IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0123765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analytical Comparison of the Opinions of Physicians Working in Emergency and Trauma Surgery Departments at Tabriz and Vienna Medical Universities Regarding Family Presence during Resuscitation

Author

Listed:
  • Hassan Soleimanpour
  • Wilhelm Behringer
  • Jafar Sadegh Tabrizi
  • Kambiz Sarahrudi
  • Samad E J Golzari
  • Stefan Hajdu
  • Maryam Rasouli
  • Mehdi Nikakhtar
  • Robab Mehdizadeh Esfanjani

Abstract

The present study evaluated the opinions of physicians working in the emergency and trauma surgery departments of Vienna Medical University, in Austria, and Tabriz Medical University, in Iran, regarding the presence of patients’ relatives during resuscitation. In a descriptive-analytical study, the data obtained from questionnaires that had been distributed randomly to 40 specialists and residents at each of the participating universities were analyzed. The questionnaire consisted of two sections aimed at capturing the participants’ demographic data, the participants’ opinions regarding their support for the family’s presence during resuscitation, and the multiple potential factors affecting the participants’ attitudes, including health beliefs, triggers that could facilitate the procedure, self-efficacy, intellectual norms, and perceived behavioral control. The questionnaire also included a direct question (Question 16) on whether the participants approved of family presence. Each question could be answered using a Likert-type scale. The results showed that the mean scores for Question 16 were 4.31 ± 0.64 and 3.57 ± 1.31 for participants at Vienna and Tabriz universities, respectively. Moreover, physicians at Vienna University disapproved of the presence of patients’ families during resuscitation to a higher extent than did those at Tabriz University (P = 0.018). Of the studied prognostic factors affecting the perspectives of Vienna Medical University’s physicians, health beliefs (P = 0.000; B = 1.146), triggers (P = 0.000; B = 1.050), and norms (P = 0.000; B = 0.714) were found to be significant. Moreover, of the studied prognostic factors affecting the perspectives of Tabriz Medical University’s physicians, health beliefs (P = 0.000; B = 0.875), triggers (P = 0.000; B = 1.11), self-efficacy (P = 0.001; B = 0.5), and perceived behavioral control (P = 0.03; B = 0.713) were significant. Most physicians at Vienna and Tabriz Medical universities were not open towards family members’ presence during resuscitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hassan Soleimanpour & Wilhelm Behringer & Jafar Sadegh Tabrizi & Kambiz Sarahrudi & Samad E J Golzari & Stefan Hajdu & Maryam Rasouli & Mehdi Nikakhtar & Robab Mehdizadeh Esfanjani, 2015. "An Analytical Comparison of the Opinions of Physicians Working in Emergency and Trauma Surgery Departments at Tabriz and Vienna Medical Universities Regarding Family Presence during Resuscitation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-8, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0123765
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123765
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123765&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0123765?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0123765. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.