Patient’s Dignity: Viewpoints of Patients and Nurses in Hospitals

Torabizadeh, Camellia; Jafari, Samaneh; Momennasab, Marzieh

doi:10.1080/00185868.2021.1897487

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All 11 instruments are self‐report questionnaires that measure dignity from patients' perspectives, while the Patient's Dignity Questionnaire (Torabizadeh et al, 2021) considers both patients' and nurses' perspectives. The instruments were designed to measure dignity or the factors affecting dignity among different target populations across different healthcare settings.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two instruments were developed based on a framework of Chochinov et al (2008) and preliminary study (Rudilla et al, 2016; Vlug et al, 2011). The remaining seven instruments were developed based on a thorough literature review of dignity concepts alone (Khatib & Armenian, 2010; Torabizadeh et al, 2021) or combined literature review and preliminary study (Brudek & Steuden, 2017; Oosterveld‐Vlug et al, 2014; Ota et al, 2019; Tauber‐Gilmore et al, 2018; Wiegman, 2003). Six instruments indicated the recall period ranging from the present to the preceding week.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Content validity was evaluated in 19 studies (Table 2). Of these, three studies (Eskigülek & Kav, 2021;Jacelon et al, 2009;Torabizadeh et al, 2021) were rated as 'adequate' quality (content validity index…”

Section: Quality Of the Content Validity Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these, Cronbach's alphas were calculated for each subscale in 25 studies, which were rated 'very good' quality. Three studies (Ge et al, 2016;Khatib & Armenian, 2010;Torabizadeh et al, 2021) did not report Cronbach's alpha for each subscale and were rated 'inadequate' quality.…”

Section: Internal Consistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distribution of the scores or mean scores and standard deviation were not reported in these studies when calculating Pearson's correlations. Torabizadeh et al (2021) assessed divergent validity, and the study was rated 'inadequate' quality because there was no clear description of the comparator instrument and its psychometric properties.…”

Section: Hypothesis Testing For Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Self‐report instruments for measuring patient dignity: A psychometric systematic review

Lam

Chang

Natashia

et al. 2022

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims:To synthesize and evaluate the psychometric properties of self-report instruments that measure patient dignity.Design: A psychometric systematic review. Data sources: A comprehensive search of studies published from inception until February 17, 2022, was performed using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Review Methods: The methodological quality of the psychometric studies was evaluated following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Results: Eleven self-report instruments that evaluate dignity were identified. For most instruments, psychometric properties, including reliability, cross-cultural validity, responsiveness, and measurement error, had not been adequately examined. The Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI), the Jacelon's Attributed Dignity Scale (JADS), and the Inpatient Dignity Scale (IPDS) had acceptable content validity, structure validity, and internal consistency to measure dignity among adult patients under palliative care, community-dwelling older adults, and inpatients receiving daily care. Conclusion:The PDI, the JADS, and the IPDS are recommended for future clinical practice and research to measure dignity among adult patients under palliative care, community-dwelling older adults, and inpatients receiving daily care. Early identification of patients' dignity-related problems in nursing care can prevent negative health outcomes and help develop a timely intervention to promote patients' health and recovery.Impact: Given that the psychometric properties of the existing self-report dignity instruments have not been systematically assessed, the present review utilized comprehensive methods according to COSMIN to evaluate and determine the most appropriate measure for research and practice. The PDI, the JADS, and the IPDS demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and are, thus, recommended for clinical and research applications. Nursing professionals can employ these instruments to assess and promptly identify dignity issues among both young and older adults in hospitals and communities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality Of the Content Validity Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Internal Consistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hypothesis Testing For Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Self‐report instruments for measuring patient dignity: A psychometric systematic review

Lam

Chang

Natashia

et al. 2022

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Barriers to ethical treatment of patients in clinical environments: A systematic narrative review

Dehkordi,

Torabizadeh,

Rakhshan

et al. 2024

Health Science Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and AimIt is essential that healthcare providers display ethical behavior toward their patients. Despite development of codes of ethics for clinical practice, the occurrence of unethical behaviors toward patients is alarmingly high. The present study was conducted to identify the barriers to ethical treatment of patients in clinical environments.MethodsThrough systematic narrative review, the present study investigated the barriers to ethical treatment of patients. This study was carried out in line with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 and Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines.ResultsEthical challenges in clinical environments can be classified into two categories: “organizational factors” and “personal factors.” Organizational factors consist of three domains: managers and regulations, organizational environment, and human resources. Personal factors consist of two domains: factors related to patients and their families and factors related to care providers.ConclusionResearch shows that encouraging healthcare teams to adopt ethical behaviors through education and having them persistently observe ethics in their clinical practice will not completely bridge the gap between theory and practice: it seems that the clinical environment, the personal characteristics of healthcare team members and patients, and the organizational values of the healthcare system pose the greatest barrier to bridging this gap. Accordingly, in addition to raising healthcare providers’ awareness of the existing issues in clinical ethics, measures should be taken to improve organizational culture and atmosphere.

show abstract

Reflections of nursing students on the care of the person's dignity at the end of life: A qualitative study

Farfán-Zúñiga,

Jaman-Mewes

2024

Nurse Education Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient’s Dignity: Viewpoints of Patients and Nurses in Hospitals

Cited by 15 publications

References 49 publications

Self‐report instruments for measuring patient dignity: A psychometric systematic review

Self‐report instruments for measuring patient dignity: A psychometric systematic review

Barriers to ethical treatment of patients in clinical environments: A systematic narrative review

Reflections of nursing students on the care of the person's dignity at the end of life: A qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About