Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol.
BMJ Open. 2018 08 17; 8(8):e023901.BO

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

As legislation addressing medical treatments continues to evolve, there are several circumstances (eg, abortion, assisted dying) in which health practitioners may choose to not provide legally available care options. It is not always clear what underlies practitioner choice, as some research has suggested non-participation in care provision is not always due to an ethical abstention but may represent other factors. This results in tension between a practitioner's right to refrain from practices deemed morally objectionable by the practitioner, and the care recipient's right to access legally available treatments. The aim of this systematic scoping review is to identify the current knowledge regarding all the factors influencing practitioner's choices when declining involvement in legally available healthcare options.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Arksey and O'Malley's scoping framework in concert with Levac et al's enhancements will guide the systematic scoping review methodological processes. English language documents from 1 January 1998 to current will be sought using Medline, CINAHL, JSTOR, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, PsychINFO and Sociological Abstracts. MeSH headings, keywords and synonyms will be adjusted using an iterative search process. Theses and dissertations will be included in the search protocol; however, other grey literature will be accessed only as required. Two research team members will screen the abstracts and full articles against inclusion criteria. Article information will be extracted via a data collection tool and undergo thematic analysis. Descriptive summary (visual summary and study contextual information) and a presentation of analytical themes will align findings back to the research question.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be used to support transparency and guide translation of findings. Findings will be disseminated through professional networks, in peer-reviewed journals and conferences via abstract and presentation.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Faculty of Nursing, University of Regina, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Health Sciences Graduate Program, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.Departments of Respirology, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.Departments of Community Health & Epidemiology and Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.Nursing Liaison Librarian, University of Regina Library, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30121617

Citation

Brown, Janine, et al. "Factors Contributing to Practitioner Choice when Declining Involvement in Legally Available Care: a Scoping Protocol." BMJ Open, vol. 8, no. 8, 2018, pp. e023901.
Brown J, Goodridge D, Thorpe L, et al. Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e023901.
Brown, J., Goodridge, D., Thorpe, L., & Chipanshi, M. (2018). Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol. BMJ Open, 8(8), e023901. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023901
Brown J, et al. Factors Contributing to Practitioner Choice when Declining Involvement in Legally Available Care: a Scoping Protocol. BMJ Open. 2018 08 17;8(8):e023901. PubMed PMID: 30121617.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol. AU - Brown,Janine, AU - Goodridge,Donna, AU - Thorpe,Lilian, AU - Chipanshi,Mary, Y1 - 2018/08/17/ PY - 2018/8/20/entrez PY - 2018/8/20/pubmed PY - 2019/10/23/medline KW - abstention KW - choice KW - conscientious objection KW - medical ethics KW - non-participation KW - refusal to treat SP - e023901 EP - e023901 JF - BMJ open JO - BMJ Open VL - 8 IS - 8 N2 - INTRODUCTION: As legislation addressing medical treatments continues to evolve, there are several circumstances (eg, abortion, assisted dying) in which health practitioners may choose to not provide legally available care options. It is not always clear what underlies practitioner choice, as some research has suggested non-participation in care provision is not always due to an ethical abstention but may represent other factors. This results in tension between a practitioner's right to refrain from practices deemed morally objectionable by the practitioner, and the care recipient's right to access legally available treatments. The aim of this systematic scoping review is to identify the current knowledge regarding all the factors influencing practitioner's choices when declining involvement in legally available healthcare options. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Arksey and O'Malley's scoping framework in concert with Levac et al's enhancements will guide the systematic scoping review methodological processes. English language documents from 1 January 1998 to current will be sought using Medline, CINAHL, JSTOR, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, PsychINFO and Sociological Abstracts. MeSH headings, keywords and synonyms will be adjusted using an iterative search process. Theses and dissertations will be included in the search protocol; however, other grey literature will be accessed only as required. Two research team members will screen the abstracts and full articles against inclusion criteria. Article information will be extracted via a data collection tool and undergo thematic analysis. Descriptive summary (visual summary and study contextual information) and a presentation of analytical themes will align findings back to the research question. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be used to support transparency and guide translation of findings. Findings will be disseminated through professional networks, in peer-reviewed journals and conferences via abstract and presentation. SN - 2044-6055 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30121617/Factors_contributing_to_practitioner_choice_when_declining_involvement_in_legally_available_care:_A_scoping_protocol_ L2 - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=30121617 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -