Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Factors influencing practitioners' who do not participate in ethically complex, legally available care: scoping review.
Brown, Janine; Goodridge, Donna; Thorpe, Lilian; Hodson, Alexandra; Chipanshi, Mary.
  • Brown J; Faculty of Nursing, University of Regina, 111-116 Research Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 3R3, Canada.
  • Goodridge D; College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, E1216, Health Sciences Building, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada. donna.goodridge@usask.ca.
  • Thorpe L; Departments of Community Health and Epidemiology and Psychiatry, University of Saskatchewan, E3218, Health Sciences Building, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E5, Canada.
  • Hodson A; Faculty of Nursing, University of Regina, 111-116 Research Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 3R3, Canada.
  • Chipanshi M; Nursing Liaison Librarian, University of Regina Library, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada.
BMC Med Ethics ; 22(1): 134, 2021 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1511747
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Evolving medical technology, advancing biomedical and drug research, and changing laws and legislation impact patients' healthcare options and influence healthcare practitioners' (HCPs') practices. Conscientious objection policy confusion and variability can arise as it may occasionally be unclear what underpins non-participation. Our objective was to identify, analyze, and synthesize the factors that influenced HCPs who did not participate in ethically complex, legally available healthcare.

METHODS:

We used Arksey and O'Malley's framework while considering Levac et al.'s enhancements, and qualitatively synthesized the evidence. We searched Medline, CINAHL, JSTOR, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global from January 1, 1998, to January 15, 2020, and reviewed the references of the final articles. We included articles written in English that discussed the factors that influenced physicians and registered nurses (RNs) who did not participate in end-of-life (EOL), reproductive technology and health, genetic testing, and organ or tissue donation healthcare areas. Using Covidence, we conducted title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening against our eligibility criteria. We extracted the article's data into a spreadsheet, analyzed the articles, and completed a qualitative content analysis using NVivo12.

RESULTS:

We identified 10,664 articles through the search, and after the screening, 16 articles were included. The articles sampled RNs (n = 5) and physicians (n = 11) and encompassed qualitative (n = 7), quantitative (n = 7), and mixed (n = 2) methodologies. The care areas included reproductive technology and health (n = 11), EOL (n = 3), organ procurement (n = 1), and genetic testing (n = 1). One article included two care areas; EOL and reproductive health. The themed factors that influenced HCPs who did not participate in healthcare were (1) HCPs' characteristics, (2) personal beliefs, (3) professional ethos, 4) emotional labour considerations, and (5) system and clinical practice considerations.

CONCLUSION:

The factors that influenced HCPs' who did not participate in ethically complex, legally available care are diverse. There is a need to recognize conscientious objection to healthcare as a separate construct from non-participation in healthcare for reasons other than conscience. Understanding these separate constructs will support HCPs' specific to the underlying factors influencing their practice participation.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Physicians / Conscience Type of study: Prognostic study / Qualitative research / Reviews Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: BMC Med Ethics Journal subject: Ethics Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S12910-021-00703-6

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Physicians / Conscience Type of study: Prognostic study / Qualitative research / Reviews Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: BMC Med Ethics Journal subject: Ethics Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S12910-021-00703-6