在医疗保健领域践行社会责任:从理论到实践。国际德尔菲研究。

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Sante Publique Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Ségolène de Rouffignac, Naji Mokaddem, Robin Treutens, Maud Robert, Bernard Millette, Paul Grand'Maison, Josette Castel, Janie Giard, Maxime Sasseville, Marie-Dominique Beaulieu
{"title":"在医疗保健领域践行社会责任:从理论到实践。国际德尔菲研究。","authors":"Ségolène de Rouffignac, Naji Mokaddem, Robin Treutens, Maud Robert, Bernard Millette, Paul Grand'Maison, Josette Castel, Janie Giard, Maxime Sasseville, Marie-Dominique Beaulieu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Health professionals&#8217; social responsibility in health resists translation into skills that can be taught and implemented concretely in professional practice.</p><p><strong>Purpose of the research: </strong>This study, conducted by the R&#233;seau International Francophone pour la Responsabilit&#233; Sociale en Sant&#233; (RIFRESS), aims to develop a consensus on the components of doctors&#8217; social responsibility in health from the perspective of experts in medical education. Its findings are intended to inform the creation of a skills profile. A three-round Delphi consensus method was used, with an open first round and closed second and third rounds. Mesydel software was used to organize the process and to do the qualitative analysis of the first round. SPSS was used for consensus analysis for rounds 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four experts responded to the study. During the first round, 62 codes emerged, grouped into 13 themes. From the initial analysis, 40 items were submitted for the Delphi round 2. Of these 40 items, 23 came out consensual after the second round, as did 13 of the 18 resubmitted items after the third. Examples of items that emerged as consensual are eco-responsibility, advocacy, defense of the common good, critical analysis of practice, and collaborative leadership.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study represents a much-needed effort to concretely define the components of doctors&#8217; social responsibility in health. Local context must be taken into account when using these findings. They can help to train tomorrow&#8217;s doctors to better meet the priority health needs of society in a profoundly changing world.</p>","PeriodicalId":49575,"journal":{"name":"Sante Publique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pratiquer la responsabilité sociale en santé : de la théorie à la pratique. Une étude Delphi internationale.\",\"authors\":\"Ségolène de Rouffignac, Naji Mokaddem, Robin Treutens, Maud Robert, Bernard Millette, Paul Grand'Maison, Josette Castel, Janie Giard, Maxime Sasseville, Marie-Dominique Beaulieu\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Health professionals&#8217; social responsibility in health resists translation into skills that can be taught and implemented concretely in professional practice.</p><p><strong>Purpose of the research: </strong>This study, conducted by the R&#233;seau International Francophone pour la Responsabilit&#233; Sociale en Sant&#233; (RIFRESS), aims to develop a consensus on the components of doctors&#8217; social responsibility in health from the perspective of experts in medical education. Its findings are intended to inform the creation of a skills profile. A three-round Delphi consensus method was used, with an open first round and closed second and third rounds. Mesydel software was used to organize the process and to do the qualitative analysis of the first round. SPSS was used for consensus analysis for rounds 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four experts responded to the study. During the first round, 62 codes emerged, grouped into 13 themes. From the initial analysis, 40 items were submitted for the Delphi round 2. Of these 40 items, 23 came out consensual after the second round, as did 13 of the 18 resubmitted items after the third. Examples of items that emerged as consensual are eco-responsibility, advocacy, defense of the common good, critical analysis of practice, and collaborative leadership.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study represents a much-needed effort to concretely define the components of doctors&#8217; social responsibility in health. Local context must be taken into account when using these findings. They can help to train tomorrow&#8217;s doctors to better meet the priority health needs of society in a profoundly changing world.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sante Publique\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sante Publique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sante Publique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:卫生专业人员在卫生领域的社会责任并没有转化为可在专业实践中传授和具体实施的技能:本研究由国际法语卫生社会责任研究组织(RIFRESS)开展,旨在从医学教育专家的角度,就医生在卫生领域的社会责任的组成部分达成共识。其研究结果旨在为建立技能档案提供信息。采用了三轮德尔菲共识法,第一轮开放,第二轮和第三轮封闭。使用 Mesydel 软件组织这一过程,并对第一轮进行定性分析。第二轮和第三轮使用 SPSS 进行共识分析:34 位专家对研究做出了回应。在第一轮分析中,共产生了 62 个代码,分为 13 个主题。通过初步分析,有 40 个项目被提交给德尔菲第二轮分析。在这 40 个项目中,有 23 个项目在第二轮后达成了共识,在第三轮后重新提交的 18 个项目中,也有 13 个项目达成了共识。达成共识的项目包括生态责任、宣传、维护共同利益、对实践的批判性分析以及协作式领导:本研究为具体界定医生在卫生领域的社会责任做出了亟需的努力。在使用这些研究结果时,必须考虑到当地的具体情况。这些研究结果有助于培养未来的医生,使其在一个深刻变化的世界中更好地满足社会的优先健康需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pratiquer la responsabilité sociale en santé : de la théorie à la pratique. Une étude Delphi internationale.

