Influential Factors when Making Decisions About Dementia Medications in Memory Assessment Services; a Focused Ethnography and Interview Study.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Rachael Kelley, Claire A Surr, Gregor Russell, George Crowther, Rebecca Dickinson, Jemima Dooley, Alys W Griffiths, Peter Knapp, Sarah J Smith
{"title":"Influential Factors when Making Decisions About Dementia Medications in Memory Assessment Services; a Focused Ethnography and Interview Study.","authors":"Rachael Kelley, Claire A Surr, Gregor Russell, George Crowther, Rebecca Dickinson, Jemima Dooley, Alys W Griffiths, Peter Knapp, Sarah J Smith","doi":"10.1177/08919887251362465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundDiscussing pharmaceutical treatment for dementia is challenging because of variation in disease progression, lack of curative treatments, and communication difficulties. Research in the context of dementia suggests shared decision making is limited, this study examined how dementia medications are discussed in practice.MethodsFocused video/audio ethnography of clinical appointments (n = 14), semi-structured interviews with patients/supporters (n = 23) and clinicians (n = 5) were employed to examine communication practices.ResultsTwo themes developed; <i>Framing and understanding of information in the context of uncertainty</i> explores how uncertainties around risks and benefits are understood. <i>'Not worth the risk'</i> or '<i>nothing to lose</i>' presents how patients/supporters and clinicians balance individuals' contexts/perceived risks/benefits. In the absence of certainty around potential benefits, risk often informed decision-making, particularly for frailer or more vulnerable patients.ConclusionsClinicians should be aware of their influence on decision-making and be cognisant of the way that they frame opinions, which are largely based on clinical experience. Prescribers would benefit from a standardised information source which enables them to describe the likelihood and magnitude of benefits and side effects in a universal way. Accessible information for patients and relatives about the same is also recommended. Patients and relatives make their decisions to take medications in the context of relative uncertainty about the likelihood of benefits, with risk playing a pivotal role in decision making for some.</p>","PeriodicalId":16028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology","volume":" ","pages":"8919887251362465"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08919887251362465","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundDiscussing pharmaceutical treatment for dementia is challenging because of variation in disease progression, lack of curative treatments, and communication difficulties. Research in the context of dementia suggests shared decision making is limited, this study examined how dementia medications are discussed in practice.MethodsFocused video/audio ethnography of clinical appointments (n = 14), semi-structured interviews with patients/supporters (n = 23) and clinicians (n = 5) were employed to examine communication practices.ResultsTwo themes developed; Framing and understanding of information in the context of uncertainty explores how uncertainties around risks and benefits are understood. 'Not worth the risk' or 'nothing to lose' presents how patients/supporters and clinicians balance individuals' contexts/perceived risks/benefits. In the absence of certainty around potential benefits, risk often informed decision-making, particularly for frailer or more vulnerable patients.ConclusionsClinicians should be aware of their influence on decision-making and be cognisant of the way that they frame opinions, which are largely based on clinical experience. Prescribers would benefit from a standardised information source which enables them to describe the likelihood and magnitude of benefits and side effects in a universal way. Accessible information for patients and relatives about the same is also recommended. Patients and relatives make their decisions to take medications in the context of relative uncertainty about the likelihood of benefits, with risk playing a pivotal role in decision making for some.

记忆评估服务中痴呆药物决策的影响因素集中民族志和访谈研究。
讨论痴呆症的药物治疗是具有挑战性的,因为疾病进展的变化,缺乏根治性治疗,以及沟通困难。在痴呆症背景下的研究表明共同决策是有限的,本研究调查了痴呆症药物在实践中是如何讨论的。方法采用集中的临床预约视频/音频人种志(n = 14),对患者/支持者(n = 23)和临床医生(n = 5)的半结构化访谈来检查沟通实践。结果发展了两个主题;构建和理解不确定性背景下的信息,探讨如何理解风险和收益的不确定性。“不值得冒险”或“没有什么可失去的”展示了患者/支持者和临床医生如何平衡个人的情况/感知风险/利益。在不确定潜在益处的情况下,风险往往会影响决策,特别是对体弱多病或更脆弱的患者。结论临床医生应该意识到他们对决策的影响,并认识到他们构建意见的方式,这些意见主要基于临床经验。处方者将受益于一个标准化的信息源,使他们能够以一种普遍的方式描述益处和副作用的可能性和程度。还建议为患者和家属提供有关这方面的无障碍信息。患者和家属在对药物是否有效的可能性相对不确定的情况下决定服用药物,对一些人来说,风险在决策中起着关键作用。
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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology (JGP) brings together original research, clinical reviews, and timely case reports on neuropsychiatric care of aging patients, including age-related biologic, neurologic, and psychiatric illnesses; psychosocial problems; forensic issues; and family care. The journal offers the latest peer-reviewed information on cognitive, mood, anxiety, addictive, and sleep disorders in older patients, as well as tested diagnostic tools and therapies.
×
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