医疗服务提供者向无证移民提供医疗服务的宣传方法和伦理挑战:范围界定综述。

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1007/s11019-024-10225-8
Fayez Abdulrazeq, Julian März, Nikola Biller-Andorno, Chris Gastmans
{"title":"医疗服务提供者向无证移民提供医疗服务的宣传方法和伦理挑战:范围界定综述。","authors":"Fayez Abdulrazeq, Julian März, Nikola Biller-Andorno, Chris Gastmans","doi":"10.1007/s11019-024-10225-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Delivering healthcare to undocumented migrants presents a complex challenge for healthcare providers. Integrating advocacy efforts into their daily practices can be ambiguous in practical terms, stemming from the intricate task of addressing the health needs of this population while simultaneously advocating for their health rights within the constraints imposed on them. This study seeks to consolidate findings from literature regarding the advocacy approaches employed by healthcare providers and the correlated ethical challenges. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative literature by systematically searching four databases-PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library. For developing our search strategy, we employed the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) scheme. Our analysis followed the qualitative content analysis approach proposed by Graneheim and Lundman. 30 studies were included, revealing a cumulative total of 915 healthcare providers who were interviewed. A total of 30 themes emerged comprising 14 advocacy approaches and 16 ethical challenges. Healthcare providers made a deliberate choice to engage in advocacy, responding to injustices experienced by undocumented migrants. The spectrum of advocacy initiatives varied, encompassing voluntary participation in healthcare provision, empathetic understanding, and healthcare-focused strategies. We also identified numerous correlated ethical challenges, necessitating healthcare providers to strike a balance between their eagerness to assist and their professional competence, respect the autonomy of undocumented migrants, and establish trust with them. These findings not only offer practical guidance for healthcare providers to enhance accessibility to healthcare services for undocumented migrant patients but also foster awareness of the ethical challenges that may arise in their advocacy roles.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":"579-606"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11519158/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare providers' advocacy approaches and ethical challenges in delivering healthcare to undocumented migrants: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Fayez Abdulrazeq, Julian März, Nikola Biller-Andorno, Chris Gastmans\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11019-024-10225-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Delivering healthcare to undocumented migrants presents a complex challenge for healthcare providers. Integrating advocacy efforts into their daily practices can be ambiguous in practical terms, stemming from the intricate task of addressing the health needs of this population while simultaneously advocating for their health rights within the constraints imposed on them. This study seeks to consolidate findings from literature regarding the advocacy approaches employed by healthcare providers and the correlated ethical challenges. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative literature by systematically searching four databases-PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library. For developing our search strategy, we employed the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) scheme. Our analysis followed the qualitative content analysis approach proposed by Graneheim and Lundman. 30 studies were included, revealing a cumulative total of 915 healthcare providers who were interviewed. A total of 30 themes emerged comprising 14 advocacy approaches and 16 ethical challenges. Healthcare providers made a deliberate choice to engage in advocacy, responding to injustices experienced by undocumented migrants. The spectrum of advocacy initiatives varied, encompassing voluntary participation in healthcare provision, empathetic understanding, and healthcare-focused strategies. We also identified numerous correlated ethical challenges, necessitating healthcare providers to strike a balance between their eagerness to assist and their professional competence, respect the autonomy of undocumented migrants, and establish trust with them. These findings not only offer practical guidance for healthcare providers to enhance accessibility to healthcare services for undocumented migrant patients but also foster awareness of the ethical challenges that may arise in their advocacy roles.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"579-606\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11519158/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-024-10225-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-024-10225-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为无证移民提供医疗服务对医疗服务提供者来说是一项复杂的挑战。将宣传工作纳入他们的日常实践,在实际操作中可能是模糊不清的,因为既要满足这一人群的健康需求,又要在强加给他们的限制条件下倡导他们的健康权利,这是一项错综复杂的任务。本研究旨在整合文献中关于医疗服务提供者所采用的倡导方法以及相关伦理挑战的研究成果。我们通过系统检索四个数据库--PubMed/Medline、Embase、Cinahl 和 Cochrane Library,对定性文献进行了范围界定。在制定检索策略时,我们采用了 PICO(人群、干预、比较、结果)方案。我们的分析遵循了 Graneheim 和 Lundman 提出的定性内容分析方法。共纳入 30 项研究,累计访谈了 915 名医疗服务提供者。共出现了 30 个主题,包括 14 种倡导方法和 16 个伦理挑战。医疗服务提供者有意选择参与宣传,对无证移民遭遇的不公正做出回应。倡导活动的范围各不相同,包括自愿参与医疗保健服务、移情理解和以医疗保健为重点的策略。我们还发现了许多相关的伦理挑战,要求医疗服务提供者在他们的援助热情和专业能力之间取得平衡,尊重无证移民的自主权,并与他们建立信任。这些研究结果不仅为医疗服务提供者提供了切实可行的指导,以提高无证移民患者获得医疗服务的可及性,还促进了他们对在宣传角色中可能出现的伦理挑战的认识。
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
Healthcare providers' advocacy approaches and ethical challenges in delivering healthcare to undocumented migrants: a scoping review.

Delivering healthcare to undocumented migrants presents a complex challenge for healthcare providers. Integrating advocacy efforts into their daily practices can be ambiguous in practical terms, stemming from the intricate task of addressing the health needs of this population while simultaneously advocating for their health rights within the constraints imposed on them. This study seeks to consolidate findings from literature regarding the advocacy approaches employed by healthcare providers and the correlated ethical challenges. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative literature by systematically searching four databases-PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library. For developing our search strategy, we employed the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) scheme. Our analysis followed the qualitative content analysis approach proposed by Graneheim and Lundman. 30 studies were included, revealing a cumulative total of 915 healthcare providers who were interviewed. A total of 30 themes emerged comprising 14 advocacy approaches and 16 ethical challenges. Healthcare providers made a deliberate choice to engage in advocacy, responding to injustices experienced by undocumented migrants. The spectrum of advocacy initiatives varied, encompassing voluntary participation in healthcare provision, empathetic understanding, and healthcare-focused strategies. We also identified numerous correlated ethical challenges, necessitating healthcare providers to strike a balance between their eagerness to assist and their professional competence, respect the autonomy of undocumented migrants, and establish trust with them. These findings not only offer practical guidance for healthcare providers to enhance accessibility to healthcare services for undocumented migrant patients but also foster awareness of the ethical challenges that may arise in their advocacy roles.

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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
期刊最新文献
To cure or not to cure. Non-empirical methods for ethics research on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health: a systematic journal review. One R or the other - an experimental bioethics approach to 3R dilemmas in animal research. What is a cure through gene therapy? An analysis and evaluation of the use of "cure". Genetic enhancement from the perspective of transhumanism: exploring a new paradigm of transhuman evolution.
×
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