What factors influence patient autonomy in healthcare decision-making? A systematic review of studies from the Global South.

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Nursing Ethics Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1177/09697330241272794
Muhammad Umair Akhtar, Muhammad Esswan Bhatti, Salim Fredericks
{"title":"What factors influence patient autonomy in healthcare decision-making? A systematic review of studies from the Global South.","authors":"Muhammad Umair Akhtar, Muhammad Esswan Bhatti, Salim Fredericks","doi":"10.1177/09697330241272794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The principle of respect for autonomy (PRA) is a central tenet of bioethics. In the quest for a global bioethics, it is pertinent to ask whether this principle can be applied as it is to cultures and societies that are devoid of the Western sociopolitical historical pressures that led to its emergence. Relational autonomists have argued for a more inclusive approach to patient autonomy which takes into account factors such as interdependency and social relations. However, at the outset of any relational approach, it is necessary to identify underlying factors that influence patient autonomy in non-Western cultures.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a review of the literature to uncover the mechanisms through which social, cultural, and religious factors influence and impact the application of the PRA in healthcare decision-making in non-Western cultures and societies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review through a comprehensive search of three major electronic databases of biomedical sciences. Returned citations were imported to Covidence, full texts were assessed for eligibility, included articles were thoroughly reviewed and data was synthesized. PRISMA guidelines were followed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search retrieved 590 non-duplicate results, 50 of which were included after screening and full-text eligibility checks. The included studies were predominantly qualitative in nature, with few quantitative, mixed-methods, and review studies included. Our synthesis of data identified nine key factors that influenced patients' autonomous decision-making through cultural, social, religious, or intersectional pathways.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Two main conclusions emerge from this review. Firstly, there is a notable dearth of bioethical research examining the influence of diverse factors on patients' inclination towards different conceptions of autonomy. Secondly, the analysis of prevalent collectivist cultures and deference of autonomy adds value to the solution-oriented relational autonomy debate. This raises questions regarding how decision-making can be truly autonomous in the presence of such large-scale factors, warranting further attention.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"9697330241272794"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330241272794","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The principle of respect for autonomy (PRA) is a central tenet of bioethics. In the quest for a global bioethics, it is pertinent to ask whether this principle can be applied as it is to cultures and societies that are devoid of the Western sociopolitical historical pressures that led to its emergence. Relational autonomists have argued for a more inclusive approach to patient autonomy which takes into account factors such as interdependency and social relations. However, at the outset of any relational approach, it is necessary to identify underlying factors that influence patient autonomy in non-Western cultures.

Objective: To conduct a review of the literature to uncover the mechanisms through which social, cultural, and religious factors influence and impact the application of the PRA in healthcare decision-making in non-Western cultures and societies.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review through a comprehensive search of three major electronic databases of biomedical sciences. Returned citations were imported to Covidence, full texts were assessed for eligibility, included articles were thoroughly reviewed and data was synthesized. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results: Our search retrieved 590 non-duplicate results, 50 of which were included after screening and full-text eligibility checks. The included studies were predominantly qualitative in nature, with few quantitative, mixed-methods, and review studies included. Our synthesis of data identified nine key factors that influenced patients' autonomous decision-making through cultural, social, religious, or intersectional pathways.

Conclusion: Two main conclusions emerge from this review. Firstly, there is a notable dearth of bioethical research examining the influence of diverse factors on patients' inclination towards different conceptions of autonomy. Secondly, the analysis of prevalent collectivist cultures and deference of autonomy adds value to the solution-oriented relational autonomy debate. This raises questions regarding how decision-making can be truly autonomous in the presence of such large-scale factors, warranting further attention.

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
哪些因素影响患者在医疗决策中的自主权?对全球南部研究的系统回顾。
背景:尊重自主权(PRA)原则是生命伦理学的核心原则。在寻求全球生物伦理的过程中,我们有必要问一问,这一原则是否可以适用于那些没有西方社会政治历史压力的文化和社会?关系自主论者主张采用一种更具包容性的患者自主方法,将相互依存和社会关系等因素考虑在内。然而,在采用任何关系型方法之初,有必要确定影响非西方文化中患者自主权的潜在因素:对文献进行综述,揭示社会、文化和宗教因素对非西方文化和社会中医疗决策中应用 PRA 的影响机制:我们通过全面搜索三大生物医学电子数据库进行了系统性综述。将检索到的引文导入 Covidence,评估全文是否合格,对纳入的文章进行全面审查,并对数据进行综合。结果:我们的搜索共检索到 590 项非重复结果,其中 50 项经过筛选和全文资格检查后被纳入。纳入的研究主要是定性研究,定量研究、混合方法研究和综述研究很少。我们对数据进行了综合,确定了通过文化、社会、宗教或交叉途径影响患者自主决策的九个关键因素:本综述得出两个主要结论。首先,关于不同因素对患者倾向于不同自主权概念的影响的生物伦理学研究明显不足。其次,对流行的集体主义文化和对自主权的尊重的分析为以解决方案为导向的关系型自主权辩论增添了价值。这就提出了在这种大规模因素存在的情况下,决策如何才能真正自主的问题,值得进一步关注。
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
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
期刊最新文献
Sources of moral distress in nursing professionals: A scoping review. Truth-telling, and ethical considerations in terminal care: an Eastern perspective. Ethical considerations in the UK-Nepal nurse recruitment: Nepali nurses' perspectives. Nurses on the outside, problems on the inside! The duty of nurses to support unions. Care and justice reasoning in nurses' everyday ethics.
×
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