ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Ethical self-efficacy among healthcare professionals caring for people with dementia: a brief pre- and post-report on the CARE intervention.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ethical dilemmas in the care of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias unable to give informed consent: positioning Lebanon within the Global North-South context.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Enhancing ethical self-efficacy among dementia caregiver staff: A mixed-methods feasibility study of the care programme.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Factors influencing self-regulated learning ability among Medical undergraduates in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterventions targeting healthcare professionals' confidence in managing ethical issues in dementia care are limited despite documented positive effects of educational programs on staff knowledge and self-efficacy. However, inconsistencies in the literature regarding the impact of educational programs underscore the need for targeted interventions. The CARE intervention, specifically designed to enhance confidence in ethical decision-making, aims to address this gap. This study evaluates the effectiveness of the CARE intervention in enhancing the ethical self-efficacy of healthcare professionals caring for people with dementia, particularly those with initially low levels of self-efficacy.
methodsUsing a non-experimental pre-post evaluation design, the CARE intervention was administered to healthcare professionals (n = 86), measuring ethical self-efficacy pre-and post-intervention. We hypothesized significant differences in ethical self-efficacy mean scores pre- and post-intervention for all participants, particularly those with low pre-measurement scores, whom we expected to benefit most from the intervention. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests and Wilcoxon tests for the low pre-measurement subgroup analysis.
resultsWhile no significant change was observed in the entire sample, participants with low initial self-efficacy showed a statistically significant improvement post-intervention.
conclusionsThe CARE intervention holds promise in improving ethical self-efficacy among healthcare professionals with initial low confidence levels. Targeted interventions are essential in addressing confidence gaps in managing ethical challenges in dementia care, with implications for professional well-being and quality of care. Further research should explore long-term effects and expand sample size to enhance generalizability and sustainability of findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.