Health professionals' knowledge about ethical criteria in the allocation of resources in the COVID-19 pandemic.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-08 DOI:10.1007/s40592-023-00174-y
Priscila Kelly da Silva Neto, Marcela Tavares de Souza, Aline Russomano de Gouvêa, Luciana Regina Ferreira da Mata, Bruna Moretti Luchesi, Juliana Dias Reis Pessalacia
{"title":"Health professionals' knowledge about ethical criteria in the allocation of resources in the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Priscila Kelly da Silva Neto, Marcela Tavares de Souza, Aline Russomano de Gouvêa, Luciana Regina Ferreira da Mata, Bruna Moretti Luchesi, Juliana Dias Reis Pessalacia","doi":"10.1007/s40592-023-00174-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Due to the rapid advance of the pandemic caused by COVID-19, several countries perceived that human and material resources would be insufficient to meet the demand of infected patients. The aim of this study is to analyze the knowledge of health professionals working in the pandemic about the application of ethical criteria in decision-making in situations of resource scarcity. This is a cross-sectional, descriptive, and quantitative survey study, conducted from June to December 2020, with health professionals working in the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. We applied a questionnaire to assess the professionals' knowledge about ethical criteria in decision-making in the allocation of scarce resources during the pandemic, containing 14 questions and possible score from 0 to 70, which was developed by researchers from documents and protocols validated by organizations from various countries, available in the first months of the pandemic, a sociodemographic characterization questionnaire and a self-assessment questionnaire regarding knowledge about bioethics. A total of 197 health professionals participated in the study, 37.6% of whom were nurses and 22.8% of whom were physicians, working in the Family Health Unit (28.4%) with a degree at the level of specialization (46.2%). Moreover, (9.5%) of nurses, (18.2%) of dental surgeons and (24.4%) of physicians reported that they have no prior knowledge about bioethics. Physicians and hospital workers scored higher on the knowledge assessment questionnaire. The mean score of the participants was 45.4 (SD = 7.2). Investments in training and professional education in the field of health focused on Bioethics are necessary, considering models and ethical theories that help professionals, managers and society to better position themselves in the face of pandemic contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10166454/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-023-00174-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Due to the rapid advance of the pandemic caused by COVID-19, several countries perceived that human and material resources would be insufficient to meet the demand of infected patients. The aim of this study is to analyze the knowledge of health professionals working in the pandemic about the application of ethical criteria in decision-making in situations of resource scarcity. This is a cross-sectional, descriptive, and quantitative survey study, conducted from June to December 2020, with health professionals working in the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. We applied a questionnaire to assess the professionals' knowledge about ethical criteria in decision-making in the allocation of scarce resources during the pandemic, containing 14 questions and possible score from 0 to 70, which was developed by researchers from documents and protocols validated by organizations from various countries, available in the first months of the pandemic, a sociodemographic characterization questionnaire and a self-assessment questionnaire regarding knowledge about bioethics. A total of 197 health professionals participated in the study, 37.6% of whom were nurses and 22.8% of whom were physicians, working in the Family Health Unit (28.4%) with a degree at the level of specialization (46.2%). Moreover, (9.5%) of nurses, (18.2%) of dental surgeons and (24.4%) of physicians reported that they have no prior knowledge about bioethics. Physicians and hospital workers scored higher on the knowledge assessment questionnaire. The mean score of the participants was 45.4 (SD = 7.2). Investments in training and professional education in the field of health focused on Bioethics are necessary, considering models and ethical theories that help professionals, managers and society to better position themselves in the face of pandemic contexts.

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
在COVID-19大流行中,卫生专业人员对资源分配中的道德标准的了解。
由于COVID-19大流行的迅速发展,一些国家认为人力和物力资源不足以满足感染患者的需求。本研究的目的是分析在资源短缺的情况下,在大流行中工作的卫生专业人员关于在决策中应用道德标准的知识。这是一项横断面、描述性和定量调查研究,于2020年6月至12月对在巴西从事COVID-19大流行工作的卫生专业人员进行了调查。我们采用了一份调查问卷,以评估专业人员对大流行期间稀缺资源分配决策中的道德标准的了解程度,该问卷包含14个问题,得分从0到70不等,由研究人员根据大流行头几个月提供的各国组织验证的文件和方案编制。一份社会人口学特征问卷和一份关于生命伦理学知识的自我评估问卷。共有197名卫生专业人员参加了这项研究,其中37.6%是护士,22.8%是医生,在家庭保健单位工作(28.4%),具有专业学位(46.2%)。此外,(9.5%)的护士、(18.2%)的牙科外科医生和(24.4%)的内科医生报告说他们事先没有生物伦理学知识。医生和医院工作人员在知识评估问卷上得分更高。参与者的平均得分为45.4 (SD = 7.2)。考虑到可以帮助专业人员、管理人员和社会更好地应对大流行病的模式和伦理理论,必须投资于以生物伦理学为重点的卫生领域的培训和专业教育。
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
期刊最新文献
A duty to enhance? Genetic engineering for the human Mars settlement. Personal reflections on navigating plural values in the implementation of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria, Australia. Antibiotic prescription, dispensing and use in humans and livestock in East Africa: does morality have a role to play? Book review: ethics of artificial intelligence. Coercive public health policies need context-specific ethical justifications.
×
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