Shared Decision-Making in the Choice of Renal Replacement Therapy: A Comparative Text Mining Analysis of Physicians and Nurses.

IF 2 Q1 NURSING
Misa Iida, Sumiyo Nabeshima, Sayuri Kaneko, Yuji Kamijo, Toshio Kobayashi, Yukako Ando
{"title":"Shared Decision-Making in the Choice of Renal Replacement Therapy: A Comparative Text Mining Analysis of Physicians and Nurses.","authors":"Misa Iida, Sumiyo Nabeshima, Sayuri Kaneko, Yuji Kamijo, Toshio Kobayashi, Yukako Ando","doi":"10.3390/nursrep16040142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> This study aimed to compare factors facilitating shared decision-making (SDM) in renal replacement therapy decision support between physicians and nurses using text mining analysis. <b>Methods:</b> A web-based survey was conducted among 250 physicians and 299 nurses between December 2024 and March 2025. Free-text responses regarding factors facilitating SDM were collected and analyzed using quantitative text analysis. <b>Results:</b> Valid responses were obtained from 103 physicians and 122 nurses. Both groups identified six factors, with three shared conceptual domains across physicians and nurses, reflected in three physician factors and four nurse factors. Common domains included \"promoting patient and family understanding\", \"enhancing staff education\", and \"strengthening multidisciplinary collaboration\". Physicians emphasized structural and environmental factors, such as \"establishing clinical systems\", \"inter-institutional collaboration\", and \"securing sufficient time\". In contrast, nurses highlighted practical and interpersonal aspects, including \"understanding patients' values and lifestyles\", \"supporting patient-centered decision-making\", and \"promoting team-based information sharing\". <b>Conclusions:</b> Factors that facilitate SDM in renal replacement therapy include perspectives common to both physicians and nurses, as well as profession-specific perspectives. These findings suggest that integrating organizational support and clinical skills development is crucial for promoting SDM in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":"16 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13119424/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep16040142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare factors facilitating shared decision-making (SDM) in renal replacement therapy decision support between physicians and nurses using text mining analysis. Methods: A web-based survey was conducted among 250 physicians and 299 nurses between December 2024 and March 2025. Free-text responses regarding factors facilitating SDM were collected and analyzed using quantitative text analysis. Results: Valid responses were obtained from 103 physicians and 122 nurses. Both groups identified six factors, with three shared conceptual domains across physicians and nurses, reflected in three physician factors and four nurse factors. Common domains included "promoting patient and family understanding", "enhancing staff education", and "strengthening multidisciplinary collaboration". Physicians emphasized structural and environmental factors, such as "establishing clinical systems", "inter-institutional collaboration", and "securing sufficient time". In contrast, nurses highlighted practical and interpersonal aspects, including "understanding patients' values and lifestyles", "supporting patient-centered decision-making", and "promoting team-based information sharing". Conclusions: Factors that facilitate SDM in renal replacement therapy include perspectives common to both physicians and nurses, as well as profession-specific perspectives. These findings suggest that integrating organizational support and clinical skills development is crucial for promoting SDM in clinical settings.

肾脏替代治疗选择的共同决策:医生和护士的比较文本挖掘分析。
目的:本研究旨在利用文本挖掘分析比较促进医生和护士在肾脏替代治疗决策支持中的共同决策(SDM)的因素。方法:于2024年12月至2025年3月对250名医生和299名护士进行网络调查。收集自由文本对SDM促进因素的响应,并使用定量文本分析进行分析。结果:共获得103名医生和122名护士的有效反馈。两组都确定了六个因素,医生和护士之间有三个共同的概念领域,反映在三个医生因素和四个护士因素中。常见的领域包括“促进病人和家属的了解”、“加强工作人员教育”和“加强多学科合作”。医生强调结构和环境因素,如“建立临床系统”、“机构间合作”和“确保足够的时间”。相比之下,护士强调实践和人际关系方面,包括“了解患者的价值观和生活方式”,“支持以患者为中心的决策”,“促进以团队为基础的信息共享”。结论:促进肾替代治疗中SDM的因素包括医生和护士共同的观点,以及专业特定的观点。这些发现表明,整合组织支持和临床技能发展对于在临床环境中促进SDM至关重要。
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
Nursing Reports
Nursing Reports NURSING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.
×
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
小红书