Informed Consent, Confidentiality, and Practitioner Disclosure in Therapeutic Work with Youth: A Systematic Review of Practitioners’ Perspectives

IF 4.7 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Adolescent Research Review Pub Date : 2021-10-11 DOI:10.1007/s40894-021-00173-2
Rachelle E. Thannhauser, Zoe A. Morris, Nicholas Gamble
{"title":"Informed Consent, Confidentiality, and Practitioner Disclosure in Therapeutic Work with Youth: A Systematic Review of Practitioners’ Perspectives","authors":"Rachelle E. Thannhauser,&nbsp;Zoe A. Morris,&nbsp;Nicholas Gamble","doi":"10.1007/s40894-021-00173-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Mental health practitioners provide therapeutic interventions to youth on a daily basis, yet sparse research exists to inform ethical decision-making. It is commonly understood that therapeutic work with youth is ethically complex especially when considering informed consent and confidentiality, both of which have practical limitations. This review synthesized literature which reported practitioners’ perspectives (e.g., psychologists, social workers) on ethical decision-making about informed consent and confidentiality in therapeutic work with youth. Specifically, this review aimed to amalgamate relevant professional perspectives on work with youth who may be considered “Mature Minors” or “Gillick Competent,” indications of capacity to consent to intervention. Included studies (<i>n</i> = 25) largely originated in North America (40%), suggesting an underrepresentation of culturally diverse practitioners and help-seeking youth in available literature. Most studies concentrated on confidentiality (72%) and few considered decision-making related to informed consent. Adolescent risk-behavior and related potential for harm were prevalent factors in practitioners’ decision-making. This review demonstrates that practitioners endorse disparate decision-making factors and are limited in consensus to breach confidentiality. As such, practitioners demonstrate variance in approach to working with this developmentally vulnerable population.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45912,"journal":{"name":"Adolescent Research Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Adolescent Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40894-021-00173-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Mental health practitioners provide therapeutic interventions to youth on a daily basis, yet sparse research exists to inform ethical decision-making. It is commonly understood that therapeutic work with youth is ethically complex especially when considering informed consent and confidentiality, both of which have practical limitations. This review synthesized literature which reported practitioners’ perspectives (e.g., psychologists, social workers) on ethical decision-making about informed consent and confidentiality in therapeutic work with youth. Specifically, this review aimed to amalgamate relevant professional perspectives on work with youth who may be considered “Mature Minors” or “Gillick Competent,” indications of capacity to consent to intervention. Included studies (n = 25) largely originated in North America (40%), suggesting an underrepresentation of culturally diverse practitioners and help-seeking youth in available literature. Most studies concentrated on confidentiality (72%) and few considered decision-making related to informed consent. Adolescent risk-behavior and related potential for harm were prevalent factors in practitioners’ decision-making. This review demonstrates that practitioners endorse disparate decision-making factors and are limited in consensus to breach confidentiality. As such, practitioners demonstrate variance in approach to working with this developmentally vulnerable population.

Abstract Image

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
青少年治疗工作中的知情同意、保密和从业者披露:对从业者观点的系统回顾
心理健康从业者每天都为青少年提供治疗干预措施,但很少有研究可以为道德决策提供信息。人们普遍认为,对青年的治疗工作在伦理上是复杂的,特别是考虑到知情同意和保密时,这两者都有实际的局限性。本综述综合了从业人员(如心理学家、社会工作者)对青少年治疗工作中关于知情同意和保密的伦理决策的观点。具体来说,这篇综述的目的是整合与青少年一起工作的相关专业观点,这些青少年可能被认为是“成熟的未成年人”或“吉利克能力”,表明他们有能力同意干预。纳入的研究(n = 25)主要来自北美(40%),表明在现有文献中,文化多样性从业者和寻求帮助的年轻人的代表性不足。大多数研究集中于保密(72%),很少考虑与知情同意相关的决策。青少年风险行为和相关的潜在伤害是从业者决策的普遍因素。这一审查表明,从业人员认可不同的决策因素,并在有限的共识违反保密。因此,从业人员在与这一发展弱势群体合作的方法上表现出差异。
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
Adolescent Research Review
Adolescent Research Review PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Adolescent Research Review publishes articles that review important contributions to the understanding of adolescence.  The Review draws from the many subdisciplines of developmental science, psychological science, education, criminology, public health, medicine, social work, and other allied disciplines that address the subject of youth and adolescence. The editors are especially interested in articles that bridge gaps between disciplines or that focus on topics that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries.  Reviews must be cutting edge and comprehensive in the way they advance science, practice or policy relating to adolescents.
期刊最新文献
Adolescent Social Media Use and Emotional Intelligence: A Systematic Review LGBTQ+  Youth Identity Disclosure Processes: A Systematic Review The Relationship Between Dual Filial Piety and Mental Disorders and Symptoms Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies Parenting and Queer Youth Mental Health and Substance Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Emotional Intelligence and Gaming Disorder Symptomatology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
×
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