Introduction: Health professionals’ social responsibility in health resists translation into skills that can be taught and implemented concretely in professional practice.

Purpose of the research: This study, conducted by the Réseau International Francophone pour la Responsabilité Sociale en Santé (RIFRESS), aims to develop a consensus on the components of doctors’ social responsibility in health from the perspective of experts in medical education. Its findings are intended to inform the creation of a skills profile. A three-round Delphi consensus method was used, with an open first round and closed second and third rounds. Mesydel software was used to organize the process and to do the qualitative analysis of the first round. SPSS was used for consensus analysis for rounds 2 and 3.

Results: Thirty-four experts responded to the study. During the first round, 62 codes emerged, grouped into 13 themes. From the initial analysis, 40 items were submitted for the Delphi round 2. Of these 40 items, 23 came out consensual after the second round, as did 13 of the 18 resubmitted items after the third. Examples of items that emerged as consensual are eco-responsibility, advocacy, defense of the common good, critical analysis of practice, and collaborative leadership.

Conclusions: The present study represents a much-needed effort to concretely define the components of doctors’ social responsibility in health. Local context must be taken into account when using these findings. They can help to train tomorrow’s doctors to better meet the priority health needs of society in a profoundly changing world.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sante Publique
Sante Publique PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
252
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: La revue Santé Publique s’adresse à l’ensemble des acteurs de santé publique qu’ils soient décideurs, professionnels de santé, acteurs de terrain, chercheurs, enseignants ou formateurs, etc. Elle publie des travaux de recherche, des évaluations, des analyses d’action, des réflexions sur des interventions de santé, des opinions, relevant des champs de la santé publique et de l’analyse des services de soins, des sciences sociales et de l’action sociale. Santé publique est une revue à comité de lecture, multidisciplinaire et généraliste, qui publie sur l’ensemble des thèmes de la santé publique parmi lesquels : accès et recours aux soins, déterminants et inégalités sociales de santé, prévention, éducation pour la santé, promotion de la santé, organisation des soins, environnement, formation des professionnels de santé, nutrition, politiques de santé, pratiques professionnelles, qualité des soins, gestion des risques sanitaires, représentation et santé perçue, santé scolaire, santé et travail, systèmes de santé, systèmes d’information, veille sanitaire, déterminants de la consommation de soins, organisation et économie des différents secteurs de production de soins (hôpital, médicament, etc.), évaluation médico-économique d’activités de soins ou de prévention et de programmes de santé, planification des ressources, politiques de régulation et de financement, etc
期刊最新文献
Pratiques professionnelles et soins dentaires non programmés en Nouvelle-Aquitaine La santé publique : des fonctions, des compétences, des valeurs ? Insuffisances des réponses aux viols à Ouagadougou : réflexions à partir du vécu de jeunes survivantes Évaluation du dispositif Tuto’Tour de la grossesse chez les femmes fumeuses enceintes vulnérables Après la pilule. Le choix contraceptif des jeunes femmes à l’épreuve du rejet des hormones
×
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