倡导的整体模式:影响其使用的因素

Sylvia M Kubsch , Marsha J Sternard , Rebecca Hovarter , Vicki Matzke
{"title":"倡导的整体模式:影响其使用的因素","authors":"Sylvia M Kubsch ,&nbsp;Marsha J Sternard ,&nbsp;Rebecca Hovarter ,&nbsp;Vicki Matzke","doi":"10.1016/S1353-6117(03)00083-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although advocacy is embraced by nursing as an essential component of holistic philosophy, its scope is often limited in practice. In this article, a research study that examined the use of an expanded definition of advocacy is described. A link to the role of advocacy as a complementary therapy and in relation to facilitating the use of complementary therapies by patients is provided. Fifty-two registered nurses completed a researcher developed advocacy research instrument that assessed the use of moral–ethical, legal, political, spiritual, and substitutive advocacy along with various factors thought to influence the use of advocacy including moral development, perceived assertiveness, and perceived job security. An additional 40 RN-BSN students generated case studies of advocacy enacted in practice that were used as examples of the five categories of advocacy and to support the findings of the survey. Results indicated that moral–ethical advocacy was used more often than the other four categories. Moral stage development had a significant effect on substitutive advocacy but assertiveness and job security were not significant factors influencing any category of advocacy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79481,"journal":{"name":"Complementary therapies in nursing & midwifery","volume":"10 1","pages":"Pages 37-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1353-6117(03)00083-0","citationCount":"42","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A holistic model of advocacy: factors that influence its use\",\"authors\":\"Sylvia M Kubsch ,&nbsp;Marsha J Sternard ,&nbsp;Rebecca Hovarter ,&nbsp;Vicki Matzke\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1353-6117(03)00083-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Although advocacy is embraced by nursing as an essential component of holistic philosophy, its scope is often limited in practice. In this article, a research study that examined the use of an expanded definition of advocacy is described. A link to the role of advocacy as a complementary therapy and in relation to facilitating the use of complementary therapies by patients is provided. Fifty-two registered nurses completed a researcher developed advocacy research instrument that assessed the use of moral–ethical, legal, political, spiritual, and substitutive advocacy along with various factors thought to influence the use of advocacy including moral development, perceived assertiveness, and perceived job security. An additional 40 RN-BSN students generated case studies of advocacy enacted in practice that were used as examples of the five categories of advocacy and to support the findings of the survey. Results indicated that moral–ethical advocacy was used more often than the other four categories. Moral stage development had a significant effect on substitutive advocacy but assertiveness and job security were not significant factors influencing any category of advocacy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Complementary therapies in nursing & midwifery\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 37-45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1353-6117(03)00083-0\",\"citationCount\":\"42\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Complementary therapies in nursing & midwifery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353611703000830\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Complementary therapies in nursing & midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353611703000830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

摘要

虽然倡导作为整体哲学的重要组成部分被护理所接受,但其范围在实践中往往受到限制。在这篇文章中,一项研究调查了宣传的扩展定义的使用描述。介绍了宣传作为一种补充疗法的作用与促进患者使用补充疗法的关系。52名注册护士完成了一项研究人员开发的倡导研究工具,该工具评估了道德伦理、法律、政治、精神和替代倡导的使用情况,以及被认为影响倡导使用的各种因素,包括道德发展、感知自信和感知工作保障。另有40名RN-BSN学生对实践中制定的宣传案例进行了研究,这些案例被用作五类宣传的例子,以支持调查的结果。结果表明,道德伦理倡导的使用频率高于其他四个类别。道德阶段发展对替代性倡导有显著影响,而自信和工作保障对任何类别的倡导都没有显著影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A holistic model of advocacy: factors that influence its use

Although advocacy is embraced by nursing as an essential component of holistic philosophy, its scope is often limited in practice. In this article, a research study that examined the use of an expanded definition of advocacy is described. A link to the role of advocacy as a complementary therapy and in relation to facilitating the use of complementary therapies by patients is provided. Fifty-two registered nurses completed a researcher developed advocacy research instrument that assessed the use of moral–ethical, legal, political, spiritual, and substitutive advocacy along with various factors thought to influence the use of advocacy including moral development, perceived assertiveness, and perceived job security. An additional 40 RN-BSN students generated case studies of advocacy enacted in practice that were used as examples of the five categories of advocacy and to support the findings of the survey. Results indicated that moral–ethical advocacy was used more often than the other four categories. Moral stage development had a significant effect on substitutive advocacy but assertiveness and job security were not significant factors influencing any category of advocacy.

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