To Share or Not to Share: Malaysian Healthcare Professionals' Views on Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Making Roles.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lee YK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4641697 | biostudies-other | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6513543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore physicians' and nurses' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making (SDM) in rheumatology, to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM, and to examine whether physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM differ. METHODS:A cross-sectional, exploratory, online survey was used. Besides demographic characteristics, healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of SDM in rheumatology were assessed. Barriers and facilitators to SDM were identified from healthcare professionals' answers. Descriptive statistics were computed and differences between physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM were examined with a t-test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS:Between April and June 2019, 77 physicians and 70 nurses completed the survey. Although most healthcare professionals lacked a full conceptual understanding of SDM, almost all physicians (92%) and all nurses had a (very) positive attitude toward SDM, which was most frequently motivated by the belief that SDM improves patients' treatment adherence. The majority (>50%) of healthcare professionals experienced problems with the application of SDM in clinical practice, mostly related to time constraints. Other important barriers were the incompatibility of SDM with clinical practice guidelines and beliefs that patients do not prefer to be involved in decision making or are not able to take an active role. Modest differences between physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM were found. CONCLUSIONS:There is a clear need for education and training that equips and empowers healthcare professionals to apply SDM. Furthermore, the commitment of time, resources and financial support for national, regional and organisational initiatives is needed to make SDM in rheumatology a practical reality.
| S-EPMC7046943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn this study, we sought to assess healthcare professionals' acceptance of and satisfaction with a shared decision making (SDM) educational workshop, its impact on their intention to use SDM, and their perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation of SDM in clinical settings in Iran.MethodsWe conducted an observational quantitative study that involved measurements before, during, and immediately after the educational intervention at stake. We invited healthcare professionals affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, East Azerbaijan, Iran, to attend a half-day workshop on SDM in December 2016. Decisions about prenatal screening and knee replacement surgery was used as clinical vignettes. We provided a patient decision aid on prenatal screening that complied with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards and used illustrate videos. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a questionnaire to assess their familiarity with SDM, a questionnaire based on theoretical domains framework to assess their intention to implement SDM, a questionnaire about their perceived facilitators and barriers of implementing SDM in their clinical practice, continuous professional development reaction questionnaire, and workshop evaluation. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and with multiple linear regression.ResultsAmong the 60 healthcare professionals invited, 41 participated (68%). Twenty-three were female (57%), 18 were specialized in family and emergency medicine, or community and preventive medicine (43%), nine were surgeons (22%), and 14 (35%) were other types of specialists. Participants' mean age was 37.51 ± 8.64 years with 8.09 ± 7.8 years of clinical experience. Prior to the workshop, their familiarity with SDM was 3.10 ± 2.82 out of 9. After the workshop, their belief that practicing SDM would be beneficial and useful (beliefs about consequences) (beta = 0.67, 95% CI 0.27, 1.06) and beliefs about capability of using SDM (beta = 0.32, 95% CI -0.08, 0.72) had the strongest influence on their intention of practicing SDM. Participants perceived the main facilitator and barrier to perform SDM were training and high patient load, respectively.ConclusionsParticipants thought the workshop was a good way to learn SDM and that they would be able to use what they had learned in their clinical practice. Future studies need to study the level of intention of participants in longer term and evaluate the impact of cultural differences on practicing SDM and its implementation in both western and non-western countries.
| S-EPMC7953598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers' views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice.A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics.N = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship.The results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.
| S-EPMC4788421 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGiven 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).MethodsAn 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.ResultsTwenty 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.
| S-EPMC9306155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer (LPC) is controversial. We assessed the effects of personality, specialists seen, and involvement of spouse, family, or friends on treatment decision/decision-making qualities.We surveyed a population-based sample of men ≤ 75 years with newly diagnosed LPC about treatment choice, reasons for the choice, decision-making difficulty, satisfaction, and regret.Of 160 men (71 black, 89 white), with a mean age of 61 (±7.3) years, 59% chose surgery, 31% chose radiation, and 10% chose active surveillance (AS)/watchful waiting (WW). Adjusting for age, race, comorbidity, tumor risk level, and treatment status, men who consulted friends during decision-making were more likely to choose curative treatment (radiation or surgery) than WW/AS (OR = 11.1, p < 0.01; 8.7, p < 0.01). Men who saw a radiation oncologist in addition to a urologist were more likely to choose radiation than surgery (OR = 6.0, p = 0.04). Men who consulted family or friends (OR = 2.6, p < 0.01; 3.7, p < 0.01) experienced greater decision-making difficulty. No personality traits (pessimism, optimism, or faith) were associated with treatment choice/decision-making quality measures.In addition to specialist seen, consulting friends increased men's likelihood of choosing curative treatment. Consulting family or friends increased decision-making difficulty.
