Physical Therapists’ Ethical and Moral Sensitivity: A STROBE-Compliant Cross-Sectional Study with a Special Focus on Gender Differences

3Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

(1) Background: Healthcare professionals´ clinical practice, their care of patients and the clinical decision-making process may be influenced by ethical and moral sensitivity. However, such outcomes have been scarcely studied in physical therapists. This study aimed to explore ethical sensitivity and moral sensitivity in practicing physical therapists, and to compare both variables by gender. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional study. 75 physical therapists (58.7% women; average age = 34.56 (8.68) years) were asked to fill in questionnaires measuring ethical sensitivity (Ethical Sensitivity Scale Questionnaire) and moral sensitivity (Revised-Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire). (3) Results: The sample showed high ethical sensitivity (116.14 ± 15.87 over 140) and high moral sensitivity (40.58 ± 5.36 over 54). When comparing by gender, women reported significantly higher ethical sensitivity than men (p = 0.043), as well as higher scores in the following dimensions: Caring by connecting with others (p = 0.012) and Working with interpersonal and group differences (p = 0.028). However, no differences were found in moral sensitivity (p = 0.243). (4) Conclusion: Physical therapists showed high levels of ethical and moral sensitivity, whilst women reported higher ethical sensitivity than men. Understanding physical therapists´ ethical and moral sensitivity is essential to design and implement integrated education programs directed to improve the quality of care of patients in their daily clinical practice.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Moreno-Segura, N., Fuentes-Aparicio, L., Fajardo, S., Querol-Giner, F., Atef, H., Sillero-Sillero, A., & Marques-Sule, E. (2023). Physical Therapists’ Ethical and Moral Sensitivity: A STROBE-Compliant Cross-Sectional Study with a Special Focus on Gender Differences. Healthcare (Switzerland), 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11030333

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free