Cargando…

Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kruijtbosch, M., Göttgens-Jansen, W., Floor-Schreudering, A., van Leeuwen, E., Bouvy, M. L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6800840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31254151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00869-5
_version_ 1783460477699883008
author Kruijtbosch, M.
Göttgens-Jansen, W.
Floor-Schreudering, A.
van Leeuwen, E.
Bouvy, M. L.
author_facet Kruijtbosch, M.
Göttgens-Jansen, W.
Floor-Schreudering, A.
van Leeuwen, E.
Bouvy, M. L.
author_sort Kruijtbosch, M.
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11096-019-00869-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6800840
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68008402019-11-01 Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test Kruijtbosch, M. Göttgens-Jansen, W. Floor-Schreudering, A. van Leeuwen, E. Bouvy, M. L. Int J Clin Pharm Research Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11096-019-00869-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2019-06-28 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6800840/ /pubmed/31254151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00869-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kruijtbosch, M.
Göttgens-Jansen, W.
Floor-Schreudering, A.
van Leeuwen, E.
Bouvy, M. L.
Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test
title Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test
title_full Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test
title_fullStr Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test
title_full_unstemmed Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test
title_short Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test
title_sort moral reasoning among dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the australian professional ethics in pharmacy test
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6800840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31254151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00869-5
work_keys_str_mv AT kruijtboschm moralreasoningamongdutchcommunitypharmaciststestingtheapplicabilityoftheaustralianprofessionalethicsinpharmacytest
AT gottgensjansenw moralreasoningamongdutchcommunitypharmaciststestingtheapplicabilityoftheaustralianprofessionalethicsinpharmacytest
AT floorschreuderinga moralreasoningamongdutchcommunitypharmaciststestingtheapplicabilityoftheaustralianprofessionalethicsinpharmacytest
AT vanleeuwene moralreasoningamongdutchcommunitypharmaciststestingtheapplicabilityoftheaustralianprofessionalethicsinpharmacytest
AT bouvyml moralreasoningamongdutchcommunitypharmaciststestingtheapplicabilityoftheaustralianprofessionalethicsinpharmacytest