| S-EPMC5529637 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) establishes a right to legal capacity for all people, including those with support needs. People with disabilities have a legal right to be given the appropriate supports to make informed decisions in all aspects of their lives, including health. In Ireland, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act (2015) ratifies the Convention and has established a legal framework for Assisted Decision Making (ADM). The main provisions of the Act are not yet implemented. Codes of Practice to guide health and social care professionals are currently being developed. Internationally, concerns are expressed that ADM implementation is poorly understood. Using realist synthesis, this study aims to identify Programme Theory (PT) that will inform ADM implementation in healthcare.MethodsA Rapid Realist Review using collaborative methods was chosen to appraise relevant literature and engage knowledge users from Irish health and social care. The review was led by an expert panel of relevant stakeholders that developed the research question which asks, 'what mechanisms enable healthcare professionals to adopt ADM into practice?' To ensure the PT was inclusive of local contextual influences, five reference panels were conducted with healthcare professionals, family carers and people with dementia. PT was refined and tested iteratively through knowledge synthesis informed by forty-seven primary studies, reference panel discussions and expert panel refinement and consensus.ResultsThe review has developed an explanatory PT on ADM implementation in healthcare practice. The review identified four implementation domains as significant. These are Personalisation of Health & ADM Service Provision, Culture & Leadership, Environmental & Social Re-structuring and Education, Training & Enablement. Each domain is presented as an explanatory PT statement using realist convention that identifies context, mechanism and outcome configurations.ConclusionsThis realist review makes a unique contribution to this field. The PT can be applied by policymakers to inform intervention development and implementation strategy. It informs the imminent policy and practice developments in Ireland and has relevance for other worldwide healthcare systems dealing with similar legislative changes in line with UNCRPD.
| S-EPMC6909502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIncreased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors may enable a paradigm shift from one-size-fits-all breast cancer screening to screening and subsequent prevention guided by a woman's individual risk of breast cancer. Professionals will play a key role in informing women about this new personalised screening and prevention programme. Therefore, it is essential to explore professionals' views of the acceptability of this new programme, since this may affect shared decision-making.MethodsProfessionals from three European countries (the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Sweden) participated in digital concept mapping, a systematic mixed methods approach used to explore complex multidimensional constructs.ResultsAcross the three countries, professionals prioritised the following five themes which may impact decision-making from the perspective of eligible women: (1) Anxiety/worry; (2) Proactive approach; (3) Reassurance; (4) Lack of knowledge; and (5) Organisation of risk assessment and feedback. Furthermore, Dutch and British professionals expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of a heterogeneous screening policy, suggesting women will question their risk feedback and assigned pathway of care. Swedish professionals emphasised the potential impact of the programme on family relations.ConclusionsThe perspectives of Dutch, British, and Swedish professionals of women's decision-making regarding personalised breast cancer screening and prevention generally appear in line with women's own views of acceptability as previously reported. This will facilitate shared decision-making. However, concerns regarding potential consequences of this new programme for screening outcomes and organisation need to be addressed, since this may affect how professionals communicate the programme to eligible women.
| S-EPMC5983562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite rapid advances in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) management, many healthcare professionals (HCPs) might not be aware of the latest recommended management of AIS patients. Therefore, we aimed to determine the level and factors associated with AIS management knowledge among Malaysian HCPs.MethodsThis cross-sectional online questionnaire study was conducted nationwide among 627 HCPs in Malaysia using the Acute Stroke Management Questionnaire (ASMaQ). Multiple logistic regression was used to predict the relationship between the independent variables (age, gender, years of service, profession, work setting, work sector, seeing stroke patients in daily practice, and working with specialists) and the outcome variable (good vs poor knowledge).ResultsApproximately 76% (95% CI [73-79%]) of HCPs had good overall knowledge of stroke. The highest proportion of HCPs with good knowledge was noted for General Stroke Knowledge (GSK) [88.5% (95% CI [86-91%])], followed by Advanced Stroke Management (ASM) [61.2% (95% CI [57-65%])] and Hyperacute Stroke Management (HSM) [58.1% (95% CI [54-62%])]. The odds of having poor knowledge of stroke were significantly higher among non-doctor HCPs [adjusted OR = 3.46 (95% CI [1.49-8.03]), P = 0.004]; among those not seeing stroke patients in daily practice [adjusted OR = 2.67 (95% CI [1.73-4.10]), P < 0.001]; and among those working without specialists [adjusted OR = 2.41 (95% CI [1.38-4.18]), P = 0.002].ConclusionsStroke education should be prioritised for HCPs with limited experience and guidance. All HCPs need to be up-to-date on the latest AIS management and be able to make a prompt referral to an appropriate facility. Therefore, more stroke patients will benefit from advanced stroke care.
| S-EPMC9034705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeRacial differences in prostate cancer treatment patterns have motivated concerns about over- and undertreatment. We surveyed black and white patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC) regarding their treatment decision-making processes to gain a better perspective on factors associated with LPC treatment choice.MethodsWe conducted a population-based, cross-sectional survey of 260 men (132 black, 128 white) aged ≤75 years, with newly diagnosed LPC. Our primary outcome was treatment choice (either surgery, radiation, or watchful waiting/active surveillance (WW/AS)), and our primary predictors were race and tumor risk level.ResultsOverall, treatment choice did not differ by race. As cancer risk increased, both black and white patients were more likely to undergo surgery and less likely to receive radiation. However, the pattern of WW/AS was different between white and black men. White men were less likely to select WW/AS as cancer risk increased, while risk level was unrelated to black men undergoing WW/AS. Urologist's recommendation had the greatest impact on men's treatment choice, followed by tumor risk level, age, and personal preferences.ConclusionsAlthough there were no overall racial differences in treatment choice, when stratified by tumor risk level, the pattern of WW/AS was different between white and black patients, suggesting that over- and undertreatment is a larger concern for black than white men. A risk-stratified approach to understand racial disparities in LPC treatment and better strategies to aid black men in their treatment decision-making are needed to reduce racial disparities in prostate cancer outcomes.
| S-EPMC8404160 | biostudies-literature