IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dbk/medicw/v2y2023ip116id116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Quantitative Assessment of Medical Ethics Competence in Undergraduate Nursing and Midwifery Students

Author

Listed:
  • Manashree Mane
  • RK Sinha
  • Krishna Kumari Samantaray

Abstract

Competence in medical ethics is vital for nursing and midwifery students to navigate ethical dilemmas in clinical practice. Understanding how these students apply ethical principles is crucial for improving healthcare education. This assessment aimed to assess the level of medical ethics competence among undergraduate nursing and midwifery students and explore demographic factors that may influence their performance. A total of 316 undergraduate nursing and midwifery students participated in the assessment. Participants completed a structured questionnaire consisting of case-based scenarios designed to evaluate their knowledge and application of core ethical principles, including autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Data were analyzed using independent samples t-test, chi-square test, and multiple regression analysis. Most students demonstrated a basic understanding of medical ethics but struggled to apply ethical principles to clinical scenarios. Senior students performed better than first-year students and gender differences were observed in specific ethical areas. Regression analysis revealed that the year of study and GPA were significant predictors of medical ethics competence. Findings emphasize the need for a more practical and case-based approach to ethics education. Strengthening ethics training in nursing and midwifery programs, particularly in later years, can better prepare students for the ethical challenges faced in clinical settings.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:dbk:medicw:v:2:y:2023:i::p:116:id:116
DOI: 10.56294/mw2023116
as

Download full text from publisher

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be available.

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:dbk:medicw:v:2:y:2023:i::p:116:id:116. 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: Javier Gonzalez-Argote (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://mw.ageditor.ar/ .

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.