Preferences and challenges regarding medical decision-making among patients with a migration background in Belgium: a focus group study.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Amina Yakhlaf, Flore Vermijs, Katrien Bombeke, Veerle Buffel, Sarah Van de Velde, Josefien van Olmen, Paul Van Royen, Edwin Wouters, Nina Van Eekert
{"title":"Preferences and challenges regarding medical decision-making among patients with a migration background in Belgium: a focus group study.","authors":"Amina Yakhlaf, Flore Vermijs, Katrien Bombeke, Veerle Buffel, Sarah Van de Velde, Josefien van Olmen, Paul Van Royen, Edwin Wouters, Nina Van Eekert","doi":"10.1186/s13690-025-01648-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The growing cultural diversity in Belgium, with over one third of the population having a migration background, presents distinct challenges for primary healthcare, particularly in doctor-patient interactions. Medical decision-making (MDM) is at the core of clinical practice in primary healthcare. According to existing literature, MDM may be complicated not only by general challenges arising in intercultural health communication, but also by specific cultural preferences concerning patient autonomy. This study aims to examine preferences and challenges regarding MDM among patients with a migration background in Belgium, from the perspectives of patients and general practitioners (GPs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected through five focus group discussions (FGDs), organised in November and December 2023. Three FGDs involved patients from the major migrant population groups in Belgium (Moroccan (n = 6), Turkish (n = 6), and sub-Saharan African (n = 7), and two FGDs involved GPs (n = 13). The data were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results show that preferences and challenges revolved around four key components of MDM: Exchange of medical information, decision-making agency, patient-provider relationship, and treatment plan. These preferences and challenges were shaped by a complex interplay of factors at the individual (e.g., patient education, provider attitudes), interpersonal (e.g., family dynamics, language barriers), institutional (e.g., legal framework, medical education), and cultural levels (e.g., religion, health beliefs).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study highlights the importance of adopting an intersectional and multilayered perspective on MDM, which considers how various factors interact and shape preferences and challenges in MDM, depending on the individual and their context. Although it is impossible for GPs to be aware of every cultural preference, this study shows how GPs can engage in more culturally sensitive interactions with their patients. By also addressing the institutional factors that contribute to challenges in MDM, this approach can improve person-centred care by better accommodating each patient's unique needs and preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":48578,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Public Health","volume":"83 1","pages":"167"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210460/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01648-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The growing cultural diversity in Belgium, with over one third of the population having a migration background, presents distinct challenges for primary healthcare, particularly in doctor-patient interactions. Medical decision-making (MDM) is at the core of clinical practice in primary healthcare. According to existing literature, MDM may be complicated not only by general challenges arising in intercultural health communication, but also by specific cultural preferences concerning patient autonomy. This study aims to examine preferences and challenges regarding MDM among patients with a migration background in Belgium, from the perspectives of patients and general practitioners (GPs).

Methods: Data were collected through five focus group discussions (FGDs), organised in November and December 2023. Three FGDs involved patients from the major migrant population groups in Belgium (Moroccan (n = 6), Turkish (n = 6), and sub-Saharan African (n = 7), and two FGDs involved GPs (n = 13). The data were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: Our results show that preferences and challenges revolved around four key components of MDM: Exchange of medical information, decision-making agency, patient-provider relationship, and treatment plan. These preferences and challenges were shaped by a complex interplay of factors at the individual (e.g., patient education, provider attitudes), interpersonal (e.g., family dynamics, language barriers), institutional (e.g., legal framework, medical education), and cultural levels (e.g., religion, health beliefs).

Conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of adopting an intersectional and multilayered perspective on MDM, which considers how various factors interact and shape preferences and challenges in MDM, depending on the individual and their context. Although it is impossible for GPs to be aware of every cultural preference, this study shows how GPs can engage in more culturally sensitive interactions with their patients. By also addressing the institutional factors that contribute to challenges in MDM, this approach can improve person-centred care by better accommodating each patient's unique needs and preferences.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

比利时移民背景患者的医疗决策偏好和挑战:焦点小组研究。
背景:比利时的文化多样性日益增加,超过三分之一的人口具有移民背景,这对初级保健,特别是医患互动提出了明显的挑战。医疗决策(MDM)是初级卫生保健临床实践的核心。根据现有文献,MDM不仅可能因跨文化健康交流中出现的普遍挑战而变得复杂,而且还可能因患者自主方面的特定文化偏好而变得复杂。本研究旨在从患者和全科医生(gp)的角度,研究具有比利时移民背景的患者对MDM的偏好和挑战。方法:通过于2023年11月和12月组织的五次焦点小组讨论(fgd)收集数据。3例FGDs涉及比利时主要移民人群(摩洛哥人(n = 6)、土耳其人(n = 6)和撒哈拉以南非洲人(n = 7)), 2例FGDs涉及全科医生(n = 13)。通过反身性主题分析对数据进行分析。结果:我们的研究结果表明,偏好和挑战围绕MDM的四个关键组成部分:医疗信息交换、决策机构、患者-提供者关系和治疗计划。这些偏好和挑战是由个人因素(例如,患者教育、提供者态度)、人际关系(例如,家庭动态、语言障碍)、制度(例如,法律框架、医学教育)和文化层面(例如,宗教、健康信仰)的复杂相互作用形成的。结论:我们的研究强调了采用交叉和多层视角看待MDM的重要性,它考虑了各种因素如何相互作用,并根据个人及其环境决定MDM中的偏好和挑战。尽管全科医生不可能了解每一种文化偏好,但这项研究表明,全科医生如何与患者进行更具文化敏感性的互动。通过解决造成MDM挑战的体制因素,这种方法可以更好地满足每位患者的独特需求和偏好,从而改善以人为本的护理。
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
Archives of Public Health
Archives of Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.00%
发文量
244
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: rchives of Public Health is a broad scope public health journal, dedicated to publishing all sound science in the field of public health. The journal aims to better the understanding of the health of populations. The journal contributes to public health knowledge, enhances the interaction between research, policy and practice and stimulates public health monitoring and indicator development. The journal considers submissions on health outcomes and their determinants, with clear statements about the public health and policy implications. Archives of Public Health welcomes methodological papers (e.g., on study design and bias), papers on health services research, health economics, community interventions, and epidemiological studies dealing with international comparisons, the determinants of inequality in health, and the environmental, behavioural, social, demographic and occupational correlates of health and diseases.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信