Hemşirelerin Bakım Davranışları İle Ahlaki Duyarlılık Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkinin Belirlemesi

Year 2023, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 376 - 387, 30.05.2023

Ezgi Yıldız , Gülay Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.31020/mutftd.1224198

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı hemşirelerin bakım davranışları ile ahlaki duyarlılık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemektir.
Yöntem: Araştırmanın örneklemini Sivas ilinde bulunan üniversite ve devlet hastanesinde çalışan ve 1 Haziran-30 Eylül 2018 tarihleri arasında araştırmaya katılmayı kabul eden hemşireler (N=445) oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma verilerinin toplanmasında Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Bakım Davranışları Ölçeği-24 (BDÖ-24) ve Ahlaki Duyarlılık Anketi (ADA) kullanılmıştır. Veriler frekans, ortalama, minimum ve maksimum değerler, standart sapma, Mann Whitney U testi ve Kruskal-Wallis kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: BDÖ-24 toplam puan ortalaması 5,12±0,63 olarak bulunmuştur. ADA’nın genel toplam puanı 93.14±21.79'dur. ADA ve BDÖ-24 ölçeği toplam puan ortalamaları arasında ters ve zayıf düzeyde (r=-259; p=0,001) bir ilişki olduğu ve bu ilişkinin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu saptanmıştır. ADA puan ortalaması azaldıkça, BDÖ-24 puan ortalaması artar. Buna göre ahlaki duyarlılık arttıkça bakım davranışları da artmaktadır.
Sonuç: Araştırma sonuçları hemşirelerin ahlaki duyarlılıklarının orta düzeyde olduğunu ve bakım davranışlarının iyi düzeyde olduğunu göstermiştir. Ahlaki duyarlılığı yüksek olan hemşirenin iyi düzeyde bakım davranışına sahip olduğu saptanmıştır.

Keywords

Bakım davranışı, hemşire, ahlaki duyarlılık

Supporting Institution

Sivas Cumhuriyet University

Project Number

T-794

Determination of the Relationship Between Nurses’ Care Behavior and Moral Sensitivity Levels

Abstract

Aim: This research aims to determine the relationship between nurses’ care behaviors and moral sensitivity levels.
Methods: The sample of the study consists of nurses (N=445) who are working in the university and public hospital in Sivas and who agreed to participate in the study between June 1 and September 30, 2018. Personal Information Form, Caring Behaviors Inventory-24 (CBI-24) and Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire (MSQ) were used to collect research data. Data were evaluated by using frequency, mean, minimum and maximum values, standard deviation, Mann Whitney U test, and Kruskal-Wallis.
Results: The mean total score of CBI-24 has been found to be 5.12±0.63. The overall total score of MSQ is 93.14±21.79. It has been found out that there is a reverse and weak level (r=-259; p=0.001) relationship between the total score averages of MSQ and CBI scale, and this relationship is statistically significant. As the MSQ score average decreases, the CBI score average increases. Accordingly, as moral sensitivity increases, care behaviors also increase.
Conclusion: While the results of the research show that the nurses’ moral sensitivity is at moderate level and their care behaviors are at good level, the care behaviors of nurses with high moral sensitivity are also higher.

