{"title":"Assessment of attitudes toward patient rights of people live from a Turkey town and migrating to Belgium","authors":"Vahide Korkmaz, Nilufer Demirsoy","doi":"10.1108/ijhrh-12-2021-0204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to assess the attitudes of individuals living in Belgium and in Emirdag in regard to patient rights and the effect of cultural differences in developing the attitude. This study measures the attitudes of two groups of people living in different geographies, “individuals living in Emirdag and Individuals emigrated from Emirdag to Belgium,” and yet having the same ethnic origin, common social and cultural capital.\n\n\nDesign methodology/approach\nImplementing quantitative research, the data for the current study was obtained from a total of 1,043 participants, who were administered the Likert type “Patient Rights Attitude Scale” along with demographic questionnaire.\n\n\nFindings\nThe total score mean of the scale is 126.09 ± 15.21 in the Emirdag group, whereas in the Belgian group, it is 129.78 ± 13.356. While the attitude with the highest mean score about patient rights in both groups observed under “the right to seek medical attention” and “the right to consent in medical and drug researches” items and thusthese items are considered as a common denominator, the two groups differed in the scale items that received the lowest average.\n\n\nSocial implications\nIt is important to determine the effects of attitudes toward patient rights and cultural differences on the development of attitudes, to determine the problems in the delivery of health services and health service procurement.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe structures that direct the choices and decisions of individuals in critical subjects such as organ transplantation and euthanasia, and thus having different practices in the doctrine, can be affected by individuals and even society’s rules, beliefs and values. It was concluded that immigrant participants’ dominating culture and related beliefs, rules and values play a role in the making of decision and choice.\n","PeriodicalId":14129,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-12-2021-0204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to assess the attitudes of individuals living in Belgium and in Emirdag in regard to patient rights and the effect of cultural differences in developing the attitude. This study measures the attitudes of two groups of people living in different geographies, “individuals living in Emirdag and Individuals emigrated from Emirdag to Belgium,” and yet having the same ethnic origin, common social and cultural capital.
Design methodology/approach
Implementing quantitative research, the data for the current study was obtained from a total of 1,043 participants, who were administered the Likert type “Patient Rights Attitude Scale” along with demographic questionnaire.
Findings
The total score mean of the scale is 126.09 ± 15.21 in the Emirdag group, whereas in the Belgian group, it is 129.78 ± 13.356. While the attitude with the highest mean score about patient rights in both groups observed under “the right to seek medical attention” and “the right to consent in medical and drug researches” items and thusthese items are considered as a common denominator, the two groups differed in the scale items that received the lowest average.
Social implications
It is important to determine the effects of attitudes toward patient rights and cultural differences on the development of attitudes, to determine the problems in the delivery of health services and health service procurement.
Originality/value
The structures that direct the choices and decisions of individuals in critical subjects such as organ transplantation and euthanasia, and thus having different practices in the doctrine, can be affected by individuals and even society’s rules, beliefs and values. It was concluded that immigrant participants’ dominating culture and related beliefs, rules and values play a role in the making of decision and choice.
期刊介绍:
nternational Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare (IJHRH) is an international, peer reviewed journal with a unique practical approach to promoting race equality, inclusion and human rights in health and social care. The journal publishes scholarly and double blind peer-reviewed papers of the highest standard, including case studies and book reviews. IJHRH aims include: -To explore what is currently known about discrimination and disadvantage with a particular focus on health and social care -Push the barriers of the human rights discourse by identifying new avenues for healthcare practice and policy internationally -Create bridges between policymakers, practitioners and researchers -Identify and understand the social determinants of health equity and practical interventions to overcome barriers at national and international levels. The journal welcomes papers which use varied approaches, including discussion of theory, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, analysis of qualitative data and study of health and social care institutions and the political process. Papers published in IJHRH: -Clearly demonstrate the implications of the research -Provide evidence-rich information -Provoke reflection and support critical analysis of both challenges and strengths -Share examples of best practice and ‘what works’, including user perspectives IJHRH is a hugely valuable source of information for researchers, academics, students, practitioners, managers, policy-makers, commissioning bodies, social workers, psychologists, nurses, voluntary sector workers, service users and carers internationally.