Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31254151›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019

Moral reasoning among Dutch community pharmacists: testing the applicability of the Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test.

M Kruijtbosch, W Göttgens-Jansen, A Floor-Schreudering, E van Leeuwen, M L Bouvy

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Exploring Ethical Pharmacy Practice in Jordan.Science and engineering ethics · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M KruijtboschSIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Theda Mansholtstraat 5b, 2331 JE, Leiden, The Netherlands. m.kruijtbosch@sirstevenshof.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4725-5292
W Göttgens-JansenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 120, ELG, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
A Floor-SchreuderingSIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Theda Mansholtstraat 5b, 2331 JE, Leiden, The Netherlands.
E van LeeuwenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 120, ELG, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
M L BouvyDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80082, 3508 TB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLUtrecht University · NLPharmo Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Moral reasoning competency is essential in healthcare practice, especially in situations of moral dilemmas when a professional has to choose a morally justifiable action among several suboptimal action options. The Australian Professional Ethics in Pharmacy test (PEP test) measures moral reasoning among pharmacists. In Australia three levels of moral reasoning (schemas) were measured (1) business orientation (2) rules and regulations, and (3) patient rights (i.e. most advanced schema). Objective To test the applicability of the PEP test to pharmacists working in the Netherlands. Setting Dutch community pharmacy. Methods The PEP test consists of 36 statements (items) accompanying 3 moral dilemma scenarios. It was translated into Dutch and completed by 390 pharmacists. Principle component analysis (PCA) was used to investigate construct validity and Cronbach's Alpha was used to indicate internal consistency of the Dutch version of the PEP test. The eligible grouped statements and perceived possible moral reasoning schemas were compared to the Australian findings. Main outcome measure Moral reasoning schemas. Results The PCA analysis resulted in 3 components (i.e. possible moral reasoning schemas) that together accounted 27% variance in the data. The statements that represented the moral reasoning schemas 'business orientation' and 'rules and regulations' were somewhat similar when comparing these with the statements that represented these schemas in the PEP test study. The most advanced moral reasoning schema identified in Dutch pharmacists contained different statements compared to the statements that represented that schema among Australian pharmacists. This schema was labelled 'professional ethics'. Conclusion The PEP test needs further adaptation to the Dutch pharmacy practice context: especially the statements that should reflect the most advanced moral reasoning schema, need more accurate representations of professional pharmacy ethics that guide pharmacists in the Netherlands. Moral reasoning tests for a specific professional setting or country should be developed and adapted by experts who share the same professional values and practice as the respondents.

Indexed as

Ethics, PharmacyMoralsPharmaciesPharmacistsAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaCommunity Pharmacy ServicesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNetherlandsPatient RightsPrincipal Component AnalysisTranslationsCommunity pharmacistsMoral reasoningNetherlandsPharmacy ethics

Identifiers

PMID31254151
PMCPMC6800840
OpenAlexW2955144013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.