Türkiye’deki Dil ve Konuşma Terapisi Öğrencilerinin ve Mezunlarının Etik İkilemlere Yönelik Yanıtları: Bir Ön Çalışma

Year 2024, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 326 - 352, 31.12.2024

Derya Çavdar , Eda Korkmaz , Buğra Ömer Altinordu , Mehmet Emrah Cangi

https://doi.org/10.58563/dkyad-2024.73.4

Abstract

Amaç: Dil ve konuşma terapistleri (DKT), klinik hizmetlerde kimi zaman etik açıdan zorlayıcı durumlarla karşılaşabilmektedir. Bu nedenle alanyazında, dinamik yaşam koşulları ve mesleki gelişmeler doğrultusunda etik konuların tartışılması ve meslek alanı olarak pozisyon alınması önerilmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, DKT'ler ve DKT öğrencilerinin mesleki uygulamalarında karşılaştıkları veya karşılaşabilecekleri etik ikilemlerle ilgili görüşlerinin incelenmesi ve verdikleri yanıtların akademik/mesleki profillere göre karşılaştırılmasıdır.

Yöntem: Çalışmaya 75’i DKT öğrencisi ve 84’ü DKT olmak üzere toplam 159 birey katılmıştır. Çalışmada araştırmacılar tarafından mesleki etik kılavuzlarına dayanarak geliştirilen Dil ve Konuşma Terapisi Alanında Hipotetik Etik İkilemler Anketi kullanılmıştır. Anketin geliştirilmesinde uzman görüşü alınmış, kapsam geçerlik oranı ve indeksi hesaplanmıştır (p<0,05). Gruplar arası karşılaştırmalarda Kruskal Wallis-H ve Bonferroni düzeltmeli Mann Whitney-U testi kullanılmıştır.

Bulgular: Yanıtlar incelendiğinde “en olumsuz” görülen ilk iki durumun; reklam ile mesleğin saygınlığına zarar (x̄=1,26) ve küçümseyerek mesleğin saygınlığına zarar verme (x̄=1,3) olduğu görülmüştür. “Daha az olumsuz” görülen ilk iki durumun, yeterliliğin olmadığı alanda vaka kabulü (x̄=2,99) ve farklı mesleklere bazı tekniklerin öğretilmesi (x̄=2,96) olduğu belirlenmiştir. En uzlaşılan maddeler; reklam ile mesleğin saygınlığına zarar (SS=0,61) ve haksız rekabettir (SS=0,62). Yüksek çeşitliliğin olduğu maddeler ise vaka görüntülerini sosyal medyada paylaşma (SS=1,38) ve stajyerlere süpervizyon olmadan uygulama yaptırılmasıdır (SS=1,36). Eğitim düzeyine göre mesleki sınırı koruma (Madde 5 [M-5]), vaka görüntülerini sosyal medyada paylaşma (M-10), vaka gizlilik haklarının korunması (M-11), farklı mesleklere bazı tekniklerin öğretilmesi (M-16) ve stajyerlere süpervizyon olmadan uygulama yaptırılması (M-17) maddelerinde anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur; sıklıkla eğitim düzeyi arttıkça olumsuz kanaatlerde artış eğilimi görülmüştür (p’ler<0,024). Mesleki deneyim süresi (p>0.05) ve hizmet verilen kuruma göre (p>0,0125) gruplar arasında anket maddelerine verilen yanıtlar bakımından anlamlı farklılık görülmemiştir.

Sonuç: Mesleki tanıtım, disiplinler arası iş birliği, stajyer süreçleri, kişisel verilerin korunması gibi konularda belli uzlaşılar oluşturulmasının ve klinik pratiklerde standart yaklaşımların geliştirilmesinin önemi ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu ön çalışmanın gelecekteki çalışmalar için bir basamak olması ümit edilmektedir.

Keywords

Türkiye, Dil ve Konuşma Terapisi Alanı, Mesleki Etik, Etik İkilemler, Görüşler

Opinions of Speech and Language Therapy Students and Graduates on Ethical Dilemmas in Türkiye: A Preliminary Study

Abstract

Purpose: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) may face challenging situations when making ethical decisions in professional practice. Consequently, it is critical to address ethical concerns in the field of speech and language therapy professional practices, considering current global conditions and the field's development, and to take a position on these issues as a profession. The main aim of this study is to investigate the views of SLTs and SLT students regarding ethical dilemmas they face or are likely to face in professional practice. Another aim was to compare the responses of SLTs and SLT students based on their academic and professional profiles.

