scholarly journals Systematic review and content analysis of Australian health care substitute decision making online resources

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Tran ◽  
Marcus Sellars ◽  
Linda Nolte ◽  
Ben P. White ◽  
Craig Sinclair ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Francisco Meneses-Echavez ◽  
Sarah Rosenbaum ◽  
Gabriel Rada ◽  
Signe Flottorp ◽  
Jenny Moberg ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users’ experiences with it.Methods: This study aimed to describe users’ experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy. Results: Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). ‘Guideline development’ was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing.Conclusion: A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users’ general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.


2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 959-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darren Flynn ◽  
Meghan A. Knoedler ◽  
Erik P. Hess ◽  
M. Hassan Murad ◽  
Patricia J. Erwin ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (12) ◽  
pp. 1157-1161
Author(s):  
Cathrine Mihalopoulos ◽  
Mary Lou Chatterton ◽  
Lidia Engel ◽  
Long Khanh-Dao Le ◽  
Yong Yi Lee

COVID-19 has resulted in broad impacts on the economy and aspects of daily life including our collective mental health and well-being. The Australian health care system already faces limitations in its ability to treat people with mental health diagnoses. Australia has responded to the COVID-19 outbreak by, among other initiatives, providing reimbursement for telehealth services. However, it is unclear if these measures will be enough to manage the psychological distress, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic distress shown to accompany infectious disease outbreaks and economic shocks. Decision making has focused on the physical health ramifications of COVID-19, the avoidance of over-burdening the health care system and saving lives. We propose an alternative framework for decision making that combines life years saved with impacts on quality of life. A framework that simultaneously includes mental health and broader economic impacts into a single decision-making process would facilitate transparent and accountable decision making that can improve the overall welfare of Australian society as we continue to address the considerable challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic is creating.


2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Catrine Eldh ◽  
Inger Ekman ◽  
Margareta Ehnfors

This study explored patients' experiences of participation and non-participation in their health care. A questionnaire-based survey method was used. Content analysis showed that conditions for patient participation occurred when information was provided not by using standard procedures but based on individual needs and accompanied by explanations, when the patient was regarded as an individual, when the patient's knowledge was recognized by staff, and when the patient made decisions based on knowledge and needs, or performed self-care. Thus, to provide conditions for true patient participation, professionals need to recognize each patient's unique knowledge and respect the individual's description of his or her situation rather than just inviting the person to participate in decision making.


Cancers ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Alazne Belar ◽  
Maria Arantzamendi ◽  
Johan Menten ◽  
Sheila Payne ◽  
Jeroen Hasselaar ◽  
...  

Background. The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized. In the context of palliative sedation, it is unclear how these decisions are made and who are involved in. The aim of the study is to understand how this decision-making is taken. Method. Information from a systematic review on clinical aspects of palliative sedation prospective studies were included. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014–December 2019). Data extraction and analysis regarded: (a) When and by whom the decision-making process is initiated; (b) patient involvement; (c) family involvement and (d) healthcare involvement. Results. Data about decision making were reported in 8/10 included articles. Palliative sedation was reported in 1137 patients (only 16 of them were non-cancer). Palliative sedation was introduced by the palliative care team during the disease process, at admission, or when patients experienced refractory symptoms. Only two studies explicitly mentioned the involvement of patients in decision making. Co-decision between families and the regular health care professionals was usual, and the health care professionals involved had been working in palliative care services. Conclusion. Patient participation in decision making appeared to be compromised by limited physical or cognitive capacity and family participation is described. The possibility of palliative sedation should be discussed earlier in the disease process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document