↓ Skip to main content

Does Moral Case Deliberation Help Professionals in Care for the Homeless in Dealing with Their Dilemmas? A Mixed-Methods Responsive Study

Overview of attention for article published in HEC Forum, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Does Moral Case Deliberation Help Professionals in Care for the Homeless in Dealing with Their Dilemmas? A Mixed-Methods Responsive Study
Published in
HEC Forum, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10730-016-9310-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. P. Spijkerboer, J. C. van der Stel, G. A. M. Widdershoven, A. C. Molewijk

Abstract

Health care professionals often face moral dilemmas. Not dealing constructively with moral dilemmas can cause moral distress and can negatively affect the quality of care. Little research has been documented with methodologies meant to support professionals in care for the homeless in dealing with their dilemmas. Moral case deliberation (MCD) is a method for systematic reflection on moral dilemmas and is increasingly being used as ethics support for professionals in various health-care domains. This study deals with the question: What is the contribution of MCD in helping professionals in an institution for care for the homeless to deal with their moral dilemmas? A mixed-methods responsive evaluation design was used to answer the research question. Five teams of professionals from a Dutch care institution for the homeless participated in MCD three times. Professionals in care for the homeless value MCD positively. They report that MCD helped them to identify the moral dilemma/question, and that they learned from other people's perspectives while reflecting and deliberating on the values at stake in the dilemma or moral question. They became aware of the moral dimension of moral dilemmas, of related norms and values, of other perspectives, and learned to formulate a moral standpoint. Some experienced the influence of MCD in the way they dealt with moral dilemmas in daily practice. Half of the professionals expect MCD will influence the way they deal with moral dilemmas in the future. Most of them were in favour of further implementation of MCD in their organization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 19%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 19%
Psychology 4 19%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,338,537
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#171
of 183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,056
of 342,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 342,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.