| 1. |
- Glasdam, Stinne, et al.
(författare)
-
Patients’ participation in decision-making in the medical field – ‘projectification’ of patients in a neoliberal framed healthcare system
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Nursing Philosophy. - : Wiley. - 1466-7681. ; 16:4, s. 226-238
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article focuses on patients’ participation in decision-making in meetings with healthcare professionals in a healthcare system, based on neoliberal regulations and ideas.Drawing on two constructed empirical cases, primarily from the perspective of patients, this article analyses and discusses the clinical practice around decision-making meetings within a Foucauldian perspective. Patients’ participation in decision-making can be seen as an offshoot of respect for patient autonomy. A treatment must be chosen, when patients consult physicians. From the perspective of patients, there is a tendency for healthcare professionals to supply the patients with the information that they think are necessary for them to make their own decision. But patients do not always want to be a ‘customer’ in the healthcare system; they want to be a patient, consulting an expert for help and advice,which creates resistance to some parts of the decision-making process. Both professionals and patients are subject to the structural frame of the medical field, formed of both neoliberal framework and medical logic. The decision-making competence in relation to the choice of treatment is placed away from the professionals and seen as belonging to the patient. A‘projectification’ of the patient occurs, whereby the patient becomes responsible for his/her choices in treatment and care and the professionals support him/her with knowledge, preferences, and alternative views, out of which he/she must make his/her own choices, and the responsibility for those choices now and in the future. At the same time, there is a tendency towards de-professionalization. In that light, participation of patients in decision-making can be regarded as a tacit governmentality strategy that shapes the location of responsibility between individual and society, and independent patients and healthcare professionals, despite the basically desirable, appropriate, and necessary idea of involving patients in their own situations from a humanistic perspective.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Øye, Christine, et al.
(författare)
-
Etik i kvalitativ og kolloborativ forskning – fordringer for forskere, medforskere og andre sundhedsprofessionelle
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Klinisk Sygepleje. - : Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS. - 1903-2285 .- 0902-2767. ; 36:2, s. 123-136
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Ethics is always at stake in qualitative health and nursing research. The article examines and discusses research ethical dilemmas in qualitative health research, with a special focus on collaborative research. Firstly, the article discusses challenges with gatekeepers influencing the recruitment of informants when planning and executing interviews and participant observations. Secondly, the article discusses ethical challenges that arise in collaborative research when following research ethical guidelines such as obtaining informed consent, ensuring anonymization and not least complying with integrity in research. In qualitative health research, ethics must be understood as relational, processual, and situational and as such ethical dilemmas must be solved as the research proceeds. Therefore, research ethical issues and dilemmas must be solved ‘on the spot’ and not only at the desktop before the research project begins.
|
|
| 4. |
- Øye, Christine, et al.
(författare)
-
Qualitative research ethics on the spot: Not only on the desktop
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Nursing Ethics. - : SAGE Publications. - 1477-0989 .- 0969-7330. ; 23:4, s. 455-464
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The increase in medical ethical regulations and bureaucracy handled by institutional review boards and healthcare institutions puts the researchers using qualitative methods in a challenging position. Method: Based on three different cases from three different research studies, the article explores and discusses research ethical dilemmas. Objectives and ethical considerations: First, and especially, the article addresses the challenges for gatekeepers who influence the informant’s decisions to participate in research. Second, the article addresses the challenges in following research ethical guidelines related to informed consent and doing no harm. Third, the article argues for the importance of having research ethical guidelines and review boards to question and discuss the possible ethical dilemmas that occur in qualitative research. Discussion and conclusion: Research ethics must be understood in qualitative research as relational, situational, and emerging. That is, that focus on ethical issues and dilemmas has to be paid attention on the spot and not only at the desktop.
|
|
| 5. |
- Øye, Christine, et al.
(författare)
-
Tight Ties in Collaborative Health Research Puts Research Ethics on Trial? A Discussion on Autonomy, Confidentiality, and Integrity in Qualitative Research
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Qualitative Health Research. - : SAGE Publications. - 1049-7323 .- 1552-7557. ; 29:8, s. 1227-1235
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Collaborative research involving different stakeholders is increasingly becoming a preferred way of doing qualitative research to improve health care services. However, ethical research dilemmas arise when collaborative ties are tight. Based on lessons learned from two qualitative collaborative health care research projects in two different municipalities in Norway and Denmark, respectively, this article illuminates ethical research dilemmas around ethical principles and guidelines of autonomy (informed consent), confidentiality (anonymity), and integrity of research. Accordingly, there is a need to revisit and resume international ethical research guidelines formulated in the Declaration of Helsinki, when it comes to research guidelines of informed consent, anonymity, and integrity of research. Moreover, we suggest that collaborators contemplate and negotiate these ethical research issues to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, conflicts, and pressures when doing research with stakeholders when collaboration ties are tight.
|
|
