| Literature DB >> 23414220 |
Myriam M Altamirano-Bustamante1, Nelly F Altamirano-Bustamante, Alberto Lifshitz, Ignacio Mora-Magaña, Adalberto de Hoyos, María Teresa Avila-Osorio, Silvia Quintana-Vargas, Jorge A Aguirre, Jorge Méndez, Chiharu Murata, Rodrigo Nava-Diosdado, Oscar Martínez-González, Elisa Calleja, Raúl Vargas, Juan Manuel Mejía-Arangure, Araceli Cortez-Domínguez, Fernand Vedrenne-Gutiérrez, Perla Sueiras, Juan Garduño, Sergio Islas-Andrade, Fabio Salamanca, Jesús Kumate-Rodríguez, Alejandro Reyes-Fuentes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, medical practice has followed two different paradigms: evidence-based medicine (EBM) and values-based medicine (VBM). There is an urgent need to promote medical education that strengthens the relationship between these two paradigms. This work is designed to establish the foundations for a continuing medical education (CME) program aimed at encouraging the dialogue between EBM and VBM by determining the values relevant to everyday medical activities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23414220 PMCID: PMC3606451 DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-39
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Figure 1A Venn-Euler diagram of values. Values are the universe, while virtues and principles are subsets. The subset of virtue considers those values that refer directly to the healthcare personnel, their traits of character and decision-making. The subset of Principles expresses a normative procedure according to which actions can be guided to reach certain values [29].
Figure 2Framework of the analytic methodology. In step 1, we used statistical analyses to examine the axiology of clinical practice (values in healthcare, work values, virtues in medical practice and three clinical vignettes posing ethical dilemmas) and the characteristics of participants prior to conducting the CME in clinical ethics. In step 2, we used qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews (SSIs) to examine reasons for values usage in clinical practice and axiology in the ethical discernment process prior to conducting the CME in clinical ethics. After quantitative and qualitative research questions were examined, these results were integrated based on the mutual validation model, which regards the search for convergent findings as validity indicators as the most important purpose of triangulation. We explored potentially strong connections between EBM and VBM using qualitative results, while we inferred the extent of the benefits of novel networks using quantitative results. After conducting the CME in clinical ethics intervention, we repeated the analyses (steps 3 and 4), and the full results were integrated.
Sociodemographic characteristics at two stages
| Variable | Stages | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± (SD) | 39.38 (±9.9) | 38.2 (±9.7) | |
| Female | 62% | 70% | |
| Male | 38% | 30% | |
| First | 41% | 37% | |
| Second | 32% | 35% | |
| Third | 22% | 19% | |
| Central | 5% | 9% | |
Figure 3Hierarchy of values in clinical practice in Mexico. Each of the charts shows the state of values before the intervention (n = 2,891). Deontological values are in blue, aretological values are in red, and utilitarian values are in green. The lower the values, the higher their level of importance.
Figure 4Hierarchy of values in clinical practice before and after CME intervention. All the values presented statistically significant change before and after the intervention (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test with Bonferroni's correction).
Figure 5Ethical clusters found among Mexican healthcare personnel. Aretological values are A; deontological values are D; utilitarian values are U. Before (1) and after (2) the educational intervention.
Work values
| Median | Student's | C.I. 95% | Wilcoxon | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Openness to change-B | 5.75 | 5.69 ± 0.89 | 0.000c | -0.09;-0.04 | 0.000c |
| Openness to change-A | 6.00 | 5.77 ± 0.87 | |||
| Self-transcendence-B | 6.25 | 5.99 ± 0.94 | 0.001c | -0.08;-0.006 | 0.010c |
| Self-transcendence-A | 6.25 | 6.05 ± 0.89 | |||
| Self-enhancement-B | 2.5 | 2.71 ± 1.10 | 0.019c | -0.07;-2.34 | 0.035c |
| Self-enhancement-A | 2.75 | 2.75 ± 1.11 | |||
| Conservation-B | 3.5 | 3.50 ± 0.89 | 0.22d | 0.01; 0.05 | 0.171d |
| Conservation-A | 3.5 | 3.48 ± 0.90 |
B = before, A = after, c With significant differences, d Without significant differences.
Figure 6Four high order values (Schwartz's theory) before and after CME intervention. Each row includes N = Nurses, M = Medical Doctors, HP = Others Healthcare Professionals. A = Administrative personnel. Spheres in red are females. 1 = Before and 2 = After educational intervention. A: Scatter plot in 3D. Openness to Change. Spheres representing post-CME intervention appear compacted. B: Scatter plot in 3D. Self-transcendence. Spheres representing post-CME intervention appear compacted. C: Scatter plot in 3D. Self-Enhancement. D: Scatter plot in 3D. Conservation.
Figure 7Semantic networks. Keywords were identified with Atlas.ti 6.0 software. Words were sorted according to the frequency of their appearance in the interviews. The cut-off point, which divides the set of words into a high-frequency and low-frequency groups, was identified. Radial graphs explaining the frequency of appearance were created with MS Excel 2007. Red indicates before CME, and blue indicates after CME. A: Semantic Networks for Life History. B: Semantic Networks for Ethical Discernment. C: Semantic Networks for Healthcare Personnel-Patient Relationship.
Values and healthcare personnel roles
| Values and Healthcare Personnel Roles | Quote |
|---|---|
For each value and role, the boxes on top correspond to the interviews before CME intervention. The boxes at the bottom correspond to the interviews after CME.
Figure 8Virtues of medical practice. *Denotes a statistically significant difference before and after the intervention (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test with Bonferroni correction). Vertical lines tie the pair of values between which no statistically significant difference was found (Steel-Dwass All Pairs Comparison).