Suppr超能文献

自主性、宗教与临床决策:一项全国医师调查的结果

Autonomy, religion and clinical decisions: findings from a national physician survey.

作者信息

Lawrence R E, Curlin F A

机构信息

Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Illinois 60637-5415, USA.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2009 Apr;35(4):214-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.027565.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patient autonomy has been promoted as the most important principle to guide difficult clinical decisions. To examine whether practising physicians indeed value patient autonomy above other considerations, physicians were asked to weight patient autonomy against three other criteria that often influence doctors' decisions. Associations between physicians' religious characteristics and their weighting of the criteria were also examined.

METHODS

Mailed survey in 2007 of a stratified random sample of 1000 US primary care physicians, selected from the American Medical Association masterfile. Physicians were asked how much weight should be given to the following: (1) the patient's expressed wishes and values, (2) the physician's own judgment about what is in the patient's best interest, (3) standards and recommendations from professional medical bodies and (4) moral guidelines from religious traditions.

RESULTS

Response rate 51% (446/879). Half of physicians (55%) gave the patient's expressed wishes and values "the highest possible weight". In comparative analysis, 40% gave patient wishes more weight than the other three factors, and 13% ranked patient wishes behind some other factor. Religious doctors tended to give less weight to the patient's expressed wishes. For example, 47% of doctors with high intrinsic religious motivation gave patient wishes the "highest possible weight", versus 67% of those with low (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors believe patient wishes and values are important, but other considerations are often equally or more important. This suggests that patient autonomy does not guide physicians' decisions as much as is often recommended in the ethics literature.

摘要

背景

患者自主权已被推崇为指导艰难临床决策的最重要原则。为了探究执业医师是否真的将患者自主权置于其他考量因素之上,研究人员要求医师们在患者自主权与另外三个常常影响医生决策的标准之间进行权衡。同时还考察了医师的宗教特征与其对这些标准的权衡之间的关联。

方法

2007年对从美国医学协会主文件中选取的1000名美国初级保健医师进行分层随机抽样并邮寄调查问卷。医师们被问及应给予以下各项多大权重:(1)患者表达的意愿和价值观;(2)医师自己对患者最佳利益的判断;(3)专业医学机构的标准和建议;(4)宗教传统的道德准则。

结果

回复率为51%(446/879)。一半的医师(55%)给予患者表达的意愿和价值观“尽可能高的权重”。在比较分析中,40%的医师给予患者意愿的权重高于其他三个因素,13%的医师将患者意愿排在其他某些因素之后。有宗教信仰的医生往往给予患者表达的意愿较低的权重。例如,内在宗教动机强烈的医生中,47%给予患者意愿“尽可能高的权重”,而内在宗教动机较弱的医生中这一比例为67%(比值比0.5;95%置信区间0.3至0.8)。

结论

医生认为患者的意愿和价值观很重要,但其他考量因素往往同样重要或更重要。这表明患者自主权在指导医师决策方面,并不像伦理文献中经常建议的那么有效。

相似文献

1
Autonomy, religion and clinical decisions: findings from a national physician survey.
J Med Ethics. 2009 Apr;35(4):214-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.027565.
2
[The origin of informed consent].
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27.
3
Are religion and religiosity important to end-of-life decisions and patient autonomy in the ICU? The Ethicatt study.
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Jul;38(7):1126-33. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2554-8. Epub 2012 Apr 14.
5
Psychosocial determinants of physicians' intention to practice euthanasia in palliative care.
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jan 22;16:6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-16-6.
6
US primary care physicians' opinions about conscientious refusal: a national vignette experiment.
J Med Ethics. 2016 Feb;42(2):80-4. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102782. Epub 2015 Jul 1.
9
[Providing or withholding treatment: the role of the patient's wish and priorities in palliative care].
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2002 Aug 16;127(33):1690-4. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-33378.
10
Substituted judgment in principle and practice: a national physician survey.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Jul;88(7):666-73. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.05.013.

引用本文的文献

1
Conscientious objection - a cross-sectional, vignette-based, mixed methods exploration of Australian pharmacists' perspectives.
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2024 Apr 2;17(1):2323086. doi: 10.1080/20523211.2024.2323086. eCollection 2024.
3
Factors Influencing Physicians' Clinical Decision-making at Upazila Health Complexes in Bangladesh.
Glob J Qual Saf Healthc. 2020 Nov 30;3(4):125-133. doi: 10.36401/JQSH-20-7. eCollection 2020 Nov.
4
Religious Identity Discrimination in the Physician Workforce: Insights from Two National Studies of Muslim Clinicians in the US.
J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Apr;38(5):1167-1174. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07923-5. Epub 2023 Jan 4.
5
The NERSH Questionnaire and Pool of Data from 12 Countries: Development and Description.
J Relig Health. 2022 Jun;61(3):2605-2630. doi: 10.1007/s10943-021-01428-x. Epub 2021 Oct 1.
9
Religion and Spirituality as a Cultural Asset in Medical Students.
J Relig Health. 2018 Jun;57(3):1062-1073. doi: 10.1007/s10943-017-0553-3.
10
Does a Therapist's World View Matter?
J Relig Health. 2016 Jun;55(3):1097-1106. doi: 10.1007/s10943-016-0208-9.

本文引用的文献

1
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 385 November 2007: the limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine.
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Nov;110(5):1203-8. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000291561.48203.27.
2
Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices.
N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 8;356(6):593-600. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa065316.
3
Views of older adults on patient participation in medication-related decision making.
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Apr;21(4):298-303. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00329.x.
4
Birth outcomes for Arabic-named women in California before and after September 11.
Demography. 2006 Feb;43(1):185-201. doi: 10.1353/dem.2006.0008.
6
A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent.
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Jan 6;140(1):54-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-1-200401060-00012.
7
The role of risk communication in shared decision making.
BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):692-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.692.
10
Commentary: value neutrality, moral integrity, and the physician.
J Law Med Ethics. 2000 Spring;28(1):78-80, 3. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00319.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验