Keywords

Care behavior, nurse, moral sensitivity

Project Number

T-794

References

• 1. Oztunc O. The nature of the nurse. In T. Aştı A. Karadag, editors. Fundamentals of Nursing. İstanbul, Turkey: Academy Printing & Publishing; 2013. pp:26-35.
• 2. Filizoz B, et al. Nurses’ ethical sensitivity: research on central public hospitals in Sivas province extended. Turk J Bus Ethics 2015;8(1): 56–66.
• 3. Karaca T. The moral sensibility of nursing students. HSP 2018;5(1): 24-30.
• 4. Schallenberger DC, et al. Moral sensitivity components identified among nurses from Intensive Care Units. Rev Bras Enferm [Internet] 2017;72(Suppl 1): 2-8.
• 5. Borhani F, et al. Moral sensitivity and moral distress in Iranian critical care nurses. Nursing Ethics 2017;24(4):1-9.
• 6. Rahnama F, Mardani-Hamooleh M, Kouhnavard M. Correlation between moral sensitivity and self-esteem in nursing personnel. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine 2017;10(16):1-8.
• 7. Karlou C, Papathanassoglou E, Patiraki E. Caring behaviours in cancer care in Greece, comparison of patients’, their caregivers’ and nurse’s perceptions. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 2015;19(3):244-50.
• 8. Shalaby SA, et al. Assessing The Caring Behaviors of Critical Care Nurses. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 2018; 8(10):77-85.
• 9. Mert Boga S, et al. Perception of Care Quality and Ethical Sensitivity in Surgical Nurses. Nursing Ethics 2020;27(3):673-85.
• 10. Wu Y, Larrabee JH, Putman HP. Caring behaviors inventory: a reduction of the 42-item instrument. Nurs Res 2006;55(1):18–25.
• 11. Wolf ZR, et al. Dimensions of Nurse Caring. Image J Nurs Sch 1994;26(2):107-11.
• 12. Kursun S, Kanan N. Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of caring behaviors inventory-24. J Anatolia Nurs Health Sci 2012;15(4):229–235
• 13. Lutzen K, Evertzon M, Nordin C. Moral sensitivity in psychiatric practice. Nursing Ethics 1997;4(6):472–82.
• 14. Tosun H. Moral sensitivity survey: Turkish validity and reliability adaptation. J Contemp Med 2018;8(4):316-21.
• 15. Karlou C, et al. Nurses’ Caring Behaviors Toward Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy in Greece. Canser Nursing 2018;41(5):399-408.
• 16. Colak Okumus U, Ugur E. The effects of nurses’ emotional intelligence levels on their caring behaviors. ACU Journal of Health Sciences 2017;(2):104-09.
• 17. Kursun S. Perception of nursing care quality by patients and nurses in general surgery service. Doctoral Thesis. Istanbul University Institute of Health Sciences, 2010, İstanbul.
• 18. Yurun Y. Determination of patient care behavior of nurses working in hospital. Master Thesis. TRNC Near East University Health Sciences Institute, 2015, Lefkoşa.
• 19. Gogus F. Comparison of care behavior evaluations of surgical patients and surgical nurses. Unpublished Master Thesis, Ankara University Institute of Health Sciences, 2016, Ankara.
• 20. Kokturk Dalcalı BK, Sendir M. Determining the relationship between nurses personal values and their ethical sensitivity. FNJ Nurs 2016;24(1):1–9.
• 21. Firat B, et al. Investigation of ethical sensitivities of emergency service nurses. DEUHFED 2017;10(4):229-35.
• 22. Nora CR, Zoboli EL, Vieira MM. Moral sensitivity in primary health care nurses. Rev Bras Enferm 2017;70(2):308–16.
• 23. Aydogan A, Ceyhan O. Ethical responsibilities of emergency healthcare professionals. ACU Health Sci 2019;10(2):182-89.
• 24. Tazegun A, Celebioglu A. Ethical sensitivity levels of pediatric nurses and effective factors. İzmir Dr. Behçet Uz The Journal Of Child Diseases 2016; 6(2):97-102.
• 25. Yilmaz D, et al. Examination of ethical sensitivity and related factors of nurses in ınternal clinics: An example of university hospital. DEUHFED 2018;11(2):157-63.
• 26. Tas Arslan F, Calpbinici P. Moral sensitivity, ethical experıences and related factors of pediatric nurses: A cross-sectıonal, correlatıonal study. Acta Bioethica 2018;24(81):9-18.
• 27. Pekcan HS. Ethical Sensitivity of Physicians and Nurses Working in Yalova Province and its Surroundings. Master Thesis. Marmara University Institute of Health Sciences, 2007, İstanbul.
• 28. Temiz Z, et al. Determining ethical sensitivity of nurses employed in surgical units. J Anatolia Nurs Health Sci 2017;20(2):83–9.
• 29. Ertug N, et al. Ethical sensitivity and related factors of nurses working in the hospital settings. Acta Bioethica 2014;20(2):265-70.
• 30. Kahriman İ, Yesilcicek Calık K. Ethical sensitivity of clinical nurses. Gümüşhane Univ J Health Sci 2017;6(3):111–21.
• 31. Shahvali EA, et al. Investigating the relationship between nurses’ moral sensitivity and patients’ satisfaction with the quality of nursing care. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry 2018;13(3):1-7.
• 32. Tosun H. Determining sensitivity of the nurses and the physicians against the ethic dilemmas which experienced at the health care practices. Istanbul University, 2005, Istanbul.
• 33. Milliken A. Nurse ethical sensitivity: an integrative review. Nurs Ethics 2018;25(3):278–303.
• 34. Amiri E, et al. Relationship between nurses’ moral sensitivity and the quality of care. Nurs Ethics 2019;26(4):1265–73.