Dataset Information

Perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Experience with open disclosure and its study are restricted to certain western countries. In addition, there are concerns that open disclosure may be less suitable in non-western countries. The present study explored and compared the in-depth perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea. METHODS:We applied the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist to this qualitative study. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions with 16 physicians and 18 members of the general public. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were performed according to semi-structured guidelines developed according to a systematic review of open disclosure. We conducted a directed content analysis by analyzing the verbatim transcripts and field notes in accordance with the predetermined guidelines. RESULTS:Open disclosure perceptions were summarized in terms of the "five Ws and one H" (who, what, where, when, why, and how). All physician and general public participants acknowledged the normative justifiability of open disclosure. The participants mostly agreed on the known effects of open disclosure, but the physicians had negative opinions on its expected effects, such as decreased intention of the general public to file lawsuits and increased credibility of medical professionals. Generally, the participants thought that open disclosure is required for medical errors causing major harm. However, the physicians and general public had conflicting opinions on the need for open disclosure of near misses. Most physicians did not know how to conduct open disclosure and some physicians had bad experiences due to inappropriate or incomplete open disclosure. CONCLUSION:Physicians and the general public in Korea acknowledge the need for open disclosure. Guidelines according to the type of patient safety incident are required to encourage physicians to more readily conduct open disclosure. Furthermore, hospitals need to consider organizing a dedicated team and hiring experts for open disclosure.

SUBMITTER: Ock M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4992204 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea: a qualitative study.

Ock Minsu M Kim Hyun Joo HJ Jo Min-Woo MW Lee Sang-Il SI

BMC medical ethics 20160820 1

<h4>Background</h4>Experience with open disclosure and its study are restricted to certain western countries. In addition, there are concerns that open disclosure may be less suitable in non-western countries. The present study explored and compared the in-depth perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea.<h4>Methods</h4>We applied the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist to this qualitative study. We conducted 20 in-d ...[more]

PMID: 27542889

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute bleeding is an omnipresent challenge for all physicians. Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the most common preventable cause of death after trauma worldwide. In different surgical disciplines, hemorrhage represents an independent risk factor for increased postoperative morbimortality, directly affecting patients' outcomes. This study asked anesthesiologists about their personal perceived challenges when treating bleeding patients.MethodsThis investigator-initiated, prospective, international, dual-center, mixed qualitative and quantitative study interrogated anesthesiologists about what they found easy and what difficult in treating acutely bleeding patients. Following the template approach for qualitative research, we identified major and minor topics through free inductive coding and word count. In a second step, we derived ten statements from the participants' answers. Using a field survey, we then asked the participants to rate their level of agreement with the derived statements. We analyzed the answers using one sample Wilcoxon test and the Mann-Whitney test.ResultsWe included a total of 84 physicians in the qualitative interrogations and a different group of 42 anesthesiologists in the quantitative part. We identified 11 major topics and 19 associated subtopics. The main topics and the degree of agreement (here as agree or strongly agree) were as follows: "Complexity of the topic" (52.4% agreed to find the topic complex), "Cognitive aids" (92.9% agreed to find them helpful), "Time management" (64.3% agreed to feeling time pressure), "Human factors" (95.2% agreed that human factors are essential), "Resources" (95.2% agreed that resources are essential), "Experience" and "Low frequency of cases" (57.1% agreed to lack practice), "Diagnostic methods" (31.0% agreed that the interpretation of test results is difficult), "Anticoagulation" (85.7% agreed to it being difficult), "Treatment" (81.0% agreed to knowing the first therapeutic steps), and "Nothing".ConclusionsAnesthesiologists in two large tertiary care facilities in different parts of the world found coagulation management, especially in anticoagulated patients, complex. We identified the delayed diagnostic test results and their interpretation as challenges. Resources, treatment protocols and human factors such as team communication were perceived to facilitate management. Future studies should explore the challenges in smaller hospitals and other parts of the world and test new technologies addressing the identified difficulties.

Project description:Results of Alzheimer disease (AD) research assessments typically are not disclosed to participants. Recent research has suggested interest in disclosure, but, to our knowledge, few studies have accounted for awareness of potential benefits and limitations of disclosure.To determine the attitudes of cognitively normal research participants and members of the general public regarding disclosure of AD research results.Participants in a longitudinal aging study (Alzheimer Disease Research Center [ADRC]) were given preintervention and postintervention surveys about disclosure attitudes. In a general public sample (The American Panel Survey), participants responded to a similar survey about disclosure attitudes.Participants in the ADRC sample were randomly assigned to a group (n = 119) that read an education intervention about the usefulness of AD biomarkers or to a placebo group (n = 100) that read as its intervention general information about the ADRC. Participants in the general public sample read a brief vignette describing participation in a longitudinal AD study.Interest in disclosure of AD research results.Cognitively normal ADRC participants (n = 219) were 60.7% (n = 133) female, 83.6% (n = 183) of white race, and reported a mean of 15.91 years of education. Twenty-nine individuals refused participation. The American Panel Survey participants (n = 1418) indicated they did not have AD and were 50.5% (n = 716) female, 76.7% (n = 1087) of white race, and reported a mean of 13.85 years of education. Overall, 77.6% of eligible participants (1583 of 2041) completed the survey in July 2014. Interest in disclosure was high among the ADRC participants (55.1% [119 of 216] were "extremely interested"). Viewing the education intervention predicted lower interest in disclosure (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.15-3.53; P =?.02). High subjective risk of AD, a family history of AD, and minimal attendance at research meetings were associated with high interest after the intervention. In the general public, interest was lower overall (12.5% [174 of 1389] were "extremely interested"), but the subset of participants most likely to join an AD research study reported higher interest (43.5% [40 of 92] were extremely interested).Experience with AD appears to increase interest in disclosure of AD research results. Learning about potential limitations of disclosure somewhat tempered interest. These findings should inform the development of disclosure policies for asymptomatic individuals in AD studies.

Project description:ObjectivesPerceptions of people regarding COVID-19 influences their health behaviour in terms of seeking public health services. This helps the government in planning appropriate public health strategies. Therefore, this study intends to explore the perceptions of people towards COVID-19 and their experiences during the pandemic in Nepal.Design, setting and participantsThis qualitative study was conducted among the public in Kathmandu, Kanchanpur, Bajura and Jhapa districts of Nepal. Eight focus group discussions and 40 in-depth interviews were conducted by using a maximum variation sampling method.ResultsThe findings were organised into the following themes: General understanding of COVID-19, Disease prevention, Source of information and misconceptions, Expectation and challenges; and Personal and societal consequences of COVID-19, social distancing and lockdown. There was a good general understanding among respondents about COVID-19, personal preventive measures and population-level strategies. They responded that the use of masks, sanitisers, handwashing and proper lockdown would help to prevent the disease. The respondents acknowledged the vital role of media in increasing awareness. Participants also expressed concerns over the misleading news spread by some media. The lack of social interaction, isolation and loss of income were raised as pertinent issues by the participants as potentially leading to psychological consequences. Health workers and public both raised concerns over inadequate Personal Protective Equipment, under-prepared health system, unorganised public quarantine centres, and public violation of lockdown CONCLUSIONS: This study reports participants' views on disease prevention measures such as maintaining personal hygiene, adhering to physical distancing, and using personal protective equipments. Additionally, it illuminates the confusion among public due to conflicting public health messages from different sources of information which was deemed as misleading by the participants. This research sheds light on people's perspectives and experiences that can inform population-targeted policies in the future.

Dataset Information

Perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea: a qualitative study.

Publications

Perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets