Literature DB >> 11906978

Whose autonomy? Which choice? A study of GPs' attitudes towards patient autonomy in the management of low back pain.

Wendy A Rogers1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Respect for patient autonomy is an important ethical principle for medical practitioners; however, previous investigators have reported inconsistent attitudes amongst practitioners towards respect for patient autonomy. This study in empirical ethics used qualitative methods to investigate GPs' attitudes towards respect for patient autonomy in consultations for low back pain.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore GPs' attitudes towards respect for patient autonomy by analysing attitudes towards four issues in the management of low back pain which raise ethical and practical dilemmas.
METHODS: Participants were 21 GPs selected from general practice in South Australia by stratified, purposive sampling aimed at maximizing diversity. Semi-structured interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using codes developed from the transcripts, with additional theoretical codes. In the analysis, attitudes towards patient autonomy in the four issues were characterized as autonomy-respecting, intermediate or controlling.
RESULTS: The results showed individual inconsistencies in GPs' attitudes towards respect for patient autonomy. For example, the majority of GPs accepted patient autonomy in the use of complementary therapies, but were controlling with regard to the use of analgesics. Attitudes to duration of time off work were spread evenly, whilst controlling attitudes towards use of X-rays were modified by patient requests for X-rays.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that GP attitudes towards patient autonomy are modified by ethical and pragmatic factors, and vary depending upon the nature of the issue in question.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11906978     DOI: 10.1093/fampra/19.2.140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  12 in total

1.  Ethics of the ordinary: a class response.

Authors:  Anita Cyril; Laween Al Atroshi; Thura Limbin; Prod Louca; Rebecca Taylor; Caroline Allison; Sylvia Nyame; Yewande Ajakaiye; Andrew Papanikitas
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Benedicte Carlsen; Claire Glenton; Catherine Pope
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Everyday ethics: learning from an 'ordinary' consultation in general practice.

Authors:  Caroline Allison
Journal:  London J Prim Care (Abingdon)       Date:  2011-07

4.  Public Perceptions of Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in Malaysia.

Authors:  Angelina P Olesen; Siti Nurani Mohd Nor; Latifah Amin; Anisah Che Ngah
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Perceived difficulties in managing ethical problems in family practice in Slovenia: cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Zalika Klemenc-Ketis; Janko Kersnik; Janja Ojstersek
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.351

6.  Patient choice and evidence based decisions: The case of complementary therapies.

Authors:  Lesley Wye; Alison Shaw; Debbie Sharp
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Medical decision and patient's preference: 'much ethics' and more trust always needed.

Authors:  Dimitrios Anyfantakis; Emmanouil K Symvoulakis
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  "Saying no is no easy matter" a qualitative study of competing concerns in rationing decisions in general practice.

Authors:  Benedicte Carlsen; Ole Frithjof Norheim
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-11-09       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Meta-ethnography to understand healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain.

Authors:  Francine Toye; Kate Seers; Karen L Barker
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Benefits, harms and evidence - reflections from UK primary healthcare.

Authors:  Margaret McCartney
Journal:  London J Prim Care (Abingdon)       Date:  2017-10-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.