Method: A total of 159 individuals, including 75 SLT students and 84 SLTs, participated in the study. The Hypothetical Ethical Dilemmas in Speech and Language Therapy Questionnaire, developed by the authors, was used in the study. The questionnaire consists of 20 items and is based on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not ethical at all). The questionnaire items were created by examining the DKTD-Speech and Language Therapy Professional Ethical Rules Code and ASHA-Hypothetical Ethical Dilemmas Examples. During the development process, it was presented to 6 expert SLTs, and their opinions were obtained (Content Validity Index=1; p<0.05). Kruskal-Wallis H-test was used for comparisons between groups, and the Mann-Whitney-U test with Bonferroni correction was used for measurements with significant differences.

Results: First, when the distribution of the responses to each item was examined, it was observed that the first two situations that were seen as "the most negative" were damaging the reputation of the profession by advertising (x̄=1.26) and damaging the profession’s reputation by belittling (x̄=1.3). The first two situations that were seen as "less negative" in terms of ethics were found to be accepting clients in a field in which they are not experienced enough (x̄=2.99) and teaching professional techniques to various other professional groups (x̄=2.96). The items with the highest consensus in the participants' responses were damaging the reputation of the profession by advertising (SD=0.61) and unfair competition (SD=0.62). Items with high diversity in responses were sharing session images and videos of the client on social media (SD=1.38) and autonomous practice of interns without an SLT supervision (SD=1.36). Significant differences were found among undergraduate students, SLT’s and MSc-PhD candidate groups in the items on protecting professional boundaries (Item 5 [I-5]), sharing session images and videos of the client on social media (I-10), protecting client confidentiality rights (I-11), teaching professional techniques to different professional groups (I-16), and autonomous practice of interns without an SLT supervision (I-17) based on the level of education. Frequently, as the level of education increased, there was an increasing trend in negative opinions (p<0.024). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of responses to the questionnaire items according to the duration of professional experience (p>0.05) and the institution served (p>0.0125).

Conclusion: The importance of establishing certain compromises on issues such as professional advertisement, cooperation with other disciplines, internship processes, protection of personal data, and the development of standardized approaches in clinical practices has emerged. To ensure consistent practices across the profession, it is recommended that ethical practice issues be discussed on professional association platforms. It is hoped that this preliminary study will serve as a steppingstone for future research.

Keywords

Professional Ethics, Ethical Dilemmas, Türkiye, Field of Speech and Language Therapy, Opinions

