A Systematic Literature Review of Relational Autonomy in Dialysis Decision Making.

IF 1.7 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL WORK Health & Social Work Pub Date : 2022-01-31 DOI:10.1093/hsw/hlab042
Renata Sledge, Dixie Meyer, Max Zubatsky, Katie Heiden-Rootes, Marie Philipneri, Teri Browne
{"title":"A Systematic Literature Review of Relational Autonomy in Dialysis Decision Making.","authors":"Renata Sledge,&nbsp;Dixie Meyer,&nbsp;Max Zubatsky,&nbsp;Katie Heiden-Rootes,&nbsp;Marie Philipneri,&nbsp;Teri Browne","doi":"10.1093/hsw/hlab042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Nephrology interdisciplinary guidelines, professional codes of ethics, principle-based ethical standards, and literature promote patient autonomy and self-determination through shared decision making as ethical practice. Healthcare professionals are accountable for practice that is mindful of the impact of cultural diversity and community on the values and beliefs of the patient, an important part of shared decision making (SDM). Despite previous research regarding dialysis decision making, relational autonomy in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease SDM conversations is not well understood. This systematic literature review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework for identifying peer-reviewed literature on SDM for CKD. The findings were summarized into four broad themes: (1) promoting autonomy is a foundation of medical caring; (2) providers have a responsibility to respond to their asymmetrical social power; (3) autonomy is situated within the context of the patient; and (4) dialogue is a tool that negotiates clinical recommendations and patient goals. The caring practices of promoting autonomy with a dialogical resolution of a conflict acknowledging the interdependence of the parties and the patient's social-relational situatedness support a perspective of relational autonomy in dialysis decision-making practice and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47424,"journal":{"name":"Health & Social Work","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlab042","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Nephrology interdisciplinary guidelines, professional codes of ethics, principle-based ethical standards, and literature promote patient autonomy and self-determination through shared decision making as ethical practice. Healthcare professionals are accountable for practice that is mindful of the impact of cultural diversity and community on the values and beliefs of the patient, an important part of shared decision making (SDM). Despite previous research regarding dialysis decision making, relational autonomy in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease SDM conversations is not well understood. This systematic literature review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework for identifying peer-reviewed literature on SDM for CKD. The findings were summarized into four broad themes: (1) promoting autonomy is a foundation of medical caring; (2) providers have a responsibility to respond to their asymmetrical social power; (3) autonomy is situated within the context of the patient; and (4) dialogue is a tool that negotiates clinical recommendations and patient goals. The caring practices of promoting autonomy with a dialogical resolution of a conflict acknowledging the interdependence of the parties and the patient's social-relational situatedness support a perspective of relational autonomy in dialysis decision-making practice and research.

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
透析决策中关系自主的系统文献综述。
肾脏病跨学科指南、专业道德规范、基于原则的道德标准和文献通过共同决策作为道德实践来促进患者的自主和自决。医疗保健专业人员对实践负责,注意文化多样性和社区对患者价值观和信仰的影响,这是共同决策(SDM)的重要组成部分。尽管之前有关于透析决策的研究,但慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)和终末期肾脏疾病SDM对话中的关系自主性尚未得到很好的理解。本系统文献综述使用系统综述和荟萃分析框架的首选报告项目来识别CKD SDM的同行评议文献。研究结果总结为四个主题:(1)促进自主是医疗保健的基础;(2)提供者有责任对其不对称的社会权力作出反应;(3)自主处于患者的情境中;(4)对话是协商临床建议和患者目标的工具。通过对话解决冲突来促进自治的护理实践,承认双方的相互依存关系和患者的社会关系情境,支持透析决策实践和研究中关系自治的观点。
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
Health & Social Work
Health & Social Work SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Animal-Assisted Stress Management for Veterinary Staff. Applications for Big Data. Storied Life: A Narrative Approach to Living with Chronic Illness. Substance Use and Mental Health among Canadian Social Workers. Suicide in Stroke Survivors and Social Work.
×
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