4.3 Article

Medical student attitudes to patient involvement in healthcare decision-making and research

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jme-2023-109451

关键词

Ethics- Research; Decision Making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the attitudes and opinions of incoming year 1 medical students towards patient involvement in healthcare decision-making and research. The results indicate that students are familiar with and supportive of patient involvement in medical treatment, but they are unfamiliar with the utility and value of such involvement in research.
ObjectivePatient involvement is used to describe the inclusion of patients as active participants in healthcare decision-making and research. This study aimed to investigate incoming year 1 medical (MBChB) students' attitudes and opinions regarding patient involvement in this context.MethodsWe established a staff-student partnership to formulate the design of an online research survey, which included Likert scale questions and three short vignette scenarios designed to probe student attitudes towards patient involvement linked to existing legal precedent. Incoming year 1 medical students (n=333) were invited to participate in the survey before formal teaching commenced.ResultsSurvey data (49 participants) indicate that students were broadly familiar with, and supportive of, patient involvement in medical treatment. There was least support for patient involvement in conducting (23.9%), contributing to (37.0%) or communicating research (32.6%), whereas there was unanimous support for patients choosing treatment from a selection of options (100%).ConclusionIncoming members of the medical profession demonstrate awareness of the need to actively involve patients in healthcare decision-making but are unfamiliar with the utility and value of such involvement in research. Further empirical studies are required to examine attitudes to patient involvement in healthcare.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据