医疗保健专业人员如何应对有关信息管理的道德挑战?实证研究综述。

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Cornelius Ewuoso, Susan Hall, Kris Dierickx
{"title":"医疗保健专业人员如何应对有关信息管理的道德挑战?实证研究综述。","authors":"Cornelius Ewuoso,&nbsp;Susan Hall,&nbsp;Kris Dierickx","doi":"10.1080/11287462.2021.1909820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study is a systematic review that aims to assess how healthcare professionals manage ethical challenges regarding information within the clinical context.</p><p><strong>Method and materials: </strong>We carried out searches in PubMed, <i>Google Scholar</i> and Embase, using two search strings; searches generated 665 hits. After screening, 47 articles relevant to the study aim were selected for review. Seven articles were identified through snowballing, and 18 others were included following a system update in PubMed, bringing the total number of articles reviewed to 72. We used a Q-sort technique for the analysis of identified articles.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>This study reveals that healthcare professionals around the world generally employ (to varying degrees) four broad strategies to manage different types of challenges regarding information, which can be categorized as challenges related to confidentiality, communication, professional duty, and decision-making. The strategies employed for managing these challenges include resolution, consultation, stalling, and disclosure/concealment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are a variety of strategies which health professionals can adopt to address challenges regarding information management within the clinical context. This insight complements current efforts aimed at enhancing health professional-patient communication. Very few studies have researched the results of employing these various strategies. Future empirical studies are required to address this.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>CIOMS: Council of International Organization of Medical Sciences; WHO: World Health Organization; AMA: American Medical Association; WMA: World Medical Association; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; ISCO: International Standard Classification of Occupations; ILO: International Labour Office; SPSS: The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.</p>","PeriodicalId":36835,"journal":{"name":"Global Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11287462.2021.1909820","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do healthcare professionals respond to ethical challenges regarding information management? A review of empirical studies.\",\"authors\":\"Cornelius Ewuoso,&nbsp;Susan Hall,&nbsp;Kris Dierickx\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11287462.2021.1909820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study is a systematic review that aims to assess how healthcare professionals manage ethical challenges regarding information within the clinical context.</p><p><strong>Method and materials: </strong>We carried out searches in PubMed, <i>Google Scholar</i> and Embase, using two search strings; searches generated 665 hits. After screening, 47 articles relevant to the study aim were selected for review. Seven articles were identified through snowballing, and 18 others were included following a system update in PubMed, bringing the total number of articles reviewed to 72. We used a Q-sort technique for the analysis of identified articles.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>This study reveals that healthcare professionals around the world generally employ (to varying degrees) four broad strategies to manage different types of challenges regarding information, which can be categorized as challenges related to confidentiality, communication, professional duty, and decision-making. The strategies employed for managing these challenges include resolution, consultation, stalling, and disclosure/concealment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are a variety of strategies which health professionals can adopt to address challenges regarding information management within the clinical context. This insight complements current efforts aimed at enhancing health professional-patient communication. Very few studies have researched the results of employing these various strategies. Future empirical studies are required to address this.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>CIOMS: Council of International Organization of Medical Sciences; WHO: World Health Organization; AMA: American Medical Association; WMA: World Medical Association; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; ISCO: International Standard Classification of Occupations; ILO: International Labour Office; SPSS: The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Bioethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11287462.2021.1909820\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.1909820\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2021.1909820","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:本研究是一项系统综述,旨在评估医疗保健专业人员如何在临床环境中管理有关信息的道德挑战。方法和材料:我们在PubMed、Google Scholar和Embase中进行检索,使用两个搜索字符串;搜索产生了665个结果。经筛选,选取与研究目的相关的文献47篇进行综述。通过滚雪球的方式确定了7篇文章,另外18篇文章在PubMed系统更新后被纳入,使审查的文章总数达到72篇。我们使用q -排序技术对鉴定的物品进行分析。研究结果:本研究表明,世界各地的医疗保健专业人员通常(在不同程度上)采用四种广泛的策略来管理与信息相关的不同类型的挑战,这些挑战可归类为与保密性、沟通、专业职责和决策相关的挑战。应对这些挑战的策略包括解决、协商、拖延和披露/隐瞒。结论:卫生专业人员可以采用多种策略来应对临床环境中有关信息管理的挑战。这一见解补充了目前旨在加强卫生专业人员与患者沟通的努力。很少有研究研究使用这些不同策略的结果。需要未来的实证研究来解决这个问题。缩写:CIOMS:国际医学科学组织理事会;卫生组织:世界卫生组织;美国医学协会;世界医学协会;PRISMA:系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目;ISCO:国际标准职业分类;国际劳工组织:国际劳工局;SPSS:社会科学的统计软件包。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do healthcare professionals respond to ethical challenges regarding information management? A review of empirical studies.

Aim: This study is a systematic review that aims to assess how healthcare professionals manage ethical challenges regarding information within the clinical context.

Method and materials: We carried out searches in PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase, using two search strings; searches generated 665 hits. After screening, 47 articles relevant to the study aim were selected for review. Seven articles were identified through snowballing, and 18 others were included following a system update in PubMed, bringing the total number of articles reviewed to 72. We used a Q-sort technique for the analysis of identified articles.

Findings: This study reveals that healthcare professionals around the world generally employ (to varying degrees) four broad strategies to manage different types of challenges regarding information, which can be categorized as challenges related to confidentiality, communication, professional duty, and decision-making. The strategies employed for managing these challenges include resolution, consultation, stalling, and disclosure/concealment.

Conclusion: There are a variety of strategies which health professionals can adopt to address challenges regarding information management within the clinical context. This insight complements current efforts aimed at enhancing health professional-patient communication. Very few studies have researched the results of employing these various strategies. Future empirical studies are required to address this.

Abbreviations: CIOMS: Council of International Organization of Medical Sciences; WHO: World Health Organization; AMA: American Medical Association; WMA: World Medical Association; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis; ISCO: International Standard Classification of Occupations; ILO: International Labour Office; SPSS: The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

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
Global Bioethics
Global Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
37 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