IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i11-12p1832-1857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dignity, privacy, respect and choice—A scoping review of measurement of these concepts within acute healthcare practice

Author

Listed:
  • Annamaria Bagnasco
  • Milko Zanini
  • Nicoletta Dasso
  • Silvia Rossi
  • Fiona Timmins
  • Miss Carolina Galanti
  • Giuseppe Aleo
  • Gianluca Catania
  • Loredana Sasso

Abstract

Aims and objectives To synthesise and review literature related to instruments that measure psychosocial aspects of fundamental care in acute hospital care settings. Background Psychosocial aspects of care often receive less priority in terms of care provision in acute care environments. At the same time, if these elements are overlooked, there may be consequences. Despite the availability of many instruments designed to measure specific aspects of care, these concepts are often not studied within the broader context of fundamentals of care, but rather coexist as isolated explorations of specific subelements. Design A scoping review was conducted, based on Arksey & O’Malley's (2005) methodological framework and following the PRISMA checklist. Methods Using the five recommended steps—identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; and summarising and reporting the results—three databases were searched: MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE, in February 2019. Results Following independent screening by two of the authors, 48 papers were included. From these 48 papers, 33 instruments were identified. Only five of these tools thoroughly assessed psychosocial aspects elements of care (dignity, respect, privacy and patients’ choice) through dedicated items. Conclusions This review provides nurses with a synthesis of 33 instruments that assess the psychosocial aspects of care. This provides an important resource to guide measurement of dignity, respect, privacy and patients’ choice. The findings also provide guidance to future research in this field. Relevance to clinical practice This paper reviews and synthesises these instruments to provide a resource to nurses to inform their decisions and practice around measurement and evaluation of these key aspects of care. This provides a useful guide to measure and monitor the improvement of fundamental care delivery in practice and points to strengths and weaknesses of the instruments concerned.

Suggested Citation

  • Annamaria Bagnasco & Milko Zanini & Nicoletta Dasso & Silvia Rossi & Fiona Timmins & Miss Carolina Galanti & Giuseppe Aleo & Gianluca Catania & Loredana Sasso, 2020. "Dignity, privacy, respect and choice—A scoping review of measurement of these concepts within acute healthcare practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1832-1857, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:11-12:p:1832-1857
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15245
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15245?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heidrun Gattinger & Birgit Werner & Susi Saxer, 2013. "Patient experience with bedpans in acute care: a cross‐sectional study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(15-16), pages 2216-2224, August.
    2. Rebecca Feo & Alison Kitson & Tiffany Conroy, 2018. "How fundamental aspects of nursing care are defined in the literature: A scoping review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2189-2229, June.
    3. Yu-Chi Li & Hsiu-Hung Wang & Chung-Han Ho, 2018. "Validity and reliability of the Mandarin version of Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI-MV) in cancer patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, September.
    4. David A. Richards & Angelique Hilli & Claire Pentecost & Victoria A. Goodwin & Julia Frost, 2018. "Fundamental nursing care: A systematic review of the evidence on the effect of nursing care interventions for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2179-2188, June.
    5. Li‐Fen Wu & Malcolm Koo & Hui‐Chen Tseng & Yu‐Chen Liao & Yuh‐Min Chen, 2015. "Concordance between nurses' perception of their ability to provide spiritual care and the identified spiritual needs of hospitalized patients: A cross‐sectional observational study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 426-433, December.
    6. Mien Li Goh & Emily NK Ang & Yiong‐Huak Chan & Hong‐Gu He & Katri Vehviläinen‐Julkunen, 2015. "Psychometric testing of the Revised Humane Caring Scale for adult patients in Singapore," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 370-376, September.
    7. Marcelle Tauber‐Gilmore & Christine Norton & Sue Procter & Trevor Murrells & Gulen Addis & Lesley Baillie & Pauline Velasco & Preet Athwal & Saeema Kayani & Zainab Zahran, 2018. "Development of tools to measure dignity for older people in acute hospitals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(19-20), pages 3706-3718, October.
    8. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    9. Gro Bentzen & Anita Harsvik & Berit Støre Brinchmann, 2013. "“Values That Vanish into Thin Air”: Nurses' Experience of Ethical Values in Their Daily Work," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-8, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alvisa Palese & Jessica Longhini & Matteo Danielis, 2021. "To what extent Unfinished Nursing Care tools coincide with the discrete elements of The Fundamentals of Care Framework? A comparative analysis based on a systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-265, January.
    2. Claire Pentecost & Julia Frost & Holly V. R. Sugg & Angelique Hilli & Victoria A. Goodwin & David A. Richards, 2020. "Patients' and nurses' experiences of fundamental nursing care: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1858-1882, June.
    3. Alison Kitson, 2018. "Moving on…," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2175-2176, June.
    4. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    5. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    6. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    8. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    9. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    10. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    11. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    14. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    15. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    16. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    17. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    20. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    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:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:11-12:p:1832-1857. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.