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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |