Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of advance care planning among specialist healthcare professionals in neurology, neuro-oncology and surgery.

Zheting Zhang, Jing Ni Ng, Felicia Jin Yee Sie, Kai Jie Ng, Min Yuan Tan, Ming Yang, Jia Jun Goh, Amy Quek, Andrea Li Ann Wong, Balamurugan A Vellayappan, Will Loh, Ker-Kan Tan, Nicole Keong, Vincent Diong Weng Nga, Noreen Chan, Mervyn Jun Rui Lim
{"title":"Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of advance care planning among specialist healthcare professionals in neurology, neuro-oncology and surgery.","authors":"Zheting Zhang, Jing Ni Ng, Felicia Jin Yee Sie, Kai Jie Ng, Min Yuan Tan, Ming Yang, Jia Jun Goh, Amy Quek, Andrea Li Ann Wong, Balamurugan A Vellayappan, Will Loh, Ker-Kan Tan, Nicole Keong, Vincent Diong Weng Nga, Noreen Chan, Mervyn Jun Rui Lim","doi":"10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2024-065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions (KAP) of advance care planning (ACP) among specialist healthcare professionals (HCPs) in neurology, neuro-oncology and surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study of HCPs in Singapore. A standardised questionnaire was developed using validated questionnaires from the international literature, concepts of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and consultation with multidisciplinary palliative care specialists. The 45-item questionnaire included sections on sociodemographics, ACP experience and practices, ACP Knowledge, ACP Attitudes, ACP Perceptions and ACP Engagement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 114 doctors, nurses and allied health professionals (AHPs) responded to the survey. Neurological, neuro-oncological and surgical HCPs generally have positive KAP towards ACP, but confidence to advocate for and conduct ACP could be improved. Doctors scored higher on KAP and intentions to engage in ACP as compared to nurses and AHPs. Significantly more doctors and nurses had attended formal ACP training than AHPs, while more doctors had conducted ACP conversations than nurses and AHPs. Attitudes towards ACP were independently and significantly associated with willingness to advocate for ACP, while perceptions of ACP, perceived relevance of ACP and readiness to engage in ACP were independently and significantly associated with both willingness and confidence to advocate for and to conduct ACP. The most common barriers to ACP among HCPs were disinterest or distress of patients and families and the lack of time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Enhanced ACP support, such as protocols, supervision and training, could improve ACP practice and engagement among specialist HCPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94289,"journal":{"name":"Singapore medical journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Singapore medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2024-065","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

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions (KAP) of advance care planning (ACP) among specialist healthcare professionals (HCPs) in neurology, neuro-oncology and surgery.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of HCPs in Singapore. A standardised questionnaire was developed using validated questionnaires from the international literature, concepts of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and consultation with multidisciplinary palliative care specialists. The 45-item questionnaire included sections on sociodemographics, ACP experience and practices, ACP Knowledge, ACP Attitudes, ACP Perceptions and ACP Engagement.

Results: A total of 114 doctors, nurses and allied health professionals (AHPs) responded to the survey. Neurological, neuro-oncological and surgical HCPs generally have positive KAP towards ACP, but confidence to advocate for and conduct ACP could be improved. Doctors scored higher on KAP and intentions to engage in ACP as compared to nurses and AHPs. Significantly more doctors and nurses had attended formal ACP training than AHPs, while more doctors had conducted ACP conversations than nurses and AHPs. Attitudes towards ACP were independently and significantly associated with willingness to advocate for ACP, while perceptions of ACP, perceived relevance of ACP and readiness to engage in ACP were independently and significantly associated with both willingness and confidence to advocate for and to conduct ACP. The most common barriers to ACP among HCPs were disinterest or distress of patients and families and the lack of time.

Conclusion: Enhanced ACP support, such as protocols, supervision and training, could improve ACP practice and engagement among specialist HCPs.

神经病学、神经肿瘤学和外科专科医疗保健专业人员对预先护理计划的知识、态度和看法。
简介:本研究旨在调查神经内科、神经肿瘤科和外科的专业医护人员(HCPs)对预先护理计划(ACP)的知识、态度和看法(KAP):这是一项针对新加坡医护人员的横断面研究。利用国际文献中经过验证的问卷、计划行为理论的概念以及与多学科姑息关怀专家的协商,制定了一份标准化问卷。问卷共 45 个项目,包括社会人口统计学、姑息关怀经验和实践、姑息关怀知识、姑息关怀态度、姑息关怀认知和姑息关怀参与等部分:共有 114 名医生、护士和专职医疗人员(AHPs)参与了调查。神经科、神经肿瘤科和外科的保健专业人员普遍对 ACP 持积极的 KAP 态度,但倡导和开展 ACP 的信心有待提高。与护士和辅助医务人员相比,医生在 KAP 和参与 ACP 的意愿方面得分更高。参加过 ACP 正式培训的医生和护士明显多于 AHP,而进行过 ACP 交谈的医生多于护士和 AHP。对 ACP 的态度与倡导 ACP 的意愿有显著的相关性,而对 ACP 的看法、ACP 的相关性以及参与 ACP 的准备程度与倡导和开展 ACP 的意愿和信心有显著的相关性。在 HCP 中,最常见的 ACP 障碍是患者和家属不感兴趣或感到痛苦,以及缺乏时间:结论:加强 ACP 支持(如协议、监督和培训)可改善 ACP 实践,提高专科医疗保健人员的参与度。
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
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