Bioethics teaching in dentistry as seen by course coordinators

Colodette, Renata Maria; Gomes, Andréia Patrícia; Moreira, Tiago Ricardo

doi:10.1590/1983-803420233613EN

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Research • Rev. Bioét. 31 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-803420233613EN copy

Bioethics teaching in dentistry as seen by course coordinators

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This article analyzes the importance dentistry course coordinators attribute to bioethics teaching and their opinion on the expected graduate profile. An exploratory, descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 130 coordinators of Brazilian dentistry courses. Data underwent descriptive analysis and Bardin’s content analysis. Most participants attribute importance to bioethics teaching in different situations and 23.8% considered a professional with an ethical and humanized attitude, who is reflective and technically competent as a suitable profile. Dentistry courses are increasingly including bioethics in their curricula, and although most coordinators consider it important, not all understand its principles.

Teaching; Curriculum; Bioethics; Dentistry

	N	%
Very important/necessary/indispensable (no specifications)	77	59.2
Contributes to more humanized training	11	8.5
Contributes to the improvement of professional clinical practice	8	6.2
Prepared more complete answers, describing aspects that explain why they consider bioethics important	8	6.2
Contributes to scientific research	5	3.8
Contributes to the DCE’s knowledge and/or dealing with ethical processes	4	3.1
Important in interpersonal relationships (with patients, colleagues, staff, and society)	4	3.1
Contributes to improving social responsibility	2	1.5
Contributes to decision-making	1	0.8
Not essential	1	0.8
Did not answer the question	9	6.9

	N*	%
In clinical care, treatment planning and choice of procedures	41	31.5
In all situations	40	30.8
In interpersonal relationships (with patients, colleagues, staff, and society)	31	23.9
In scientific research	18	13.9
In decision-making	7	5.4
In advertising, social networks	7	5.4
In the knowledge of the DCE and in the face of ethical processes	6	4.6
In confidentiality, in the custody of dental records	5	3.9
In concern for the environment, with the disposal of chemical products	3	2.3
In training/teaching	3	2.3
In the humanization of care	3	2.3
When charging professional fees	3	2.3
In caring for people with vulnerabilities	1	0.8
When referring patients to colleagues	1	0.8
In biosafety	1	0.8
In valuing the profession	1	0.8
When filling out certificates	1	0.8
In the knowledge of principlism	1	0.8
In informed consent	1	0.8
Did not answer the question	13	10.0

	N	%
Ethical, humanist, reflective, and technically competent	31	23.8
Generalist	18	13.9
Humanist and ethical	18	13.9
Ethical, with a humanist stance, awareness of their social and critical role (no mention of technical competence)	18	13.9
With technical competence (no mention of ethics or humanist stance)	15	11.5
Ethical and/or bioethical	11	8.5
Only responded that they are following the profile recommended by the NCG without detailing	6	4.6
With conduct guided by the DCE and/or regulations and laws	3	2.3
Did not answer the question	10	7.7

Conselho Federal de Medicina SGAS 915, lote 72, CEP 70390-150, Tel.: (55 61) 3445-5932, Fax: (55 61) 3346-7384 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: bioetica@portalmedico.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Renata Maria Colodette – Universidade Federal de Viçosa. Departamento de Medicina e Enfermagem. Av. Peter Henry Rolfs, s/n, sala 401, Campus Universitário CEP 36570-900. Viçosa/MG, Brasil.