Practices and perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on shared decision-making in nephrology

被引:3
|
作者
van Dulmen, Sandra [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Roodbeen, Ruud [4 ]
Schulze, Lotte [1 ]
Prantl, Karen [5 ]
Rookmaaker, Maarten [6 ]
van Jaarsveld, Brigit [7 ,8 ]
Noordman, Janneke [1 ]
Abrahams, Alferso [6 ]
机构
[1] Nivel Netherlands Inst Hlth Serv Res, POB 1568, NL-3500 BN Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, Dept Primary & Community Care, Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Boras, Fac Caring Sci Working Life & Social Welf, Boras, Sweden
[4] Res & Consultancy, Breuer & Intraval, Groningen, Netherlands
[5] Dutch Kidney Patients Assoc, Bussum, Netherlands
[6] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Nephrol & Hypertens, Utrecht, Netherlands
[7] Vrije Univ Amsterdam Locat, Dept Nephrol, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[8] Diapr Dialysis Ctr, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Communication; Shared decision-making; Nephrology; Observational study; Video-recording; Stimulated recall interviews; Qualitative study; OBSERVER OPTION5; DIALYSIS; PERCEPTIONS; LITERACY; MODEL;
D O I
10.1186/s12882-022-02887-4
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Given the complexity and variety in treatment options for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), shared decision-making (SDM) can be a challenge. SDM is needed for making decisions that best suit patients' needs and their medical and living situations. SDM might be experienced differently by different stakeholders. This study aimed to explore clinical practice and perspectives on SDM in nephrology from three angles: observers, patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used. First, in the quantitative part of the study, outpatient consultations with patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (eGFR < 20 ml/min) were video recorded and SDM was assessed using the OPTION5 instrument. Subsequently, in the qualitative part, patients and HCPs reflected on their own SDM behaviour during individual stimulated recall interviews which were analysed using deductive thematic content analysis. Results Twenty nine consultations were recorded and observed in seven hospitals. The mean SDM score was 51 (range 25-80), indicating that SDM was applied to a moderate extent. The stimulated recall interviews with patients showed that they rely on the information provision and opinion of HCPs, expect consistency and support, and desire a proactive role. They also expect to be questioned by the HCP about their SDM preferences. HCPs said they were willing to incorporate patients' preferences in SDM, as long as there are no medical contraindications. They also prefer patients to take a prominent role in SDM. HCPs ascribe various roles to themselves in supporting patients' decision-making. Conclusions Although SDM was applied by HCPs to a moderate extent, improvement is needed, especially in helping patients get the information they need and in making sure that every patient is involved in SDM. This is even more important given the complex nature of the disease and the relatively high prevalence of limited health literacy among patients with chronic kidney disease.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Practices and perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on shared decision-making in nephrology
    Sandra van Dulmen
    Ruud Roodbeen
    Lotte Schulze
    Karen Prantl
    Maarten Rookmaaker
    Brigit van Jaarsveld
    Janneke Noordman
    Alferso Abrahams
    [J]. BMC Nephrology, 23
  • [2] Shared decision-making with athletes: a survey study of healthcare professionals' perspectives
    Nelis, Sofie
    Dijkstra, Hendrik Paul
    Damman, Olga Catherina
    Farooq, Abdulaziz
    Verhagen, Evert
    [J]. BMJ OPEN SPORT & EXERCISE MEDICINE, 2024, 10 (02):
  • [3] Undergraduate students' perspectives of healthcare professionals' use of shared decision-making skills
    Hendricks-Ferguson, Verna L.
    Ruebling, Irma
    Sargeant, Darina M.
    Kienstra, Kathleen
    Eliot, Kathrin A.
    Howell, Timothy G.
    Sebelski, Chris A.
    Moore, Karen S.
    Armstrong, Kathleen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE, 2018, 32 (04) : 481 - 489
  • [4] Decision-making in nephrology: shared decision making?
    Lelie, A
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2000, 39 (01) : 81 - 89
  • [5] Health professionals' perspectives on shared decision-making in secondary mental healthcare: a qualitative study
    Lin, Chiu-Yi
    Renwick, Laoise
    Lovell, Karina
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MENTAL HEALTH, 2022, 31 (05) : 709 - 715
  • [6] User participation and shared decision-making in adolescent mental healthcare: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perspectives
    Bjonness, Stig
    Viksveen, Petter
    Johannessen, Jan Olav
    Storm, Marianne
    [J]. CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY AND MENTAL HEALTH, 2020, 14 (01)
  • [7] User participation and shared decision-making in adolescent mental healthcare: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals’ perspectives
    Stig Bjønness
    Petter Viksveen
    Jan Olav Johannessen
    Marianne Storm
    [J]. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 14
  • [8] Shared Decision-Making Support Process for Healthcare Professionals for Pregnant Cancer Patients and Their Families
    Hori, Rie
    Suzuki, Shizue
    [J]. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING, 2021, 8 (03) : 304 - 313
  • [9] Healthcare professionals' views on shared decision-making in plastic surgery in the Netherlands
    Langbroek, Ginger Beau
    Ronde, Elsa M.
    Lapid, Oren
    Horbach, Sophie E. R.
    van der Horst, Chantal M. A. M.
    Breugem, Corstiaan C.
    Ubbink, Dirk T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2023, 85 : 463 - 472
  • [10] Children's participation in shared decision-making: Children, adolescents, parents and healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences
    Coyne, Imelda
    Amory, Aislinn
    Kiernan, Gemma
    Gibson, Faith
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING, 2014, 18 (03) : 273 - 280