Search

Objective: To explore factors influencing how well-informed women felt about hysterectomy, influences on their decision making, and on them receiving a less-invasive alternative to open surgery., Methods: Online questionnaire, conducted in 2015-2016, of women who had received a hysterectomy in Australia, in the preceding two years., Results: Questionnaires were completed by 2319/6000 women (39% response). Most women (n=2225; 96%) felt well-informed about hysterectomy. Women were more aware of the open abdominal approach (n=1798; 77%), than of less-invasive vaginal (n=1552; 67%), laparoscopic (n=1540; 66%), laparoscopic-assisted (n=1303; 56%), and robotic approaches (n=289; 12%). Most women (n=1435; 62%) reported their gynaecologist was the most influential information source. Women who received information about hysterectomy from a GP (OR=1.47; 95% CI 1.15-1.90), or from a gynaecologist (OR=1.3; 95% CI 1.06-1.58), were more likely to feel better informed (p<0.01)., Conclusion: This study is important because it helps clinicians, researchers and health policy makers to understand why many women still receive an open abdominal approach despite many learned societies recommending to avoid it if possible., Practice Implications: Additional information, or education about avoiding open abdominal approach where possible may lead to a greater number of women receiving less-invasive types of hysterectomy in the future., (Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Hand hygiene is the primary measure in hospitals to reduce the spread of infections, with nurses experiencing the greatest frequency of patient contact. The '5 critical moments' of hand hygiene initiative has been implemented in hospitals across Australia, accompanied by awareness-raising, staff training and auditing. The aim of this study was to understand the determinants of nurses' hand hygiene decisions, using an extension of a common health decision-making model, the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), to inform future health education strategies to increase compliance. Nurses from 50 Australian hospitals (n = 2378) completed standard TPB measures (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control [PBC], intention) and the extended variables of group norm, risk perceptions (susceptibility, severity) and knowledge (subjective, objective) at Time 1, while a sub-sample (n = 797) reported their hand hygiene behaviour 2 weeks later. Regression analyses identified subjective norm, PBC, group norm, subjective knowledge and risk susceptibility as the significant predictors of nurses' hand hygiene intentions, with intention and PBC predicting their compliance behaviour. Rather than targeting attitudes which are already very favourable among nurses, health education strategies should focus on normative influences and perceptions of control and risk in efforts to encourage hand hygiene adherence., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The four principles of Beauchamp and Childress--autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice--have been extremely influential in the field of medical ethics, and are fundamental for understanding the current approach to ethical assessment in health care. This study tests whether these principles can be quantitatively measured on an individual level, and then subsequently if they are used in the decision making process when individuals are faced with ethical dilemmas., Methods: The Analytic Hierarchy Process was used as a tool for the measurement of the principles. Four scenarios, which involved conflicts between the medical ethical principles, were presented to participants who then made judgments about the ethicality of the action in the scenario, and their intentions to act in the same manner if they were in the situation., Results: Individual preferences for these medical ethical principles can be measured using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. This technique provides a useful tool in which to highlight individual medical ethical values. On average, individuals have a significant preference for non-maleficence over the other principles, however, and perhaps counter-intuitively, this preference does not seem to relate to applied ethical judgements in specific ethical dilemmas., Conclusions: People state they value these medical ethical principles but they do not actually seem to use them directly in the decision making process. The reasons for this are explained through the lack of a behavioural model to account for the relevant situational factors not captured by the principles. The limitations of the principles in predicting ethical decision making are discussed.