Shared decision making in rural general practices: a qualitative exploration of older rural South Australians’ perceived involvement in clinical consultations with doctors

Mohammad Hamiduzzaman , Noore Siddiquee , Harry James Gaffney , Frances Barraclough , Aziz Rahman , Jennene Greenhill , Vicki Flood
{"title":"Shared decision making in rural general practices: a qualitative exploration of older rural South Australians’ perceived involvement in clinical consultations with doctors","authors":"Mohammad Hamiduzzaman ,&nbsp;Noore Siddiquee ,&nbsp;Harry James Gaffney ,&nbsp;Frances Barraclough ,&nbsp;Aziz Rahman ,&nbsp;Jennene Greenhill ,&nbsp;Vicki Flood","doi":"10.1016/j.glohj.2024.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Shared decision-making (SDM) implementation is a priority for Australian health systems, including general practices but it remains complex for specific groups like older rural Australians. We initiated a qualitative study with older rural Australians to explore barriers to and facilitators of SDM in local general practices.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a patient-oriented research, partnering with older rural Australians, families, and health service providers in research design. Participants who visited general practices were purposively sampled from five small rural towns in South Australia. A semi-structured interview guide was used for interviews and reflexive thematic coding was conducted.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Telephone interviews were held with 27 participants. Four themes were identified around older rural adults’ involvement in SDM: (1) Understanding of “patient involvement”; (2) Positive and negative outcomes; (3) Barriers to SDM; and (4) Facilitators to SDM. Understanding of patient involvement in SDM considerably varied among participants, with some reporting their involvement was contingent on the “opportunity to ask questions” and the “treatment choices” offered to them. Alongside the opportunity for involvement, barriers such as avoidance of cultural care and a lack of continuity of care are new findings. Challenges encountered in SDM implementation also included resource constraints and time limitations in general practices. Rural knowledge of general practitioners and technology integration in consultations were viewed as potential enablers.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Adequate resources and well-defined guidelines about the process should accompany the implementation of SDM in rural general practices of South Australia. Innovative strategies by general practitioners promoting health literacy and culturally-tailored communication approaches could increase older rural Australians’ involvement in general.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73164,"journal":{"name":"Global health journal (Amsterdam, Netherlands)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global health journal (Amsterdam, Netherlands)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2414644724000423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) implementation is a priority for Australian health systems, including general practices but it remains complex for specific groups like older rural Australians. We initiated a qualitative study with older rural Australians to explore barriers to and facilitators of SDM in local general practices.

Methods

We conducted a patient-oriented research, partnering with older rural Australians, families, and health service providers in research design. Participants who visited general practices were purposively sampled from five small rural towns in South Australia. A semi-structured interview guide was used for interviews and reflexive thematic coding was conducted.

Results

Telephone interviews were held with 27 participants. Four themes were identified around older rural adults’ involvement in SDM: (1) Understanding of “patient involvement”; (2) Positive and negative outcomes; (3) Barriers to SDM; and (4) Facilitators to SDM. Understanding of patient involvement in SDM considerably varied among participants, with some reporting their involvement was contingent on the “opportunity to ask questions” and the “treatment choices” offered to them. Alongside the opportunity for involvement, barriers such as avoidance of cultural care and a lack of continuity of care are new findings. Challenges encountered in SDM implementation also included resource constraints and time limitations in general practices. Rural knowledge of general practitioners and technology integration in consultations were viewed as potential enablers.

Conclusion

Adequate resources and well-defined guidelines about the process should accompany the implementation of SDM in rural general practices of South Australia. Innovative strategies by general practitioners promoting health literacy and culturally-tailored communication approaches could increase older rural Australians’ involvement in general.
农村全科诊所的共同决策:对南澳大利亚农村老年人参与医生临床咨询的看法的定性探索
背景共同决策(SDM)的实施是澳大利亚医疗系统(包括全科诊所)的首要任务,但对于像澳大利亚农村老年人这样的特殊群体来说,实施起来仍然很复杂。我们发起了一项针对澳大利亚农村老年人的定性研究,以探索在当地普通诊所实施 SDM 的障碍和促进因素。方法我们开展了一项以患者为导向的研究,与澳大利亚农村老年人、家庭和医疗服务提供者合作进行研究设计。我们从南澳大利亚州的五个乡村小镇有目的地抽取了前往普通诊所就诊的参与者。访谈采用了半结构化访谈指南,并进行了反思性主题编码。围绕农村老年人参与 SDM 确定了四个主题:(1)对 "患者参与 "的理解;(2)积极和消极的结果;(3)SDM 的障碍;以及(4)SDM 的促进因素。与会者对患者参与 SDM 的理解存在很大差异,一些人表示他们的参与取决于 "提问的机会 "和为他们提供的 "治疗选择"。除了参与的机会之外,诸如避免文化护理和缺乏护理连续性等障碍也是新发现的问题。在实施 SDM 过程中遇到的挑战还包括全科医生的资源限制和时间限制。结论在南澳大利亚州的乡村全科诊所实施 SDM 时,应同时提供充足的资源和明确的流程指南。全科医生在促进健康知识普及和文化适应性沟通方法方面的创新策略可以提高澳大利亚农村老年人对全科医生的参与度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global health journal (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Global health journal (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Public Health and Health Policy
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信