结果研究能尊重牧师的完整性吗?结果研究综述。

IF 1.1 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy Pub Date : 2020-10-01 Epub Date: 2019-04-24 DOI:10.1080/08854726.2019.1599258
Annelieke Damen, Carmen Schuhmann, Carlo Leget, George Fitchett
{"title":"结果研究能尊重牧师的完整性吗?结果研究综述。","authors":"Annelieke Damen,&nbsp;Carmen Schuhmann,&nbsp;Carlo Leget,&nbsp;George Fitchett","doi":"10.1080/08854726.2019.1599258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, some within chaplaincy have advocated for a stronger focus on outcomes, including outcome research, whereas others in the field have questioned an outcome-oriented perspective. In this article, existing outcome studies are reviewed in relation to the ongoing discussion about a process- or outcome-oriented approach to chaplaincy. A central question emerges from this discussion: how can outcome research be designed that respects the integrity of the profession of chaplaincy? A literature search in MEDLINE/Pubmed produced twenty-two chaplaincy outcome studies that met the inclusion criteria. A review of these studies shows that thus far most have focused on secondary chaplaincy outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) using quantitative designs. To respect the integrity of chaplaincy, it is recommended that future studies should also focus on characteristic chaplaincy outcomes, use mixed methods designs, and articulate more clearly how their chosen outcomes, outcome measures, and interventions relate to the work of chaplaincy.</p>","PeriodicalId":45330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy","volume":"26 4","pages":"131-158"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08854726.2019.1599258","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Outcome Research Respect the Integrity of Chaplaincy? A Review of Outcome Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Annelieke Damen,&nbsp;Carmen Schuhmann,&nbsp;Carlo Leget,&nbsp;George Fitchett\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08854726.2019.1599258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In recent years, some within chaplaincy have advocated for a stronger focus on outcomes, including outcome research, whereas others in the field have questioned an outcome-oriented perspective. In this article, existing outcome studies are reviewed in relation to the ongoing discussion about a process- or outcome-oriented approach to chaplaincy. A central question emerges from this discussion: how can outcome research be designed that respects the integrity of the profession of chaplaincy? A literature search in MEDLINE/Pubmed produced twenty-two chaplaincy outcome studies that met the inclusion criteria. A review of these studies shows that thus far most have focused on secondary chaplaincy outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) using quantitative designs. To respect the integrity of chaplaincy, it is recommended that future studies should also focus on characteristic chaplaincy outcomes, use mixed methods designs, and articulate more clearly how their chosen outcomes, outcome measures, and interventions relate to the work of chaplaincy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"131-158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08854726.2019.1599258\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854726.2019.1599258\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/4/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854726.2019.1599258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/4/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

近年来,牧师内部的一些人提倡更加关注结果,包括结果研究,而该领域的其他人则质疑以结果为导向的观点。在这篇文章中,现有的结果研究与正在进行的关于过程或结果导向的牧师方法的讨论有关。从这个讨论中出现了一个核心问题:如何设计尊重牧师职业完整性的结果研究?在MEDLINE/Pubmed的文献检索中产生了22项符合纳入标准的牧师结果研究。对这些研究的回顾表明,到目前为止,大多数研究都集中在使用定量设计的次要牧师工作结果(例如,满意度)上。为了尊重牧师工作的完整性,建议未来的研究还应关注牧师工作的特征结果,使用混合方法设计,并更清楚地阐明他们选择的结果、结果测量和干预措施与牧师工作的关系。
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
Can Outcome Research Respect the Integrity of Chaplaincy? A Review of Outcome Studies.

In recent years, some within chaplaincy have advocated for a stronger focus on outcomes, including outcome research, whereas others in the field have questioned an outcome-oriented perspective. In this article, existing outcome studies are reviewed in relation to the ongoing discussion about a process- or outcome-oriented approach to chaplaincy. A central question emerges from this discussion: how can outcome research be designed that respects the integrity of the profession of chaplaincy? A literature search in MEDLINE/Pubmed produced twenty-two chaplaincy outcome studies that met the inclusion criteria. A review of these studies shows that thus far most have focused on secondary chaplaincy outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) using quantitative designs. To respect the integrity of chaplaincy, it is recommended that future studies should also focus on characteristic chaplaincy outcomes, use mixed methods designs, and articulate more clearly how their chosen outcomes, outcome measures, and interventions relate to the work of chaplaincy.

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
Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy
Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
21.10%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy publishes peer-reviewed, scholarly articles based on original research, quality assurance/improvement studies, descriptions of programs and interventions, program/intervention evaluations, and literature reviews on topics pertinent to pastoral/spiritual care, clinical pastoral education, chaplaincy, and spirituality in relation to physical and mental health.
期刊最新文献
Opening up the black box of chaplaincy: a qualitative study into the reported workings of a narrative and interfaith spiritual care intervention in palliative care at home. The role of pluralisms in the positions and functions of chaplains in Dutch outpatient, community or primary care settings: secondary analysis of a multi-method comparative case study project. Addressing spirituality-related moral challenges in palliative care: perspectives of spiritual counselors. A time study of ACPE certified educators. Geriatric inpatients' experiences with one-on-one chaplaincy visits in Belgium.
×
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