SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Theda Mansholtstraat 5b, 2331 JE, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80082, 3508 TB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Int J Clin Pharm. 2019 Oct;41(5):1323-1331. doi: 10.1007/s11096-019-00869-5. Epub 2019 Jun 28.
Background Moral reasoning competency is essential in healthcare practice, especially in situations of moral dilemmas when a professional has to choose a morally justifiable action among several suboptimal action options. The Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test (PEP test) measures moral reasoning among pharmacists. In Australia three levels of moral reasoning (schemas) were measured (1) business orientation (2) rules and regulations, and (3) patient rights (i.e. most advanced schema). Objective To test the applicability of the PEP test to pharmacists working in the Netherlands. Setting Dutch community pharmacy. Methods The PEP test consists of 36 statements (items) accompanying 3 moral dilemma scenarios. It was translated into Dutch and completed by 390 pharmacists. Principle component analysis (PCA) was used to investigate construct validity and Cronbach's Alpha was used to indicate internal consistency of the Dutch version of the PEP test. The eligible grouped statements and perceived possible moral reasoning schemas were compared to the Australian findings. Main outcome measure Moral reasoning schemas. Results The PCA analysis resulted in 3 components (i.e. possible moral reasoning schemas) that together accounted 27% variance in the data. The statements that represented the moral reasoning schemas 'business orientation' and 'rules and regulations' were somewhat similar when comparing these with the statements that represented these schemas in the PEP test study. The most advanced moral reasoning schema identified in Dutch pharmacists contained different statements compared to the statements that represented that schema among Australian pharmacists. This schema was labelled 'professional ethics'. Conclusion The PEP test needs further adaptation to the Dutch pharmacy practice context: especially the statements that should reflect the most advanced moral reasoning schema, need more accurate representations of professional pharmacy ethics that guide pharmacists in the Netherlands. Moral reasoning tests for a specific professional setting or country should be developed and adapted by experts who share the same professional values and practice as the respondents.
背景
道德推理能力在医疗保健实践中至关重要,尤其是在出现道德困境时,专业人员必须在几个次优行动方案中选择一个在道德上合理的行动。澳大利亚专业伦理药师测试(PEP 测试)衡量药师的道德推理能力。在澳大利亚,测量了三种道德推理水平(模式):(1)商业导向,(2)规则和法规,以及(3)患者权利(即最先进的模式)。
目的
测试 PEP 测试在荷兰执业药师中的适用性。
背景
荷兰社区药房。
方法
PEP 测试由 36 个陈述(项目)和 3 个道德困境情景组成。它被翻译成荷兰语,并由 390 名药剂师完成。主成分分析(PCA)用于研究结构有效性,Cronbach's Alpha 用于表示 PEP 测试荷兰语版本的内部一致性。将合格的分组陈述和感知可能的道德推理模式与澳大利亚的发现进行比较。
主要结果测量
道德推理模式。
结果
PCA 分析产生了 3 个组成部分(即可能的道德推理模式),这些组成部分共同解释了数据中 27%的差异。在比较这些陈述与 PEP 测试研究中代表这些模式的陈述时,代表“商业导向”和“规则与法规”的道德推理模式的陈述有些相似。在荷兰药剂师中确定的最先进的道德推理模式包含与代表澳大利亚药剂师的该模式的陈述不同的陈述。这个模式被标记为“职业道德”。
结论
PEP 测试需要进一步适应荷兰药房实践环境:特别是应反映最先进的道德推理模式的陈述,需要更准确地代表指导荷兰药剂师的专业药学伦理。特定专业环境或国家的道德推理测试应由具有相同专业价值观和实践的专家来开发和改编。