Dataset Information

Differences of sex development and surgical decisions: focus group interviews with health care professionals in Norway.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Differences of Sex Development (DSD) are congenital conditions where the chromosomal, gonadal and anatomical sex characteristics do not strictly belong to male or female categories, or that belong to both at the same time. Surgical interventions for individuals with DSD remain controversial, among affected individuals, caregivers, and health-care providers. A lack of evidence in support of, for deferring, or for avoiding surgery complicates the decision-making process. This study explores Norwegian health-care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on decision-making in DSD-related surgeries and the dilemmas they are facing in this process.

Methods

Focus group interviews with 14 HCPs integrated into or collaborating with multidisciplinary DSD teams were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Two overarching dilemmas shed light on the intricate considerations and challenges that HCPs encounter when guiding affected individuals and caregivers through surgical decision-making processes in the context of DSD. The first theme describes how shared decision-making was found to be influenced by fear of stigma and balancing the interplay between concepts of normality, personal experiences and external expectations when navigating the child's and caregivers' needs. The second theme illuminated dilemmas due to a lack of evidence-based practice. The core concepts within each theme were the dilemmas health-care professionals face during consultations with caregivers and affected individuals.

Conclusion

HCPs were aware of the controversies with DSD-related surgeries. However, they struggled to reconcile knowledge with parents' wishes for surgery and faced dilemmas making decisions in the best interests of the child. This study draws attention to the benefits of increased knowledge on the consequences of performing or withholding surgery as well as incorporating tools enabling shared decision-making between HCPs and affected individuals/caregivers.

SUBMITTER: Media LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11229732 | biostudies-literature | 2024

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences of sex development and surgical decisions: focus group interviews with health care professionals in Norway.

Mediå Line Merete LM Fauske Lena L Sigurdardottir Solrun S Billaud Feragen Kristin J KJ Waehre Anne A

Health psychology and behavioral medicine 20240706 1

<h4>Background</h4>Differences of Sex Development (DSD) are congenital conditions where the chromosomal, gonadal and anatomical sex characteristics do not strictly belong to male or female categories, or that belong to both at the same time. Surgical interventions for individuals with DSD remain controversial, among affected individuals, caregivers, and health-care providers. A lack of evidence in support of, for deferring, or for avoiding surgery complicates the decision-making process. This st ...[more]

PMID: 38979393

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInadequate volume control may be a main contributor to poor survival and high mortality in hemodialysis patients. Bioimpedance measurement has the potential to improve fluid management, but several dialysis centers lack an agreed fluid management policy, and the method has not yet been implemented. Our aim was to identify renal care professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators for use of bioimpedance in clinical practice.MethodsQualitative data were collected through four focus group interviews with 24 renal care professionals: dieticians, nephrologists and nurses, recruited voluntarily from a nation-wide selection of hemodialysis centers, having access to a bioimpedance-device. The participants were connected to each other and a moderator via equipment for telemedicine and the sessions were recorded. The interviews were semi-structured, focusing on the participants' perceptions of use of bioimpedance in clinical practice. Thematic content analysis was performed in consecutive steps, and data were extracted by employing an inductive, interactive, comparative process.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to the use of bioimpedance in clinical practice were identified, and a multilevel approach to examining barriers and incentives for change was found to be applicable to the ideas and categories that arose from the data. The determinants were categorized on five levels, and the different themes of the levels illustrated with quotations from the focus groups participants.ConclusionsDeterminants for use of bioimpedance were identified on five levels: 1) the innovation itself, 2) the individual professional, 3) the patient, 4) the social context and 5) the organizational context. Barriers were identified in the areas of credibility, awareness, knowledge, self-efficacy, care processes, organizational structures and regulations. Facilitators were identified in the areas of the innovation's attractiveness, advantages in practice, and collaboration. Motivation, team processes and organizational capacities appeared as both barriers and facilitators.

Project description:Little is known about how health care professionals deal with ethical challenges in mental health care, especially when not making use of a formal ethics support service. Understanding this is important in order to be able to support the professionals, to improve the quality of care, and to know in which way future ethics support services might be helpful.Within a project on ethics, coercion and psychiatry, we executed a focus group interview study at seven departments with 65 health care professionals and managers. We performed a systematic and open qualitative analysis focusing on the question: 'How do health care professionals deal with ethical challenges?' We deliberately did not present a fixed definition or theory of ethical challenge.We categorized relevant topics into three subthemes: 1) Identification and presence of ethical challenges; 2) What do the participants actually do when dealing with an ethical challenge?; and 3) The significance of facing ethical challenges. Results varied from dealing with ethical challenges every day and appreciating it as a positive part of working in mental health care, to experiencing ethical challenges as paralyzing burdens that cause a lot of stress and hinder constructive team cooperation. Some participants reported that they do not have the time and that they lack a specific methodology. Quite often, informal and retrospective ad-hoc meetings in small teams were organized. Participants struggled with what makes a challenge an ethical challenge and whether it differs from a professional challenge. When dealing with ethical challenges, a number of participants experienced difficulties handling disagreement in a constructive way. Furthermore, some participants plead for more attention for underlying intentions and justifications of treatment decisions.The interviewed health care professionals dealt with ethical challenges in many different ways, often in an informal, implicit and reactive manner. This study revealed nine different categories of what health care professionals implicitly or explicitly conceive as 'ethical challenges'. Future research should focus on how ethics support services, such as ethics reflection groups or moral case deliberation, can be of help with respect to dealing with ethical challenges and value disagreements in a constructive way.

Project description:BackgroundTo support self-management of chronically ill persons, innovative approaches of care practice are being developed. Unfortunately, many self-management supporting interventions struggle to achieve reliable and consistent improvements at various levels (patient, provider and healthcare system level). One possible strategy to facilitate translating theory into practice, is to consider the healthcare professionals' perspective prior to the development of new interventions. An exploration of their knowledge and opinion about barriers and facilitators is necessary before employing any self-management support (SMS) intervention. Therefore, our study aims to explore care professionals' perspectives about SMS within the Flemish primary care setting.MethodsThis study used a qualitative study design to examine SMS in primary care setting. Five focus groups were conducted, grouped into three waves. Participants were healthcare professionals in Flanders representing different disciplines and settings. A maximum variation purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. For the data analysis, the framework of thematic networks by Attride-Stirling was applied.ResultsA total of 34 healthcare professionals participated. Three global themes related to SMS were derived from the thematic analysis: (1) Characteristics, (2) Support strategies, (3) Barriers and facilitators. SMS was characterised as a collaboration-based and person-centred approach. A variety of supporting strategies were mentioned by the focus group participants. Most strategies consisted of informing and educating patients. Complementary to individual strategies, collaborative strategies were deemed necessary to support self-management. Regarding barriers and facilitators, different patient-related factors were identified. Additionally, competencies of healthcare providers and external factors seem to hinder the implementation of SMS in practice.ConclusionsThis focus group study highlights the importance of a collaborative, person-centred approach to SMS in the context of chronic diseases. Our findings point to the need for interventions that raise awareness and address barriers associated with SMS. Since generic SMS does not exist, the road to success is a growth process in which support must be adapted to the individual patient.

Dataset Information

Differences of sex development and surgical decisions: focus group interviews with health care professionals in Norway.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Differences of sex development and surgical decisions: focus group interviews with health care professionals in Norway.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets