Validation of Two Instruments for the Measurement of Dehumanization and Self-Dehumanization in Healthcare Settings.

IF 2.4 Q1 NURSING Nursing Reports Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.3390/nursrep14030167
Aikaterini Roupa, Athina Patelarou, Evangelos C Fradelos, Kyriaki Fousiani, Marianna Miliaraki, Konstantinos Giakoumidakis, Evridiki Patelarou
{"title":"Validation of Two Instruments for the Measurement of Dehumanization and Self-Dehumanization in Healthcare Settings.","authors":"Aikaterini Roupa, Athina Patelarou, Evangelos C Fradelos, Kyriaki Fousiani, Marianna Miliaraki, Konstantinos Giakoumidakis, Evridiki Patelarou","doi":"10.3390/nursrep14030167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Understanding and addressing dehumanization in healthcare is crucial due to its profound impact on patient care, ethical implications on patient dignity and autonomy, and its potential to affect the psychological well-being of healthcare professionals. The primary aim of this study was to establish reliable and valid instruments measuring two different types of dehumanization, namely animalistic dehumanization (i.e., stripping one of their uniquely human characteristics) and mechanistic dehumanization (i.e., stripping one of their human nature characteristics) among healthcare professionals. In this cross-sectional validation study among healthcare professionals, we tested measures of both animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization, focusing on the dehumanization of patients (hetero-dehumanization) and oneself (self-dehumanization), respectively. All measures were developed and validated based on a concept analysis, a literature review, and an appraisal of pre-existing scales. The research was conducted among 400 nurses and medical doctors employed in Greek public hospitals. Coefficient validity ratio results showed that 100% of items were acceptable for both measures. The newly established and validated hetero-dehumanization scale encompassed two factors (factor 1: animalistic dehumanization, factor 2: mechanistic dehumanization; Cronbach's alpha was equal to 0.86 for each measure). The self-dehumanization scale was a mono-factorial measure of mechanistic dehumanization (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97). Two validated measures of (self- and hetero-) animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization measures were developed for the assessment of dehumanization among health professionals, which will form the basis for future research in this important scientific field.</p>","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417850/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14030167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understanding and addressing dehumanization in healthcare is crucial due to its profound impact on patient care, ethical implications on patient dignity and autonomy, and its potential to affect the psychological well-being of healthcare professionals. The primary aim of this study was to establish reliable and valid instruments measuring two different types of dehumanization, namely animalistic dehumanization (i.e., stripping one of their uniquely human characteristics) and mechanistic dehumanization (i.e., stripping one of their human nature characteristics) among healthcare professionals. In this cross-sectional validation study among healthcare professionals, we tested measures of both animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization, focusing on the dehumanization of patients (hetero-dehumanization) and oneself (self-dehumanization), respectively. All measures were developed and validated based on a concept analysis, a literature review, and an appraisal of pre-existing scales. The research was conducted among 400 nurses and medical doctors employed in Greek public hospitals. Coefficient validity ratio results showed that 100% of items were acceptable for both measures. The newly established and validated hetero-dehumanization scale encompassed two factors (factor 1: animalistic dehumanization, factor 2: mechanistic dehumanization; Cronbach's alpha was equal to 0.86 for each measure). The self-dehumanization scale was a mono-factorial measure of mechanistic dehumanization (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97). Two validated measures of (self- and hetero-) animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization measures were developed for the assessment of dehumanization among health professionals, which will form the basis for future research in this important scientific field.

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
验证用于测量医疗机构中的非人化和自我非人化的两种工具。
了解和解决医疗保健中的非人化问题至关重要,因为它对患者护理、患者尊严和自主权的伦理影响以及医疗保健专业人员的心理健康都有深远影响。本研究的主要目的是在医护人员中建立可靠有效的工具来测量两种不同类型的非人化,即动物性非人化(即剥夺其独特的人性特征)和机械性非人化(即剥夺其人性特征)。在这项针对医护人员的横断面验证研究中,我们测试了动物性非人化和机械性非人化的测量方法,分别侧重于对患者的非人化(异化非人化)和对自己的非人化(自我非人化)。所有量表都是在概念分析、文献综述和对已有量表进行评估的基础上开发和验证的。研究对象为希腊公立医院的 400 名护士和医生。系数效度比结果显示,两个量表中 100%的项目都是可接受的。新建立并经过验证的异质性非人化量表包含两个因子(因子 1:动物性非人化,因子 2:机械性非人化;每个测量因子的 Cronbach's alpha 均为 0.86)。自我非人化量表是对机械非人化的单因子测量(Cronbach's alpha = 0.97)。为评估卫生专业人员的非人化情况,我们开发了两种经过验证的(自我和异质)动物性非人化和机械性非人化测量方法,这将为这一重要科学领域的未来研究奠定基础。
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 Reports
Nursing Reports NURSING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Functional Capacity of Institutionalized Older People and Their Quality of Life, Depressive Symptoms and Feelings of Loneliness: A Cross-Sectional Study. Knowing, Being and Becoming a Person-Centred Nurse Leader: Findings from a Transformative Professional Development Programme. Nursing Interventions Related to the Need for Oxygenation in Severe COVID-19 Disease in Hospitalized Adults: A Retrospective Study. Child-Centered Care: A Qualitative Study Exploring Pediatric Hospitalization Through Children's Perspectives. An Analysis Through to Congruence Between Real and Self-Perceived Body Mass Index in Nursing Students.
×
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