References

• Abbott, A. (1983). Professional ethics. American Journal of Sociology, 88(5), 855-885.
• Alsughayr, A. R. (2015). Social media in healthcare: uses, risks, and barriers. Saudi Journal of Medicine & Medical Sciences, 3(2), 105-111. https://doi.org/10.4103/1658-631X.156405
• Altuntas, G., Semercioz, F., & Noyan, A. (2013). The effect of competitive rivalry on internal communication in private healthcare organizations: Evidence from Istanbul, Turkey. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Economica, 10(1). ASHA- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2016). Code of Ethics. www.asha.org/policy.
• Askren, A., & Leslie, P. (2019). Complexity of clinical decision making: consent, capacity, and et Askren, A., & Leslie, P. (2019). Complexity of clinical decision making: Consent, capacity, and ethics. Seminars in Speech and Language, 40(3), 162–169.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics. Edicoes Loyola. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Cangi, M. E. (2015). Kronik kekemelikte tele-terapinin etkililiğinin kontrollü incelenmesi: Karma yöntem araştırması [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists- CASLPA (1992). Canon of Ethics. Ottawa: CASLPA. https://cjslpa.ca/files/1992_JSLPA_Vol_16/No_04_251-330/Canon_of_Ethics_JSLPA_1992.pdf Chabon, S., Morris, J., & Lemoncello, R. (2011). Ethical deliberation: a foundation for evidence-based practice. Seminars in speech and language, 32(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1292755
• Chretien, K. C., & Kind, T. (2013). Social media and clinical care: ethical, professional, and social implications. Circulation, 127(13), 1413-1421.
• Çabuk, A., & İşgüden, B. (2006). Meslek etiği ve meslek etiğinin meslek yaşamı üzerindeki etkileri. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(16), 59-86.
• Çalıkoğlu, B. S. (2022). Özel eğitim öğretmenlerinin hipotetik etik ikilemler için çözüm üretme biçimleri. Uluslararası Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 33-46.
• Dewey, J., & Tufts, J. H. (2022). Ethics (1. Edition). DigiCat Press.
• Dil ve Konuşma Terapistleri Derneği- DKTD (2017). Mesleki Etik Kurallar Yönetmeliği. https://www.dktd.org/tr/page/etik-prensipler.html
• Dixon, G., & Kinnae, D. (2023). Look at how speech pathology has helped! Ethics in social media. Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology, 25(2), 49-51.
• Mezuniyet Öncesi Dil ve Konuşma Terapisi Eğitimi, Ulusal Çekirdek Eğitim Programı (2016). https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Ulusal-cekirdek-egitimi-programlari/dil_konusma.pdf
• Eadie, T. L., & Charland, L. C. (2005). Ethics in speech-language pathology: Beyond the codes and canons. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 29(1) 27-36.
• Farsi, D. (2021). Social media and health care, part I: literature review of social media use by health care providers. Journal of medical internet research, 23(4), e23205. https://doi.org/10.2196/23205
• Flatley, D. R., Kenny, B. J., & Lincoln, M. A. (2014). Ethical dilemmas experienced by speech-language pathologists working in private practice. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(3), 290-303. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2014.898094
• Gaylord, J. N., Schaaf, S. M., Liljequist, L., & Guffey Ed D, K. (2023). Structured Ethics Education in Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Students. Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders, 7(2), 11.
• Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği (2019). Resmi Gazete, 01.08.1998, Sayı: 23420. https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR,10461/hasta-haklariyonetmeligi.html
• Kangasniemi, M., Pakkanen, P., & Korhonen, A. (2015). Professional ethics in nursing: an integrative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(8), 1744-1757. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12619 Kenny, B., Lincoln, M., & Balandin, S. (2007). A dynamic model of ethical reasoning in speech pathology. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(9), 508–513. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.017715
• Koç, O., & Vurgun, L. (2012). Managing the rivalry of antithetic Institutional Logics: a qualitative study in the scope of Turkish healthcare field. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 157-174.
• Kum-Lung, C., & Teck-Chai, L. (2010). Attitude towards business ethics: examining the influence of religiosity, gender and education levels. International journal of marketing studies, 2(1), 225.
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
• Mohammed, E. N. (2022). Knowledge, causes, and experience of inter-professional conflict and rivalry among healthcare professionals in Nigeria. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 320.
• Pratt, B. (2021). Research for Health Justice: an ethical framework linking global health research to health equity. BMJ Global Health, 6(2), e002921. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002921
• Speech-Language & Audiology Canada -SAC (2005). Code of ethics. https://www.sac-oac.ca/sites/default/files/resources/2016_sac_ Code_of_Ethics_en.pdf
• Speech Pathology Australia -SPA (2010). Code of ethics. https://speechpathologyaustralia.cld.bz/SPA-Code-of-ethics-July2020-HIGHRES
• Staley, B., Hickey, E., Rule, D., Barrett, H., Salter, C., Gibson, R., & Rochus, D. (2021). Speech-language pathology and ethical practice in global contexts. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23(1), 15-25.
• Strand, E. A. (2003). Clinical and professional ethics in the management of motor speech disorders. Seminars in Speech and Language, 24, 301–311.
• Tangwa, G. B. (2009). Ethical principles in health research and review process. Acta tropica, 112, S2-S7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.07.031
• Vearrier, L., & Henderson, C. M. (2021). Utilitarian principlism as a framework for crisis healthcare ethics. HEC Forum, 33(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09431-7
• Veneziano L., & Hooper J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(1), s. 67-70.
• Yeşilyurt, S., & Çapraz, C. (2018). A road map for the content validity used in scale development studies. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(1), 251-264. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.297741
• Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 1, 771-774.