Dataset Information

Decision-making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:According to the precaution adoption process model, cervical screening nonparticipants represent a heterogeneous group including those who are unaware of, unengaged with, or undecided about screening, as well as intenders and decliners. We aimed to explore beliefs about cervical screening among these different types of nonparticipant. METHODS:Semistructured interviews were carried out with women aged 26 to 65 years living in Britain (n = 29). Women were purposively sampled to represent different nonparticipant types. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed thematically using framework analysis. RESULTS:The salience of some barriers to screening varied between different types of nonparticipant. Bad experiences were prominent in the discussions of women who had decided not to attend, while practical barriers were more prominent among intenders. There was also some overlap between nonparticipant types. For example, many of the undecided women described not wanting to go for screening, but with less certainty than decliners. Some intenders (particularly those who had not been screened before) described not really wanting to attend but feeling they ought to. Women's views on the invitation/reminder process also varied; intenders and maintainers appreciated written reminders and general practitioner (GP) prompts but decliners sometimes perceived these as "badgering." Throughout the interviews, women described changing views on screening in the wider context of ageing and motherhood. CONCLUSIONS:The salience of screening barriers varies by nonparticipant type, offering possibilities for tailored interventions. However, the fluidity of women's stage of screening adoption might have implications for this approach to intervention design.

SUBMITTER: Marlow LAV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6220875 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decision-making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study.

Marlow Laura A V LAV Chorley Amanda J AJ Rockliffe Lauren L Waller Jo J

Psycho-oncology 20180831 10

<h4>Objective</h4>According to the precaution adoption process model, cervical screening nonparticipants represent a heterogeneous group including those who are unaware of, unengaged with, or undecided about screening, as well as intenders and decliners. We aimed to explore beliefs about cervical screening among these different types of nonparticipant.<h4>Methods</h4>Semistructured interviews were carried out with women aged 26 to 65 years living in Britain (n = 29). Women were purposively sampl ...[more]

PMID: 30095862

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDecision-making concerning predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is inherently complex. This study aims to investigate what kind of complexities adults undergoing genetic counseling in Switzerland experience, how they deal with them, and what heuristics they use during the decision-making process.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews with eighteen Swiss adults seeking genetic counseling for hereditary cancer syndrome genetic testing and two counseling physicians were conducted and analyzed using a grounded theory approach.ResultsCounselees stated that once they were aware of their eligibility for genetic testing they perceived an inevitable necessity to make a decision in a context of uncertainties. Some counselees perceived this decision as simple, others as very complex. High emotional involvement increased perceived complexity. We observed six heuristics that counselees used to facilitate their decision: Anticipating the test result; Focusing on consequences; Dealing with information; Interpreting disease risk; Using external guidance; and (Re-)Considering the general uncertainty of life.LimitationsOur findings are limited to the context of predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. This qualitative study does not allow extrapolation of the relative frequency of which heuristics occur.ConclusionsThe use of heuristics is an inherent part of decision-making, particularly in the complex context of genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition. However, some heuristics increase the risk of misinterpretation or exaggerated external influences. This may negatively impact informed decision-making. Thus, this study illustrates the importance of genetic counselors and medical professionals being aware of these heuristics and the individual manner in which they might be applied in the context of genetic testing decision-making. Findings may offer practical support to achieve this, as they inductively focus on the counselees' perspective.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) in decision-making around knee replacement surgery is increasing, and this technology holds promise to improve the prediction of patient outcomes. Ambiguity surrounds the definition of AI, and there are mixed views on its application in clinical settings.ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to explore the understanding and attitudes of patients who underwent knee replacement surgery regarding AI in the context of risk prediction for shared clinical decision-making.MethodsThis qualitative study involved patients who underwent knee replacement surgery at a tertiary referral center for joint replacement surgery. The participants were selected based on their age and sex. Semistructured interviews explored the participants' understanding of AI and their opinions on its use in shared clinical decision-making. Data collection and reflexive thematic analyses were conducted concurrently. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was achieved.ResultsThematic saturation was achieved with 19 interviews and confirmed with 1 additional interview, resulting in 20 participants being interviewed (female participants: n=11, 55%; male participants: n=9, 45%; median age: 66 years). A total of 11 (55%) participants had a substantial postoperative complication. Three themes captured the participants' understanding of AI and their perceptions of its use in shared clinical decision-making. The theme Expectations captured the participants' views of themselves as individuals with the right to self-determination as they sought therapeutic solutions tailored to their circumstances, needs, and desires, including whether to use AI at all. The theme Empowerment highlighted the potential of AI to enable patients to develop realistic expectations and equip them with personalized risk information to discuss in shared decision-making conversations with the surgeon. The theme Partnership captured the importance of symbiosis between AI and clinicians because AI has varied levels of interpretability and understanding of human emotions and empathy.ConclusionsPatients who underwent knee replacement surgery in this study had varied levels of familiarity with AI and diverse conceptualizations of its definitions and capabilities. Educating patients about AI through nontechnical explanations and illustrative scenarios could help inform their decision to use it for risk prediction in the shared decision-making process with their surgeon. These findings could be used in the process of developing a questionnaire to ascertain the views of patients undergoing knee replacement surgery on the acceptability of AI in shared clinical decision-making. Future work could investigate the accuracy of this patient group's understanding of AI, beyond their familiarity with it, and how this influences their acceptance of its use. Surgeons may play a key role in finding a place for AI in the clinical setting as the uptake of this technology in health care continues to grow.

