首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test
【2h】

Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test

机译:荷兰社区药剂师中的道德推理:测试澳大利亚职业道德在药学测试中的适用性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background Moral reasoning competency is essential in healthcare practice, especially in situations of moral dilemmas when a professional has to choose a morally justifiable action among several suboptimal action options. The Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test (PEP test) measures moral reasoning among pharmacists. In Australia three levels of moral reasoning (schemas) were measured (1) business orientation (2) rules and regulations, and (3) patient rights (i.e. most advanced schema). Objective To test the applicability of the PEP test to pharmacists working in the Netherlands. Setting Dutch community pharmacy. Methods The PEP test consists of 36 statements (items) accompanying 3 moral dilemma scenarios. It was translated into Dutch and completed by 390 pharmacists. Principle component analysis (PCA) was used to investigate construct validity and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to indicate internal consistency of the Dutch version of the PEP test. The eligible grouped statements and perceived possible moral reasoning schemas were compared to the Australian findings. Main outcome measure Moral reasoning schemas. Results The PCA analysis resulted in 3 components (i.e. possible moral reasoning schemas) that together accounted 27% variance in the data. The statements that represented the moral reasoning schemas ‘business orientation’ and ‘rules and regulations’ were somewhat similar when comparing these with the statements that represented these schemas in the PEP test study. The most advanced moral reasoning schema identified in Dutch pharmacists contained different statements compared to the statements that represented that schema among Australian pharmacists. This schema was labelled ‘professional ethics’. Conclusion The PEP test needs further adaptation to the Dutch pharmacy practice context: especially the statements that should reflect the most advanced moral reasoning schema, need more accurate representations of professional pharmacy ethics that guide pharmacists in the Netherlands. Moral reasoning tests for a specific professional setting or country should be developed and adapted by experts who share the same professional values and practice as the respondents.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11096-019-00869-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
机译:背景技术道德推理能力在医疗保健实践中至关重要,尤其是在道德困境的情况下,当专业人员必须从几个次优的行动选择中选择一项在道德上可辩护的行动时。澳大利亚药剂师职业道德测试(PEP test)衡量药剂师之间的道德推理。在澳大利亚,对道德推理(模式)的三个级别进行了测量(1)业务方向(2)规则和法规,以及(3)患者权利(即最先进的模式)。目的测试PEP测试对在荷兰工作的药剂师的适用性。开设荷兰社区药房。方法PEP测试由36个陈述(项目)组成,伴随3种道德困境情景。它被翻译成荷兰语,并由390名药剂师完成。主成分分析(PCA)用于调查结构的有效性,而Cronbach的Alpha则用于表示荷兰版PEP测试的内部一致性。将符合条件的分组陈述和可能的道德推理模式与澳大利亚的调查结果进行比较。主要结果度量道德推理模式。结果PCA分析得出3个组成部分(即可能的道德推理模式),它们合计占数据差异27%。在PEP测试研究中,将道德推理模式“业务导向”和“规则和法规”表示的陈述与表示这些模式的陈述进行比较时,有些相似。与荷兰药剂师中代表该模式的陈述相比,荷兰药剂师中确定的最先进的道德推理模式包含不同的陈述。该架构被标记为“职业道德”。结论PEP测试需要进一步适应荷兰药房实践环境:尤其是那些应该反映最先进的道德推理模式的陈述,需要更准确地表示专业药房伦理的知识,以指导荷兰的药剂师。应由与受访者具有相同专业价值观和惯例的专家来开发和改编针对特定专业背景或国家的道德推理测试电子补充材料本文的在线版本(10.1007 / s11096-019-00869-5)包含补充内容资料,可供授权用户使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号