Cargando…
Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol
INTRODUCTION: As legislation addressing medical treatments continues to evolve, there are several circumstances (eg, abortion, assisted dying) in which health practitioners may choose to not provide legally available care options. It is not always clear what underlies practitioner choice, as some re...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104793/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30121617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023901 |
_version_ | 1783349555306168320 |
---|---|
author | Brown, Janine Goodridge, Donna Thorpe, Lilian Chipanshi, Mary |
author_facet | Brown, Janine Goodridge, Donna Thorpe, Lilian Chipanshi, Mary |
author_sort | Brown, Janine |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: As legislation addressing medical treatments continues to evolve, there are several circumstances (eg, abortion, assisted dying) in which health practitioners may choose to not provide legally available care options. It is not always clear what underlies practitioner choice, as some research has suggested non-participation in care provision is not always due to an ethical abstention but may represent other factors. This results in tension between a practitioner’s right to refrain from practices deemed morally objectionable by the practitioner, and the care recipient’s right to access legally available treatments. The aim of this systematic scoping review is to identify the current knowledge regarding all the factors influencing practitioner’s choices when declining involvement in legally available healthcare options. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping framework in concert with Levac et al’s enhancements will guide the systematic scoping review methodological processes. English language documents from 1 January 1998 to current will be sought using Medline, CINAHL, JSTOR, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, PsychINFO and Sociological Abstracts. MeSH headings, keywords and synonyms will be adjusted using an iterative search process. Theses and dissertations will be included in the search protocol; however, other grey literature will be accessed only as required. Two research team members will screen the abstracts and full articles against inclusion criteria. Article information will be extracted via a data collection tool and undergo thematic analysis. Descriptive summary (visual summary and study contextual information) and a presentation of analytical themes will align findings back to the research question. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be used to support transparency and guide translation of findings. Findings will be disseminated through professional networks, in peer-reviewed journals and conferences via abstract and presentation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6104793 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61047932018-08-24 Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol Brown, Janine Goodridge, Donna Thorpe, Lilian Chipanshi, Mary BMJ Open Ethics INTRODUCTION: As legislation addressing medical treatments continues to evolve, there are several circumstances (eg, abortion, assisted dying) in which health practitioners may choose to not provide legally available care options. It is not always clear what underlies practitioner choice, as some research has suggested non-participation in care provision is not always due to an ethical abstention but may represent other factors. This results in tension between a practitioner’s right to refrain from practices deemed morally objectionable by the practitioner, and the care recipient’s right to access legally available treatments. The aim of this systematic scoping review is to identify the current knowledge regarding all the factors influencing practitioner’s choices when declining involvement in legally available healthcare options. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping framework in concert with Levac et al’s enhancements will guide the systematic scoping review methodological processes. English language documents from 1 January 1998 to current will be sought using Medline, CINAHL, JSTOR, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, PsychINFO and Sociological Abstracts. MeSH headings, keywords and synonyms will be adjusted using an iterative search process. Theses and dissertations will be included in the search protocol; however, other grey literature will be accessed only as required. Two research team members will screen the abstracts and full articles against inclusion criteria. Article information will be extracted via a data collection tool and undergo thematic analysis. Descriptive summary (visual summary and study contextual information) and a presentation of analytical themes will align findings back to the research question. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be used to support transparency and guide translation of findings. Findings will be disseminated through professional networks, in peer-reviewed journals and conferences via abstract and presentation. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6104793/ /pubmed/30121617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023901 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Ethics Brown, Janine Goodridge, Donna Thorpe, Lilian Chipanshi, Mary Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol |
title | Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol |
title_full | Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol |
title_fullStr | Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol |
title_short | Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol |
title_sort | factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: a scoping protocol |
topic | Ethics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104793/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30121617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023901 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brownjanine factorscontributingtopractitionerchoicewhendeclininginvolvementinlegallyavailablecareascopingprotocol AT goodridgedonna factorscontributingtopractitionerchoicewhendeclininginvolvementinlegallyavailablecareascopingprotocol AT thorpelilian factorscontributingtopractitionerchoicewhendeclininginvolvementinlegallyavailablecareascopingprotocol AT chipanshimary factorscontributingtopractitionerchoicewhendeclininginvolvementinlegallyavailablecareascopingprotocol |