• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

护理中的伦理困境:护士的角色与自主性认知

Ethical dilemmas in nursing: the role of the nurse and perceptions of autonomy.

作者信息

Pinch W J

出版信息

J Nurs Educ. 1985 Nov;24(9):372-6. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19851101-08.

DOI:10.3928/0148-4834-19851101-08
PMID:3001253
Abstract

This study investigated decision making in ethical dilemmas and attitudes toward professional autonomy. It was based on Murphy's identification of three nurse-patient relationship models. The model identification was the result of Murphy's investigation of the levels of moral reasoning of nurse practitioners, from Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Autonomy is necessary for patient advocacy in Murphy's highest order model of nurse-patient relationship. 109 freshmen, 103 seniors, and 82 graduates (baccalaureate nursing) were examined for model selection, risk-taking, restrictions, and anxiety in the decision-making process in specific situations. Autonomy was measured independently. The most significant results indicated that freshmen were less likely to select the autonomous model of relationship, had lower attitudes toward professional nursing autonomy, and were less willing to take risks. Graduates were lower than either student group in their perceptions of restrictions and anxiety. The responses to each dilemma itself varied by situation in relation to the model preferred.

摘要

本研究调查了伦理困境中的决策制定以及对职业自主性的态度。它基于墨菲对三种护患关系模式的识别。模式识别是墨菲根据科尔伯格道德发展理论对执业护士道德推理水平进行调查的结果。在墨菲的最高层级护患关系模式中,自主性对于患者维权而言是必要的。研究对109名大一新生、103名大四学生和82名本科毕业生(护理学专业)在特定情况下决策过程中的模式选择、冒险倾向、限制因素和焦虑状况进行了考察。自主性是独立测量的。最显著的结果表明,大一新生选择自主性关系模式的可能性较小,对职业护理自主性的态度较低,且不太愿意冒险。毕业生在对限制因素和焦虑的认知方面低于任何一个学生群体。针对每个困境本身的反应因与偏好模式相关的情境而异。

相似文献

1
Ethical dilemmas in nursing: the role of the nurse and perceptions of autonomy.护理中的伦理困境:护士的角色与自主性认知
J Nurs Educ. 1985 Nov;24(9):372-6. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19851101-08.
2
The impact of nursing education on ethical/moral decision making.护理教育对伦理/道德决策的影响。
J Nurs Educ. 1987 Jan;26(1):7-11. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19870101-04.
3
Moral professional personhood: ethical reflections during initial clinical encounters in nursing education.道德专业人格:护理教育中初次临床接触期间的伦理思考
Nurs Ethics. 2004 Mar;11(2):122-37. doi: 10.1191/0969733004ne678oa.
4
Nursing students' responses to ethical dilemmas in nursing practice.护理专业学生对护理实践中伦理困境的应对
Nurs Ethics. 1997 Jan;4(1):12-28. doi: 10.1177/096973309700400103.
5
Professional autonomy and ethical decision making among graduate and undergraduate nursing majors.
J Nurs Educ. 1988 Nov;27(9):405-10. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19881101-07.
6
The relationship between education and ethical behavior of nursing students.护理专业学生的教育与道德行为之间的关系。
West J Nurs Res. 1996 Jun;18(3):330-50. doi: 10.1177/019394599601800308.
7
An adjusted version of Kohlberg's moral theory: discussion of its validity for research in nursing ethics.科尔伯格道德理论的修正版:探讨其在护理伦理学研究中的有效性
J Adv Nurs. 1998 Apr;27(4):829-35. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00597.x.
8
A study of values of baccalaureate nursing students and graduate nurses from a secular and a nonsecular program.一项关于来自世俗和非世俗项目的护理学学士学生和毕业护士价值观的研究。
J Prof Nurs. 1989 Jan-Feb;5(1):17-22. doi: 10.1016/s8755-7223(89)80030-4.
9
Using clients.使用客户。
Nurs Ethics. 1997 Nov;4(6):465-71. doi: 10.1177/096973309700400603.
10
Ethical decision making in a bureaucratic context by senior nursing students.高年级护生在官僚环境中的伦理决策
Nurs Res. 1985 Mar-Apr;34(2):108-12.

引用本文的文献

1
Ethical Decision Making Levels of Nursing Students.护理专业学生的道德决策水平
Pak J Med Sci. 2018 May-Jun;34(3):724-729. doi: 10.12669/pjms.343.14922.
2
Types and causes of medication errors from nurse's viewpoint.从护士角度看用药错误的类型及原因。
Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2013 May;18(3):228-31.