Introduction: To explore the information seeking behavior of Internationally Educated Nurses (IENs) and to investigate their exposure to libraries and library training in both their home countries and after being hired in Saskatchewan. Methods: This two-phase multi-method project was carried out in Saskatchewan, Canada. A questionnaire was developed based on survey instruments used in previously conducted studies on the topic. Librarians in two academic institutions assisted with validation of the survey. In Phase 1, data were collected via an online questionnaire from IENs in three health regions: Saskatoon, Regina, and Sunrise. In Phase 2, the study was expanded to IENs in all the health regions in the province. The same questionnaire from Phase 1 was used during telephone interviews with participants. Results: A total of 17 IENs responded (Phase 1, n 0 9, Phase 2, n 0 8). Results show that IENs, although interested in looking for information for their practice, are hindered by a lack of knowledge of how and where to seek relevant clinical information as well as a lack of library training. As a result, their main source of information is the Internet (Google). Discussion: Despite barriers such as time to information seeking, results revealed that given the opportunity IENs would like to receive library training to enhance their information seeking skills.

Background Evolving medical technology, advancing biomedical and drug research, and changing laws and legislation impact patients’ healthcare options and influence healthcare practitioners’ (HCPs’) practices. Conscientious objection policy confusion and variability can arise as it may occasionally be unclear what underpins non-participation. Our objective was to identify, analyze, and synthesize the factors that influenced HCPs who did not participate in ethically complex, legally available healthcare. Methods We used Arksey and O’Malley’s framework while considering Levac et al.’s enhancements, and qualitatively synthesized the evidence. We searched Medline, CINAHL, JSTOR, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global from January 1, 1998, to January 15, 2020, and reviewed the references of the final articles. We included articles written in English that discussed the factors that influenced physicians and registered nurses (RNs) who did not participate in end-of-life (EOL), reproductive technology and health, genetic testing, and organ or tissue donation healthcare areas. Using Covidence, we conducted title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening against our eligibility criteria. We extracted the article’s data into a spreadsheet, analyzed the articles, and completed a qualitative content analysis using NVivo12. Results We identified 10,664 articles through the search, and after the screening, 16 articles were included. The articles sampled RNs (n = 5) and physicians (n = 11) and encompassed qualitative (n = 7), quantitative (n = 7), and mixed (n = 2) methodologies. The care areas included reproductive technology and health (n = 11), EOL (n = 3), organ procurement (n = 1), and genetic testing (n = 1). One article included two care areas; EOL and reproductive health. The themed factors that influenced HCPs who did not participate in healthcare were: (1) HCPs’ characteristics, (2) personal beliefs, (3) professional ethos, 4) emotional labour considerations, and (5) system and clinical practice considerations. Conclusion The factors that influenced HCPs’ who did not participate in ethically complex, legally available care are diverse. There is a need to recognize conscientious objection to healthcare as a separate construct from non-participation in healthcare for reasons other than conscience. Understanding these separate constructs will support HCPs’ specific to the underlying factors influencing their practice participation.

IntroductionAs legislation addressing medical treatments continues to evolve, there are several circumstances (eg, abortion, assisted dying) in which health practitioners may choose to not provide legally available care options. It is not always clear what underlies practitioner choice, as some research has suggested non-participation in care provision is not always due to an ethical abstention but may represent other factors. This results in tension between a practitioner’s right to refrain from practices deemed morally objectionable by the practitioner, and the care recipient’s right to access legally available treatments. The aim of this systematic scoping review is to identify the current knowledge regarding all the factors influencing practitioner’s choices when declining involvement in legally available healthcare options.Methods and analysisArksey and O’Malley’s scoping framework in concert with Levac et al’s enhancements will guide the systematic scoping review methodological processes. English language documents from 1 January 1998 to current will be sought using Medline, CINAHL, JSTOR, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, PsychINFO and Sociological Abstracts. MeSH headings, keywords and synonyms will be adjusted using an iterative search process. Theses and dissertations will be included in the search protocol; however, other grey literature will be accessed only as required. Two research team members will screen the abstracts and full articles against inclusion criteria. Article information will be extracted via a data collection tool and undergo thematic analysis. Descriptive summary (visual summary and study contextual information) and a presentation of analytical themes will align findings back to the research question.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be used to support transparency and guide translation of findings. Findings will be disseminated through professional networks, in peer-reviewed journals and conferences via abstract and presentation.

No abstract