A systematic review documenting reasons whether physicians should provide treatment to their family and friends.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmac142
Francisca Beigel, Marcel Mertz, Sabine Salloch
{"title":"A systematic review documenting reasons whether physicians should provide treatment to their family and friends.","authors":"Francisca Beigel, Marcel Mertz, Sabine Salloch","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmac142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physicians are likely to be asked to provide medical care to relatives or friends. Evidence suggests that most physicians treat loved ones during their active years. However, in the academic literature, critical approaches to the matter are dominating. Ethical guidelines often discourage physicians from treating family members and friends outside of exceptional circumstances.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to identify reasons for and against treating family and friends as portrayed in the literature published.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search string designed for the database \"PubMed,\" snowball sampling, and hand searching was used to identify possibly eligible publications. Seventy-six publications were screened for all reasons presented in favour of and against physicians treating loved ones. Qualitative content analysis was used for data extraction. Combining a deductive and inductive approach, a coding system was developed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Many publications analysed represent articles portraying personal experiences; fewer show original research. Reasons against and in favour of treating family and friends were identified. Several publications specify conditions under which the treatment of loved ones may be legitimate. The reasons identified can be assigned to a micro or macro level of human interaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review shows that the discourse of physicians treating loved ones is held predominantly in the context of personal experiences. The majority of authors seem to have a rather pragmatic interest in the topic, and systematic or analytic approaches are rare. While most authors mention various codes of ethics, several publications criticize these or consider them insufficient.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmac142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Physicians are likely to be asked to provide medical care to relatives or friends. Evidence suggests that most physicians treat loved ones during their active years. However, in the academic literature, critical approaches to the matter are dominating. Ethical guidelines often discourage physicians from treating family members and friends outside of exceptional circumstances.

Objective: This systematic review aims to identify reasons for and against treating family and friends as portrayed in the literature published.

Methods: A search string designed for the database "PubMed," snowball sampling, and hand searching was used to identify possibly eligible publications. Seventy-six publications were screened for all reasons presented in favour of and against physicians treating loved ones. Qualitative content analysis was used for data extraction. Combining a deductive and inductive approach, a coding system was developed.

Results: Many publications analysed represent articles portraying personal experiences; fewer show original research. Reasons against and in favour of treating family and friends were identified. Several publications specify conditions under which the treatment of loved ones may be legitimate. The reasons identified can be assigned to a micro or macro level of human interaction.

Conclusions: This systematic review shows that the discourse of physicians treating loved ones is held predominantly in the context of personal experiences. The majority of authors seem to have a rather pragmatic interest in the topic, and systematic or analytic approaches are rare. While most authors mention various codes of ethics, several publications criticize these or consider them insufficient.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统性综述记录了医生是否应向其家人和朋友提供治疗的原因。
背景:医生很可能被要求为亲属或朋友提供医疗服务。有证据表明,大多数医生都会在亲属活跃期间为其提供治疗。然而,在学术文献中,对这一问题持批判态度的人居多。伦理指南通常不鼓励医生在特殊情况外为亲友提供治疗:本系统综述旨在找出已发表文献中描述的支持和反对治疗家人和朋友的原因:方法:使用为数据库 "PubMed "设计的搜索字符串、滚雪球式抽样和人工搜索来确定可能符合条件的出版物。对 76 篇出版物进行了筛选,以了解所有支持和反对医生治疗亲人的理由。数据提取采用了定性内容分析法。结合演绎法和归纳法,制定了一套编码系统:所分析的许多出版物都是描述个人经历的文章,只有少数是原创性研究。找出了反对和赞成对家人和朋友进行治疗的理由。一些出版物明确指出了在哪些条件下对亲友进行治疗是合法的。所确定的理由可归结为微观或宏观层面的人际互动:本系统综述表明,医生对亲人进行治疗的论述主要以个人经历为背景。大多数作者似乎对这一主题抱有相当务实的兴趣,很少采用系统或分析方法。虽然大多数作者都提到了各种伦理规范,但也有一些出版物对这些规范提出了批评或认为它们不够充分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1