Araştırma Çıktıları | TR-Dizin | WoS | Scopus | PubMed
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/4806
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item Reporting quality of animal studies published in journals listed in ULAKBIM TR index: a systematic review on compliance to the ARRIVE guidelines(2022) Aydingoz, Selda Emre; Efe, Oguzhan Ekin; Caliskan, Gokce; 0000-0001-7823-7620; 0000-0002-3243-7843; ABA-4291-2020; W-7908-2019Transparent reporting of animal studies is key to ensure reproducibility. The primary guideline for reporting animal studies is the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments). We aimed to evaluate the compliance to the updated ARRIVE guidelines (version 2.0, date 2020) in animal studies published in journals indexed by the Turkish Academic Network and Information Centre (ULAKBIM TR Index). This was a retrospective analysis of reporting quality of animal studies published in journals listed in ULAKBIM TR Index between January 2010 and August 2021. The percentage of articles that fully reported each " of the ARRIVE Essential 10: Compliance Questionnaire was calculated, and effects of journal- and article-related factors were evaluated. Totally, 235 articles published in 89 journals were included into the analysis. The mean percentage of fully reported items was 59.1%+/- 10.9%, the least reported items being those related with bias - "blinding", "allocation to study groups", "assessment of statistical assumptions", "excluded animals", and "sample size calculation" (0.9%-10.6%). The journal's publisher, frequency, language, being indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded, and the ratio of animal studies had no significant effect on this percentage (p>0.05). However, journals supporting the ARRIVE guidelines had significantly and higher compliance (62.1 %+/- 10.1% vs. 58.2%+/- 11.0% for supporters and non-supporters, respectively; p=0.017, 95%CI -7.0 to-0.7). Articles published after 2015 had higher compliance to the ARRIVE guidelines than those published previously (60.9%+/- 10.4% vs. 57.9%+/- 11.1%, respectively; p=0.037, 95%CI -5.8 to -0.2). Although progress has been made, compliance to the ARRIVE guidelines is still low in animal studies published in journals listed in ULAKBIM TR Index-Turkey's scientific journal database that covers over 800 peer-review journals. In order to increase the reporting quality and reproducibility of animal studies, it is imperative to raise awareness among researchers and journals, and to enforce the ARRIVE guidelines in editorial policy of journals.Item Nurses' attitudes toward, perceptions of, and experiences with conscientious objection(2022) Karabulut, Seyhan Demir; Gul, Senay; Keles, Sukru; Baykara, Zehra Gocmen; Yalim, Neyyire Yasemin; 0000-0001-5473-573X; 35575202; AAB-3163-2021Background Conscientious objection is a person's refusal to fulfill a legal duty due to their ethical values, religious beliefs, or ideological affiliations. In nursing, it refers to a nurse's refusal to perform an action or participate in a particular situation based on their conscience. Conscientious objection has become a highly contested topic in recent years. Research objectives This study had four objectives: (1) eliciting information on how Turkish nurses perceive conscientious objection, (2) revealing whether their moral beliefs affect the care they provide, (3) determining their experiences with conscientious objection, and (4) identifying existing or potential issues of conscientious objection. Research design This qualitative study collected data through semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Participants The sample consisted of 21 nurses. Ethical considerations The study was approved by an ethics committee. Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed. Participation was voluntary. Findings The analysis revealed four themes: (1) universal values of nursing (professional values), (2) experiences with conscientious objection (refusing to provide care/not providing care), (3) possible effects of conscientious objection (positive and negative), and (4) scope of conscientious objection (grounded and groundless). Conclusion Participants did not want to provide care due to (1) patient characteristics or (2) their own religious and moral beliefs. Participants stated that conscientious objection should be limited in the case of moral dilemmas and accepted only if the healthcare team agreed on it. Further research is warranted to define conscientious objection and determine its possible effects, feasibility, and scope in Turkey.Item Perceptions and Experiences of Privacy Among Persons With an Ostomy Receiving Treatment and Care A Mixed-Methods Study(2022) Akyuz, Elif; Erdemir, Firdevs; Ugurlu, Ziyafet; Ustundag, Cigdem; 36108229PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine ostomy patients' experiences and opinions on protection of privacy during treatment and care. DESIGN: Mixed-methods, descriptive correlational study. SAMPLE AND SETTING: The study sample comprised 80 patients with an ostomy receiving treatment and care in a university hospital in Turkey. METHODS: Data were collected using a form developed by the researchers based on literature review. The survey consisted of statements that examined demographic characteristics, experiences, and opinions of patients with an ostomy. RESULTS: For participants, 64.8% (n = 35/54) defined privacy from a physical dimension, 64.1% (n = 25/39) suffered from ostomy-related psychosocial discomfort, 48.7% experienced ostomy-related discomfort mostly during nursing care (n = 19/39), 48.7% (n = 39/80) were uncomfortable when their ostomy was seen by others, Approximately 56.3% (n = 45/80) thought that they disturbed other patients and their families during ostomy care, and 46.3% (n = 37/80) stated that healthcare professionals discussed information about their ostomy when other patients and their families were present. In addition, 21.3% (n = 17/80) opined that the physical conditions of patient rooms failed to provide privacy. Analysis revealed no significant relationship between education levels and reading the Patient Rights Regulation (P = .129). Analysis also found no significant relationships between age (P = .086), marital status (P = .382), educational background (P = .143), hospitalization experience (P = .427), and satisfaction with perceptions of privacy when receiving ostomy care. CONCLUSION: Patients with an ostomy reported physical and psychosocial problems concerning privacy, felt uncomfortable about the way information on their ostomy was discussed, and thought that physical conditions were not suitable for ostomy care. We recommend that healthcare professionals be provided with more training on psychosocial problems and privacy for patients with ostomy and that institutional policies and procedures be developed to address patients' problems.