Dataset Information

Decision making on antenatal screening results: A comparative Q-method study of women from two Chinese cities.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although an integral part of ethical and quality health care, little is known about the informed decision making of Chinese women with different socioeconomic backgrounds within the context of antenatal testing.

Methods

To explore women's viewpoints on informed decision making regarding antenatal screening, a Q-methodology study that combines both quantitative factor analysis and interviews was conducted between June 2016 and February 2017 in Shanghai and Duyun. A total of 169 women (84 Shanghai and 85 Duyun) participated in the study of 41 ranked statements along a Q-sorting grid.

Results

Using by-person factor analysis, five distinct viewpoints are identified: (a) choice is shared with the partner/husband, but the mother has the right to make the final decision; (b) having antenatal tests is not about choice but about a mother's responsibility; (c) choice is a shared decision led primarily by the partner/husband and secondarily by the doctors; (d) choice should be made using the advice of doctors, but the decision should be made with the partner/husband; and (e) choice is a responsibility shared with the partner, family and doctors.

Conclusions

The study reveals that women with better education and higher incomes demonstrate more autonomy than those with less education. The nuclear family clearly emerges as the main decision makers in health-care services in China.

Patient and public contribution

The 169 participants shared their views and stories for at least an hour. They were debriefed after the interviews and contributed their thoughts on our study design and interpretation of the data.

SUBMITTER: Dong D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8077134 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Background: Opportunistic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening may reduce prostate cancer mortality risk but is associated with false positive results, biopsy complications and overdiagnosis. Although different organisations have emphasised the importance of shared decision making (SDM) to assist men in deciding whether to undergo prostate cancer screening, recent evaluations show that the available decision aids fail to facilitate SDM, mainly because they do not consider the patients' perspective in their design. We aim to systematically develop and test a patient decision aid to promote SDM in prostate cancer screening, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods: (1) Feasibility study: a quantitative survey evaluating the population and clinician (urologists and general practitioners) knowledge of the benefits and risks derived from PSA determination and the awareness of the available recommendations. Focus groups to explore the challenges patients and clinicians face when discussing prostate cancer screening, the relevance of a decision aid and how best to integrate it into practice. (2) Patient decision aid development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multicomponent SDM patient decision aid will be developed. (3) User-testing: an assessment of the prototype of the initial patient decision aid through a user-testing design based on mix-methods (questionnaire and semi-structured review). The decision aid will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. (4) Validation: an evaluation of the patient decision aid through a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Discussion: The designed patient decision aid will provide balanced information on screening benefits and risks and should help patients to consider their personal preferences and to take a more active role in decision making. Conclusions: The well-designed patient decision aid (PDA) will provide balanced information on screening benefits and risks and help patients consider their personal preferences.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.