Project description:Engaging patients (parents/families) in treatment decisions is increasingly recognised as important and beneficial. Yet where the evidence base for treatment options is limited, as with intermittent distance exotropia (X(T)), this presents a challenge for families and clinicians. The purpose of this study was to explore how decisions are made in the management and treatment of X(T) and what can be done to support decision-making for clinicians, parents and children.This was a qualitative study using face to face interviews with consultant ophthalmologists and orthoptists, and parents of children with X(T). Interview data were analysed using the constant comparative method.The drivers for clinicians in treatment decision-making for X(T) were the proportion of time the strabismus is manifest and parents' views. For parents, decisions were influenced by: fear of bullying and, to a lesser degree, concerns around the impact of the strabismus on their child's vision. Uncertainty around the effectiveness of treatment options caused difficulties for some clinicians when communicating with parents. Parental understanding of the nature of X(T) and rationale for treatment often differed from that of the clinicians, and this affected their involvement in decision-making. Though there were good examples of shared decision-making and parent and child engagement some parents said the process felt rushed and they felt excluded. Parents reported that clinicians provided sufficient information in consultations but they had difficulties in retaining verbal information to convey to other family members.Overall parents were happy with the care their child received but there is scope for better parent and (where appropriate) child engagement in decision-making. There was an expressed need for written information about X(T) to reinforce what was given verbally in consultations and to share with other family members. Access could be via the hospital website, along with videos or blogs from parents and children who have undergone the various management options. A method of assisting clinicians to explain the treatment options, together with the uncertainties, in a clear and concise way could be of particular benefit to orthoptists who have the most regular contact with parents and children, and are more likely to suggest conservative treatments such as occlusion and minus lenses.

Project description:BackgroundDigital health-tracking tools are changing mental health care by giving patients the ability to collect passively measured patient-generated health data (PGHD; ie, data collected from connected devices with little to no patient effort). Although there are existing clinical guidelines for how mental health clinicians should use more traditional, active forms of PGHD for clinical decision-making, there is less clarity on how passive PGHD can be used.ObjectiveWe conducted a qualitative study to understand mental health clinicians' perceptions and concerns regarding the use of technology-enabled, passively collected PGHD for clinical decision-making. Our interviews sought to understand participants' current experiences with and visions for using passive PGHD.MethodsMental health clinicians providing outpatient services were recruited to participate in semistructured interviews. Interview recordings were deidentified, transcribed, and qualitatively coded to identify overarching themes.ResultsOverall, 12 mental health clinicians (n=11, 92% psychiatrists and n=1, 8% clinical psychologist) were interviewed. We identified 4 overarching themes. First, passive PGHD are patient driven-we found that current passive PGHD use was patient driven, not clinician driven; participating clinicians only considered passive PGHD for clinical decision-making when patients brought passive data to clinical encounters. The second theme was active versus passive data as subjective versus objective data-participants viewed the contrast between active and passive PGHD as a contrast between interpretive data on patients' mental health and objective information on behavior. Participants believed that prioritizing passive over self-reported, active PGHD would reduce opportunities for patients to reflect upon their mental health, reducing treatment engagement and raising questions about how passive data can best complement active data for clinical decision-making. Third, passive PGHD must be delivered at appropriate times for action-participants were concerned with the real-time nature of passive PGHD; they believed that it would be infeasible to use passive PGHD for real-time patient monitoring outside clinical encounters and more feasible to use passive PGHD during clinical encounters when clinicians can make treatment decisions. The fourth theme was protecting patient privacy-participating clinicians wanted to protect patient privacy within passive PGHD-sharing programs and discussed opportunities to refine data sharing consent to improve transparency surrounding passive PGHD collection and use.ConclusionsAlthough passive PGHD has the potential to enable more contextualized measurement, this study highlights the need for building and disseminating an evidence base describing how and when passive measures should be used for clinical decision-making. This evidence base should clarify how to use passive data alongside more traditional forms of active PGHD, when clinicians should view passive PGHD to make treatment decisions, and how to protect patient privacy within passive data-sharing programs. Clear evidence would more effectively support the uptake and effective use of these novel tools for both patients and their clinicians.

Dataset Information

Decision-making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study.

Publications

Decision-making about cervical screening in a heterogeneous sample of nonparticipants: A qualitative interview study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets