This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heikkinen, A. M. Articles by Leino-Kilpi, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Privacy in occupational health practice: Promoting and impeding factors

Department of Nursing Science, Pulssi Medical Centre, University of Turku, anne.heikkinen{at}auriamail.net

Gustav J. Wickström

Department of Occupational Health, University of Turku

Helena Leino-Kilpi

Department of Nursing Science, Turku University Hospital, University of Turku

Aim: This article describes the views of occupational health professionals, employees, and employers on factors that are thought to promote and impede privacy in occupational health practice. Methods: The data were collected through theme interviews with 44 subjects and were analysed by content analysis. Results: Both promoting and impeding factors organized around two content areas: ``caregiving'' (patient—caregiver relationship) and ``tripartite cooperation'' (cooperation between occupational health professionals, employees, and employer). The content areas illustrated the two different roles Finnish occupational health professionals have toward their two groups of clients: employees and employers. ``Adequate behaviour'' (respect, good communication, presence) and ``Adequate knowledge base'' (instinct, work experience, ethical thinking, knowledge of legislation) promoted privacy in caring relationship, whereas ``Inadequate behaviour'' (untrustworthy, busy, distant, ``friend'') impeded its realization. In tripartite cooperation, the promoting factors had to do with ``Common good'' (impartiality, regular contacts, community spirit, fair play) and ``Individual good'' (informed consent, advocacy). The main category, ``Confusions in loyalties'', emerged from three subcategories (confusions in confidentiality, confusions in duties, and confusions in roles) illustrating the impeding factors in tripartite cooperation. Conclusions: Questions of privacy are crystallized in occupational health professionals' diverse duties and roles towards employees and employers. In occupational health practice, privacy cannot be seen only as a privilege of employees, but must also be viewed as an instrumental value serving the interests of employers and whole work community. Confusions in loyalties need more discussion and research before privacy can be optimally realized. Lapses in confidentiality should never happen.

Key Words: Caring relationship • cooperation • diverse loyalties • ethics • occupational health • privacy

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?