<?xml version="1.0"?><rdf:RDF xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:edm="http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/" xmlns:wgs84_pos="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:rdaGr2="http://rdvocab.info/ElementsGr2" xmlns:oai="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ore="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX/c0225f69-4ae6-4e1d-9867-3e4dbd8776a5/HTML"><dcterms:extent>39 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX/dd5cad71-9747-4a93-b7c2-62a73ab1f063/PDF"><dcterms:extent>108 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX/a6025668-2aee-4f46-9533-bc39b55f7b11/TEXT"><dcterms:extent>31 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:TimeSpan rdf:about="1929-2026"><edm:begin xml:lang="en">1929</edm:begin><edm:end xml:lang="en">2026</edm:end></edm:TimeSpan><edm:ProvidedCHO rdf:about="URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX"><dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://www.dlib.si/details/urn:nbn:si:spr-a30mfzkp" /><dcterms:issued>2009</dcterms:issued><dc:creator>Kersnik, Janko</dc:creator><dc:creator>Klemenc-Ketiš, Zalika</dc:creator><dc:creator>Ojsteršek, Janja</dc:creator><dc:format xml:lang="sl">številka:4</dc:format><dc:format xml:lang="sl">letnik:78</dc:format><dc:format xml:lang="sl">str. 169-174</dc:format><dc:identifier>ISSN:1318-0347</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>COBISSID:25602265</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language><dc:publisher xml:lang="sl">Slovensko zdravniško društvo</dc:publisher><dcterms:isPartOf xml:lang="sl">Zdravniški vestnik</dcterms:isPartOf><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">ankete</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">bioethics</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">bioetika</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Cross-Sectional Studies</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Družinska medicina</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Ethics, Medical</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Etika medicinska</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Family Practice</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Presečne študije</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Questionnaires</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="en">Specialism</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Specializacija</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">zdravniki</dc:subject><dcterms:temporal rdf:resource="1929-2026" /><dc:title xml:lang="sl">Vpliv specializacije iz družinske medicine na zaznavanje in reševanje etičnih dilem| Influence of specialistic training in family medicine on detection and management of ethical dilemmas|</dc:title><dc:description xml:lang="sl">Background Ethical dilemmas are an important part of daily routine in family practice. One of the options for better quality in family practice is also an effective postgraduate education in the field of bioethics. We wanted to determine the influence of the specialization process on the susceptibility offamily physicians to ethical dilemmas and their solving difficulty. We hypothesized that specialists in family medicine would detect the ethical dilemmas more often and that they would report of less problems in their managing. Methods The cross-sectional study included a random sample of 259 Slovenian family medicine physicians (30% of the whole population of family physicians). Participants were given a self-administered questionnaire on perceived ethical dilemmas in family practice with responses on a 5-point scale and a maximum score of 100. Results In the final analysis 142 Slovenian family medicine physicians (55% response rate) were included. Specialists in family medicine and residents of family medicine reported ethical dilemmas more often than their colleagues without specialization (37.0 12.6 vs. 30.7 10.8; P = 0.05). Similarly, the residents of family medicine reported ethical dilemmas more often than their colleagues without specialization (39.5 12.5 vs. 30.7 10.8, P = 0.04). Specialists in family medicine and residents of family medicine considered solving ethical dilemmas to be more difficult than their colleagues without specialization (57.3 11.6 vs. 47.111.8, P = 0.001). The same differences exist also between the specialists in family medicine and their colleagues without specialization (56.7 11.7 vs. 47.1 11.8, P = 0.003) and between the residents of family medicine and their colleagues without specialization (62.0 10.0 vs. 47.1 11.8, P = 0.001). (Abstract truncated at 2000 characters)</dc:description><dc:description xml:lang="sl">Izhodišča Etične dileme so pomemben del vsakdanjega dela zdravnika družinske medicine. Ena od možnosti kakovostnejšega dela je tudi učinkovito podiplomsko izobraževanje na področju etike. Z raziskavo smo želeli opredeliti vpliv specializacije iz družinske medicine na zaznavanje in težavnost reševanja etičnih dilem. Predvidevali smo, da bodo etične dileme med specialisti družinske medicine zaznane pogosteje, težavnost reševanja pa se jim bo zdela lažja. Metode V presečno raziskavo smo vključili naključni vzorec 259 zdravnikov družinske medicine (30% celotne populacije). Anketiranci so izpolnili vprašalnik, sestavljen iz 14 vprašanj o pogostosti in težavnosti reševanja etičnih dilem v družinski medicini. Odgovore so razporedili na 5-točkovni lestvici z maksimalnim možnim seštevkom točk 100. Rezultati Odgovorilo je 142 zdravnikov družinske medicine (55-odstotni odziv). Specialisti in specializanti družinske medicine etične dileme zaznavajo pogosteje kot zdravniki brez specializacije (37,0 12,6 proti 30,7 10,8; P = 0,05). Prav tako jih specializanti družinske medicine zaznavajo pogosteje kot zdravniki brez specializacije (39,5 12,5 proti 30,7 10,8, P = 0,04). Specialisti in specializanti družinske medicine so v primerjavi z zdravniki brez specializacije reševanje etičnih dilem opredelili kot težavnejše (57,3 11,6 proti 47,1 11,8, P = 0,001). Podobne razlike obstajajo tudi med specialisti družinske medicine in zdravniki brez specializacije (56,7 11,7 proti 47,1 11,8, P = 0,003) in med specializanti družinske medicine ter zdravniki brez specializacije (62,0 10,0 proti 47,1 11,8, P = 0,001). Zaključki Zdravniki družinske medicine potrebujejo kakovostno podiplomsko izobraževanje na področju zaznavanja in obvladovanja etičnih dilem. Vprašalniko etičnih dilemah je zanesljivo orodje za ugotavljanje učinkovitostiizobraževalnega procesa</dc:description><edm:type>TEXT</edm:type><dc:type xml:lang="sl">znanstveno časopisje</dc:type><dc:type xml:lang="en">journals</dc:type><dc:type rdf:resource="http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q361785" /></edm:ProvidedCHO><ore:Aggregation rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX"><edm:aggregatedCHO rdf:resource="URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX" /><edm:isShownBy rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX/dd5cad71-9747-4a93-b7c2-62a73ab1f063/PDF" /><edm:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" /><edm:provider>Slovenian National E-content Aggregator</edm:provider><edm:intermediateProvider xml:lang="en">National and University Library of Slovenia</edm:intermediateProvider><edm:dataProvider xml:lang="sl">Slovensko zdravniško društvo</edm:dataProvider><edm:object rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/streamdb/URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX/maxi/edm" /><edm:isShownAt rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-0IH7MLIX" /></ore:Aggregation></rdf:RDF>