{"title":"Inpatient Participation in Patient Safety Behaviors: Decision-Making Typologies from a Qualitative Study.","authors":"Chunni Wang, Haoning Shi, Xingyao Du, Ying Peng, Mingzhao Xiao, Qinghua Zhao, Huanhuan Huang","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S538389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient participation in safety behaviors has been recognized as a critical component of reducing medical errors and improving healthcare outcomes in hospitalized settings. However, there is currently a lack of research to understand the decision-making processes that drive these behaviors.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to identify and construct the different types of decision-making personas adopted by inpatients when thinking about participating in patient safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Chongqing from October to December 2024. Inpatients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected via purposive sampling, and semi-structured interviews were performed to explore their motivation, willingness, decision-making factors, decision-making balance, and effect evaluation during their participation in patient safety decision-making. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi's seven-step method, facilitating the process from raw data to factual labeling and ultimately to the construction of personas dimensions. Patient characteristics were extracted and personas were constructed by artificial intelligence (AI), with the visualization of these personas achieved through a combination of character images and labels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study developed four distinct personas that reflect the decision-making types of inpatients' participation in patient safety, with the personas classifications as follows: self-driven decision-makers, passive collaborators, resource-limited decision avoiders, and self-assertive decision-makers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diversity of patients' decision-making types necessitates targeted interventions, such as shared decision-making tools, simplified communication, community support provision, and trust reconstruction. Future research should also include longitudinal studies and cross-cultural validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"18 ","pages":"3029-3039"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S538389","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Patient participation in safety behaviors has been recognized as a critical component of reducing medical errors and improving healthcare outcomes in hospitalized settings. However, there is currently a lack of research to understand the decision-making processes that drive these behaviors.
Purpose: This study aimed to identify and construct the different types of decision-making personas adopted by inpatients when thinking about participating in patient safety.
Methods: A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Chongqing from October to December 2024. Inpatients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected via purposive sampling, and semi-structured interviews were performed to explore their motivation, willingness, decision-making factors, decision-making balance, and effect evaluation during their participation in patient safety decision-making. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi's seven-step method, facilitating the process from raw data to factual labeling and ultimately to the construction of personas dimensions. Patient characteristics were extracted and personas were constructed by artificial intelligence (AI), with the visualization of these personas achieved through a combination of character images and labels.
Results: This study developed four distinct personas that reflect the decision-making types of inpatients' participation in patient safety, with the personas classifications as follows: self-driven decision-makers, passive collaborators, resource-limited decision avoiders, and self-assertive decision-makers.
Conclusion: The diversity of patients' decision-making types necessitates targeted interventions, such as shared decision-making tools, simplified communication, community support provision, and trust reconstruction. Future research should also include longitudinal studies and cross-cultural validation.
期刊介绍:
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include:
Public and community health
Policy and law
Preventative and predictive healthcare
Risk and hazard management
Epidemiology, detection and screening
Lifestyle and diet modification
Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs
Health and safety and occupational health
Healthcare services provision
Health literacy and education
Advertising and promotion of health issues
Health economic evaluations and resource management
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.