scholarly journals Understanding the complexities of shared decision-making in cancer: a qualitative study of the perspectives of patients undergoing colorectal surgery

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dhruvin H. Hirpara ◽  
Michelle C. Cleghorn ◽  
Sanjeev Sockalingam ◽  
Fayez A. Quereshy
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Involvement of people with dementia in making decisions about their lives: a qualitative study that appraises shared decision-making concerning daycare

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e018337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leontine Groen-van de Ven ◽  
Carolien Smits ◽  
Fuusje de Graaff ◽  
Marijke Span ◽  
Jan Eefsting ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Critical Points ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Case Managers ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Informed Preferences ◽  
Adapted Process

ObjectiveTo explore how people with dementia, their informal caregivers and their professionals participate in decision making about daycare and to develop a typology of participation trajectories.DesignA qualitative study with a prospective, multiperspective design, based on 244 semistructured interviews, conducted during three interview rounds over the course of a year. Analysis was by means of content analysis and typology construction.SettingCommunity settings and nursing homes in the Netherlands.Participants19 people with dementia, 36 of their informal caregivers and 38 of their professionals (including nurses, daycare employees and case managers).ResultsThe participants’ responses related to three critical points in the decision-making trajectory about daycare: (1) the initial positive or negative expectations of daycare; (2) negotiation about trying out daycare by promoting, resisting or attuning to others; and (3) trying daycare, which resulted in positive or negative reactions from people with dementia and led to a decision. The ways in which care networks proceeded through these three critical points resulted in a typology of participation trajectories, including (1) working together positively toward daycare, (2) bringing conflicting perspectives together toward trying daycare and (3) not reaching commitment to try daycare.ConclusionShared decision making with people with dementia is possible and requires and adapted process of decision making. Our results show that initial preferences based on information alone may change when people with dementia experience daycare. It is important to have a try-out period so that people with dementia can experience daycare without having to decide whether to continue it. Whereas shared decision making in general aims at moving from initial preferences to informed preferences, professionals should focus more on moving from initial preferences to experienced preferences for people with dementia. Professionals can play a crucial role in facilitating the possibilities for a try-out period.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veena Graff ◽  
Justin T. Clapp ◽  
Sarah J. Heins ◽  
Jamison J. Chung ◽  
Madhavi Muralidharan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Primary Knee Arthroplasty

Background Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia—e.g., through shared decision-making—are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. Methods This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. Results The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. Conclusions Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists’ attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients’ anxiety. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

scholarly journals A descriptive model of shared decision making derived from routine implementation in clinical practice (‘Implement-SDM’): Qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 102 (10) ◽  
pp. 1774-1785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Joseph-Williams ◽  
Denitza Williams ◽  
Fiona Wood ◽  
Amy Lloyd ◽  
Katherine Brain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Descriptive Model

scholarly journals Temporal characteristics of decisions in hospital encounters: A threshold for shared decision making? A qualitative study

2014 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eirik H. Ofstad ◽  
Jan C. Frich ◽  
Edvin Schei ◽  
Richard M. Frankel ◽  
Pål Gulbrandsen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Temporal Characteristics

scholarly journals Understanding the low take-up of home-based dialysis through a shared decision-making lens: a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e053937
Author(s):  
Jane Noyes ◽  
Gareth Roberts ◽  
Gail Williams ◽  
James Chess ◽  
Leah Mc Laughlin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Future Treatment ◽  
Modifiable Factors ◽  
Decision Making Processes

ObjectivesTo explore how people with chronic kidney disease who are pre-dialysis, family members and healthcare professionals together navigate common shared decision-making processes and to assess how this impacts future treatment choice.DesignCoproductive qualitative study, underpinned by the Making Good Decisions in Collaboration shared decision-model. Semistructured interviews with a purposive sample from February 2019 - January 2020. Interview data were analysed using framework analysis. Coproduction of logic models/roadmaps and recommendations.SettingFive Welsh kidney services.Participants95 participants (37 patients, 19 family members and 39 professionals); 44 people supported coproduction (18 patients, 8 family members and 18 professionals).FindingsShared decision-making was too generic and clinically focused and had little impact on people getting onto home dialysis. Preferences of where, when and how to implement shared decision-making varied widely. Apathy experienced by patients, caused by lack of symptoms, denial, social circumstances and health systems issues made future treatment discussions difficult. Families had unmet and unrecognised needs, which significantly influenced patient decisions. Protocols containing treatment hierarchies and standards were understood by professionals but not translated for patients and families. Variation in dialysis treatment was discussed to match individual lifestyles. Patients and professionals were, however, defaulting to the perceived simplest option. It was easy for patients to opt for hospital-based treatments by listing important but easily modifiable factors.ConclusionsShared decision-making processes need to be individually tailored with more attention on patients who could choose a home therapy but select a different option. There are critical points in the decision-making process where changes could benefit patients. Patients need to be better educated and their preconceived ideas and misconceptions gently challenged. Healthcare professionals need to update their knowledge in order to provide the best advice and guidance. There needs to be more awareness of the costs and benefits of the various treatment options when making decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document