↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare ethics among resident doctors and ward nurses from a resource poor setting, Nepal

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare ethics among resident doctors and ward nurses from a resource poor setting, Nepal
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0154-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samaj Adhikari, Kumar Paudel, Arja R. Aro, Tara Ballav Adhikari, Bipin Adhikari, Shiva Raj Mishra

Abstract

Healthcare ethics is neglected in clinical practice in LMICs (Low and Middle Income Countries) such as Nepal. The main objective of this study was to assess the current status of knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare ethics among resident doctors and ward nurses in a tertiary teaching hospital in Nepal. This was a cross sectional study conducted among resident doctors (n = 118) and ward nurses (n = 86) in the largest tertiary care teaching hospital of Nepal during January- February 2016 with a self-administered questionnaire. A Cramer's V value was assessed to ascertain the strength of the differences in the variables between doctors and nurses. Association of variables were determined by Chi square and statistical significance was considered if p value was less than 0.05. Our study demonstrated that a significant proportion of the doctors and nurses were unaware of major documents of healthcare ethics: Hippocratic Oath (33 % of doctors and 51 % of nurses were unaware), Nuremberg code (90 % of both groups were unaware) and Helsinki Declaration (85 % of doctors and 88 % of nurses were unaware). A high percentage of respondents said that their major source of information on healthcare ethics were lectures (67.5 % doctors versus 56.6 % nurses), books (62.4 % doctors versus 89.2 % nurses), and journals (59 % doctors versus 89.2 % nurses). Attitude of doctors and nurses were significantly different (p < 0.05) in 9 out of 22 questions pertaining to different aspects of healthcare ethics. More nurses had agreement than doctors on the tested statements pertaining to different aspects of healthcare ethics except for need of integration of medical ethics in ungraduate curricula (97.4 % doctors versus 81.3 % nurses),paternalistic attitude of doctor was disagreed more by doctors (20.3 % doctors versus 9.3 % nurses). Notably, only few (9.3 % doctors versus 14.0 % nurses) doctors stood in support of physician-assisted dying. Significant proportion of doctors and nurses were unaware of three major documents on healthcare ethics which are the core principles in clinical practice. Provided that a high percentage of respondents had motivation for learning medical ethics and asked for inclusion of medical ethics in the curriculum, it is imperative to avail information on medical ethics through subscription of journals and books on ethics in medical libraries in addition to lectures and training at workplace on medical ethics which can significantly improve the current paucity of knowledge on medical ethics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 182 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 48 26%
Unknown 43 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 19%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 50 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#8,549,216
of 13,600,958 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#480
of 582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,055
of 283,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#58
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,600,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.