继续教育的基本主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impairments of Human Dignity at the End of Life Quantitatively Assessed by Health Care Professionals: A Pilot Study From Germany.

Background: Empirical investigations on health care professionals' (HCPs) perception of dignity have already spotted common themes in preserving dignity in end-of-life care. However, heterogenic assessment results of varying HCP groups exist. This pilot study wants to provide further evidence on HCPs' rating of dignity-impairing aspects based on a patient-centered concept, especially regarding different underlying job profiles and other professional characteristics.

Methods: In a quantitative study design, the rating of dignity-impairing factors in end-of-life care via an adapted version of the Patient Dignity Inventory (aPDI) was assessed. Participants of the relevant professional groups were recruited via convenience sampling from a region of Germany.

Results: From the final sample of participants, 229 questionnaires were analyzed. The overall importance of each dignity-impairing aspect in end-of-life care was considered to be very high by all different HCP groups. Nonetheless, ratings differed between professions: nursing staff had the highest ratings of importance compared to both physicians and individuals with multiple occupations. Participants with previous knowledge in bioethics also rated some aspects as more important compared to those without this feature.

Conclusion: With the findings of this investigation, an insight of how professionals rate impairments of dignity at the end of life based on a patient-centered concept is given. Thus, a link between empirical research and medical ethics is added. Potential normative implications for HCPs in practice of a dignified care can be derived, consisting of actively addressing social topics as well as further stressing ethics as a fundamental subject in the training and continuing education.

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