Author
Listed:
- T.G. Sriram
(National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore-560029, India)
- M.R. Radhika
(National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore-560029, India)
- V. Shanmugham
(National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India)
- R. Srinivasa Murthy
(Department of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India)
Abstract
Ninety-four urban and 54 rural respondents who had undergone hospitalisation in the previous three years were interviewed using a semistructured interview schedule to ascertain their experiences and opinion regarding ethical issues. The interview focussed particularly on patients' satisfaction and expectations about information pro vided by medical professionals on various aspects of their illness. Results revealed that both the groups were satisfied with the amount of information they had received during their hospitalisation. Rural respondents were comparatively less satisfied with the information they received regarding complications of illness, possible side effects/complications of treatment, and nature of investigations. A higher proportion of urban respondents required information about other available treatment options and possible outcome of illness if left untreated. A higher number of urban respondents felt that provision of information about illness may have harmful consequences to the patient, and more frequently reported that receiving information was the patient's right. These results suggest that although both urban and rural respondents were sensitive to ethical issues, the response of urban respondents from developing coun tries is more akin to that of their counterparts in the developed countries.
Suggested Citation
T.G. Sriram & M.R. Radhika & V. Shanmugham & R. Srinivasa Murthy, 1990.
"Comparison of Urban and Rural Respondents' Experience and Opinion of Ethical Issues in Medical Care,"
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 36(3), pages 200-206, September.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:36:y:1990:i:3:p:200-206
DOI: 10.1177/002076409003600305
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:36:y:1990:i:3:p:200-206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.