重要的最终用户是否被忽视了?为潜在胰腺癌患者制定关于手术选择的共同决策干预措施

Kristine Elberg Dengsø , Anne Berg , Carsten Palnæs Hansen , Stefan K. Burgdorf , Paul S. Krohn , Martin Sillesen , Nina Spiegelhauer , Mette Tholstrup Bach , Marianne Melton , Betina Nielsen , Bo Marcel Christensen , Jeanette Finderup , Jens Hillingsø
{"title":"重要的最终用户是否被忽视了?为潜在胰腺癌患者制定关于手术选择的共同决策干预措施","authors":"Kristine Elberg Dengsø ,&nbsp;Anne Berg ,&nbsp;Carsten Palnæs Hansen ,&nbsp;Stefan K. Burgdorf ,&nbsp;Paul S. Krohn ,&nbsp;Martin Sillesen ,&nbsp;Nina Spiegelhauer ,&nbsp;Mette Tholstrup Bach ,&nbsp;Marianne Melton ,&nbsp;Betina Nielsen ,&nbsp;Bo Marcel Christensen ,&nbsp;Jeanette Finderup ,&nbsp;Jens Hillingsø","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To develop a patient decision aid facilitating shared decision making for patients with potential pancreatic cancer deciding about no treatment, surgical or medical treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Based on a user-centred design by Wittemann et al., we developed a shared decision making intervention in three phases: 1) Understanding decision needs 2) Development of a patient decision aid (PtDA) based on a generic template 3) Assessment of the intervention from interviews with patients (<em>n</em> = 11), relatives (n = 11), nurses (<em>n</em> = 4) and surgeons (<em>n</em> = 2) analysed with thematic analysis, and measuring patients' perceptions of choice of options with the Decisional Conflict Scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Results showed varying experiences with the use of the PtDA, with surgeons not finding PtDA useful as it was impractical and constraining with patients' conversations. There was no difference in patients' perceptions in choosing options for those being presented vs those patients not being presented for the PtDA.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The format and structure of the PtDA was not feasible for the surgeons as fundamental users in the present clinic.</p></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><p>This study highlights the urgent need to consider clinical context before introducing a predefined tool and shows the importance of a multistakeholder approach. Research should focus on finding means to successful implement shared decision making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100269"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000177/pdfft?md5=fa6299a01b11d90e8e7ce0c646db8394&pid=1-s2.0-S2772628224000177-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Have a vital end-user been overlooked? Developing a shared decision intervention for patients with potential pancreatic cancer regarding the choice of surgery\",\"authors\":\"Kristine Elberg Dengsø ,&nbsp;Anne Berg ,&nbsp;Carsten Palnæs Hansen ,&nbsp;Stefan K. Burgdorf ,&nbsp;Paul S. Krohn ,&nbsp;Martin Sillesen ,&nbsp;Nina Spiegelhauer ,&nbsp;Mette Tholstrup Bach ,&nbsp;Marianne Melton ,&nbsp;Betina Nielsen ,&nbsp;Bo Marcel Christensen ,&nbsp;Jeanette Finderup ,&nbsp;Jens Hillingsø\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100269\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To develop a patient decision aid facilitating shared decision making for patients with potential pancreatic cancer deciding about no treatment, surgical or medical treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Based on a user-centred design by Wittemann et al., we developed a shared decision making intervention in three phases: 1) Understanding decision needs 2) Development of a patient decision aid (PtDA) based on a generic template 3) Assessment of the intervention from interviews with patients (<em>n</em> = 11), relatives (n = 11), nurses (<em>n</em> = 4) and surgeons (<em>n</em> = 2) analysed with thematic analysis, and measuring patients' perceptions of choice of options with the Decisional Conflict Scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Results showed varying experiences with the use of the PtDA, with surgeons not finding PtDA useful as it was impractical and constraining with patients' conversations. There was no difference in patients' perceptions in choosing options for those being presented vs those patients not being presented for the PtDA.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The format and structure of the PtDA was not feasible for the surgeons as fundamental users in the present clinic.</p></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><p>This study highlights the urgent need to consider clinical context before introducing a predefined tool and shows the importance of a multistakeholder approach. Research should focus on finding means to successful implement shared decision making.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PEC innovation\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100269\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000177/pdfft?md5=fa6299a01b11d90e8e7ce0c646db8394&pid=1-s2.0-S2772628224000177-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PEC innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000177\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

方法基于 Wittemann 等人以用户为中心的设计,我们分三个阶段开发了共同决策干预措施:1) 了解决策需求 2) 根据通用模板开发患者决策辅助工具 (PtDA) 3) 通过与患者访谈评估干预措施通过对患者(11 人)、亲属(11 人)、护士(4 人)和外科医生(2 人)的访谈对干预措施进行评估,并使用决策冲突量表测量患者对选择方案的看法。结果结果显示,患者对使用 PtDA 的体验各不相同,外科医生认为 PtDA 不实用,会限制患者的谈话。本研究强调了在引入预定义工具之前考虑临床环境的迫切性,并显示了多方参与方法的重要性。研究重点应放在寻找成功实施共同决策的方法上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Have a vital end-user been overlooked? Developing a shared decision intervention for patients with potential pancreatic cancer regarding the choice of surgery

Objective

To develop a patient decision aid facilitating shared decision making for patients with potential pancreatic cancer deciding about no treatment, surgical or medical treatment.

Methods

Based on a user-centred design by Wittemann et al., we developed a shared decision making intervention in three phases: 1) Understanding decision needs 2) Development of a patient decision aid (PtDA) based on a generic template 3) Assessment of the intervention from interviews with patients (n = 11), relatives (n = 11), nurses (n = 4) and surgeons (n = 2) analysed with thematic analysis, and measuring patients' perceptions of choice of options with the Decisional Conflict Scale.

Results

Results showed varying experiences with the use of the PtDA, with surgeons not finding PtDA useful as it was impractical and constraining with patients' conversations. There was no difference in patients' perceptions in choosing options for those being presented vs those patients not being presented for the PtDA.

Conclusion

The format and structure of the PtDA was not feasible for the surgeons as fundamental users in the present clinic.

Innovation

This study highlights the urgent need to consider clinical context before introducing a predefined tool and shows the importance of a multistakeholder approach. Research should focus on finding means to successful implement shared decision making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PEC innovation
PEC innovation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
147 days
×
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