Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707316›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

Development, reliability, and validity of the nurses' conscientious objection attitude scale (COAS-N).

Seyhan Demir Karabulut, Şenay Gül, Eylem Gül Ateş, Zehra Göçmen Baykara

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Seyhan Demir KarabulutDepartment of Medical History and Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey. sdkarabulut@baskent.edu.tr.ORCID 0000-0001-5473-573X
Şenay GülFundamentals of Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-8808-5760
Eylem Gül AteşInstitutional Big Data Management Coordination Office, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-6166-2601
Zehra Göçmen BaykaraFundamentals of Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-9076-6653

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConscientious objection poses ethical dilemmas frequently encountered by nurses, allowing them to prioritize personal beliefs in caregiving. However, it may also be viewed as a stance jeopardizing patients' healthcare access. There is no measurement tool to measure conscientious objection in nurses. This study aimed to develop a measurement tool for nurses' conscientious objection attitudes.

methodsThis research is a methodological study conducted with a total of 261 nurses in Turkiye. Following content validity assessments by ten experts, a 29-item draft scale was developed. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses examined the factor structure, and reliability was assessed via the Spearman-Brown coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland Altman plot. Cronbach's alpha estimated internal consistency and discrimination, which were evaluated by comparing lower and upper 27% groups.

resultsThe Nurses' Conscientious Objection Attitude Scale (COAS-N) comprises 29 items and three sub-dimensions (prioritizing professional values, prioritizing personal values, and requesting the right to conscientious objection). Cronbach's alpha for the entire scale is 0.81.

conclusionValidity and reliability were established for the newly developed scale measuring nurses' conscientious objection attitudes.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelConscienceNursesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsRefusal to TreatReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultConscientious objectionEthicsNursing careRefusing to careReliabilityScale developmentValidity

Identifiers

PMID39707316
PMCPMC11662762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.