临床实践中的儿科同意:严格的范围界定审查。

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-21 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2024.2388517
Jason Adam Wasserman, Amelia N Najor, Natalie Liogas, Stephanie M Swanberg, Abram Brummett, Naomi T Laventhal, Mark Christopher Navin
{"title":"临床实践中的儿科同意:严格的范围界定审查。","authors":"Jason Adam Wasserman, Amelia N Najor, Natalie Liogas, Stephanie M Swanberg, Abram Brummett, Naomi T Laventhal, Mark Christopher Navin","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2388517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study assesses how pediatric assent is conceptualized and justified within the therapeutic context. Pediatric ethicists generally agree that children should participate in medical care decisions in developmentally appropriate ways. Much attention has been paid to pediatric assent for research participation, but ambiguities persist in how assent is conceptualized and operationalized in the therapeutic context where countervailing considerations such as the child's best interest and parental permission must also be weighed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in 11 databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Articles published between 2010 and 2020 were screened in COVIDENCE for meeting each of four criteria: (1) focusing on pediatric assent, (2) focusing on clinical care, (3) including normative claims, and (4) containing substantive statements about the meaning of pediatric assent. Full texts were abstracted for (1) operational definitions of assent, (2) discussion of the temporal nature of assent, (3) description of the concept of \"understanding,\" and (4) ethical justifications for soliciting assent. These excerpts were coded and code patterns formed themes presented in the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final analytic data set contained 29 articles. Analysis yielded three key themes. First, valid assent varies by treatment, population (e.g., younger versus older), and geographic/cultural context. Second, assent represents two distinct longitudinal processes: One involves eliciting preferences over a disease course or care episode; the other focuses on children's developmental maturation. Third, ethical justifications for assent draw variously on instrumental and intrinsic reasons, but often remain ambiguous.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is widespread agreement that assent is morally valuable, but there remain substantial ambiguities or disagreements about its meaning, process, and ethical justification.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"336-346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pediatric Assent in Clinical Practice: A Critical Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Jason Adam Wasserman, Amelia N Najor, Natalie Liogas, Stephanie M Swanberg, Abram Brummett, Naomi T Laventhal, Mark Christopher Navin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23294515.2024.2388517\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study assesses how pediatric assent is conceptualized and justified within the therapeutic context. Pediatric ethicists generally agree that children should participate in medical care decisions in developmentally appropriate ways. Much attention has been paid to pediatric assent for research participation, but ambiguities persist in how assent is conceptualized and operationalized in the therapeutic context where countervailing considerations such as the child's best interest and parental permission must also be weighed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in 11 databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Articles published between 2010 and 2020 were screened in COVIDENCE for meeting each of four criteria: (1) focusing on pediatric assent, (2) focusing on clinical care, (3) including normative claims, and (4) containing substantive statements about the meaning of pediatric assent. Full texts were abstracted for (1) operational definitions of assent, (2) discussion of the temporal nature of assent, (3) description of the concept of \\\"understanding,\\\" and (4) ethical justifications for soliciting assent. These excerpts were coded and code patterns formed themes presented in the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final analytic data set contained 29 articles. Analysis yielded three key themes. First, valid assent varies by treatment, population (e.g., younger versus older), and geographic/cultural context. Second, assent represents two distinct longitudinal processes: One involves eliciting preferences over a disease course or care episode; the other focuses on children's developmental maturation. Third, ethical justifications for assent draw variously on instrumental and intrinsic reasons, but often remain ambiguous.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is widespread agreement that assent is morally valuable, but there remain substantial ambiguities or disagreements about its meaning, process, and ethical justification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"336-346\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2024.2388517\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2024.2388517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究评估了儿科同意在治疗过程中是如何被概念化和合理化的。儿科伦理学家普遍认为,儿童应以适合其发展的方式参与医疗决策。儿科伦理学家普遍认为,儿童应该以适合其发展的方式参与医疗决策。儿科同意参与研究的问题备受关注,但在治疗背景下如何将同意概念化和操作化方面仍存在模糊之处,因为在治疗背景下还必须权衡儿童的最大利益和父母的许可等对立考虑因素:在 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science 等 11 个数据库中进行了检索。COVIDENCE 对 2010 年至 2020 年间发表的文章进行了筛选,以确定是否符合以下四项标准:(1) 关注儿科同意;(2) 关注临床护理;(3) 包含规范性主张;(4) 包含有关儿科同意含义的实质性声明。全文摘录了以下内容:(1) 同意的操作定义;(2) 关于同意的时间性质的讨论;(3) 对 "理解 "概念的描述;(4) 征求同意的伦理理由。对这些摘录进行了编码,编码模式形成了结果中的主题:最终的分析数据集包含 29 篇文章。分析得出三个关键主题。首先,有效的同意因治疗方法、人群(如年轻人与老年人)以及地理/文化背景而异。其次,同意代表了两个不同的纵向过程:其中一个过程涉及在病程或护理过程中征求偏好;另一个过程则侧重于儿童的发育成熟。第三,同意的伦理理由包括工具性理由和内在性理由,但往往仍然含糊不清:人们普遍认为同意在道德上是有价值的,但对其含义、过程和伦理理由仍存在很大的歧义或分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Pediatric Assent in Clinical Practice: A Critical Scoping Review.

Background: This study assesses how pediatric assent is conceptualized and justified within the therapeutic context. Pediatric ethicists generally agree that children should participate in medical care decisions in developmentally appropriate ways. Much attention has been paid to pediatric assent for research participation, but ambiguities persist in how assent is conceptualized and operationalized in the therapeutic context where countervailing considerations such as the child's best interest and parental permission must also be weighed.

Methods: Searches were conducted in 11 databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Articles published between 2010 and 2020 were screened in COVIDENCE for meeting each of four criteria: (1) focusing on pediatric assent, (2) focusing on clinical care, (3) including normative claims, and (4) containing substantive statements about the meaning of pediatric assent. Full texts were abstracted for (1) operational definitions of assent, (2) discussion of the temporal nature of assent, (3) description of the concept of "understanding," and (4) ethical justifications for soliciting assent. These excerpts were coded and code patterns formed themes presented in the results.

Results: The final analytic data set contained 29 articles. Analysis yielded three key themes. First, valid assent varies by treatment, population (e.g., younger versus older), and geographic/cultural context. Second, assent represents two distinct longitudinal processes: One involves eliciting preferences over a disease course or care episode; the other focuses on children's developmental maturation. Third, ethical justifications for assent draw variously on instrumental and intrinsic reasons, but often remain ambiguous.

Conclusions: There is widespread agreement that assent is morally valuable, but there remain substantial ambiguities or disagreements about its meaning, process, and ethical justification.

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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
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