应产妇要求进行剖腹产:瑞典一项关于共同决策和以人为本的护理相关冲突的定性研究。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Mio Fredriksson, Inger K Holmström, Anna T Höglund, Emma Fleron, Magdalena Mattebo
{"title":"应产妇要求进行剖腹产:瑞典一项关于共同决策和以人为本的护理相关冲突的定性研究。","authors":"Mio Fredriksson, Inger K Holmström, Anna T Höglund, Emma Fleron, Magdalena Mattebo","doi":"10.1186/s12978-024-01831-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Today, person-centred care is seen as a cornerstone of health policy and practice, but accommodating individual patient preferences can be challenging, for example involving caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). The aim of this study was to explore Swedish health professionals' perspectives on CSMR and analyse them with regard to potential conflicts that may arise from person-centred care, specifically in relation to shared decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study using both inductive and deductive content analysis was conducted based on semi-structured interviews. It was based on a purposeful sampling of 12 health professionals: seven obstetricians, three midwives and two neonatologists working at different hospitals in southern and central Sweden. The interviews were recorded either in a telephone call or in a video conference call, and audio files were deleted after transcription.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the interviews, twelve types of expressions (sub-categories) of five types of conflicts (categories) between shared decision-making and CSMR emerged. Most health professionals agreed in principle that women have the right to decide over their own body, but did not believe this included the right to choose surgery without medical indications (patient autonomy). The health professionals also expressed that they had to consider not only the woman's current preferences and health but also her future health, which could be negatively impacted by a CSMR (treatment quality and patient safety). Furthermore, the health professionals did not consider costs in the individual decision, but thought CSMR might lead to crowding-out effects (avoiding treatments that harm others). Although the health professionals emphasised that every CSMR request was addressed individually, they referred to different strategies for avoiding arbitrariness (equality and non-discrimination). Lastly, they described that CSMR entailed a multifaceted decision being individual yet collective, and the use of birth contracts in order to increase a woman's sense of security (an uncomplicated decision-making process).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The complex landscape for handling CSMR in Sweden, arising from a restrictive approach centred on collective and standardised solutions alongside a simultaneous shift towards person-centred care and individual decision-making, was evident in the health professionals' reasoning. Although most health professionals emphasised that the mode of delivery is ultimately a professional decision, they still strived towards shared decision-making through information and support. Given the different views on CSMR, it is of utmost importance for healthcare professionals and women to reach a consensus on how to address this issue and to discuss what patient autonomy and shared decision-making mean in this specific context.</p>","PeriodicalId":20899,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health","volume":"21 1","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11221017/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Caesarean section on maternal request: a qualitative study of conflicts related to shared decision-making and person-centred care in Sweden.\",\"authors\":\"Mio Fredriksson, Inger K Holmström, Anna T Höglund, Emma Fleron, Magdalena Mattebo\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12978-024-01831-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Today, person-centred care is seen as a cornerstone of health policy and practice, but accommodating individual patient preferences can be challenging, for example involving caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). The aim of this study was to explore Swedish health professionals' perspectives on CSMR and analyse them with regard to potential conflicts that may arise from person-centred care, specifically in relation to shared decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study using both inductive and deductive content analysis was conducted based on semi-structured interviews. It was based on a purposeful sampling of 12 health professionals: seven obstetricians, three midwives and two neonatologists working at different hospitals in southern and central Sweden. The interviews were recorded either in a telephone call or in a video conference call, and audio files were deleted after transcription.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the interviews, twelve types of expressions (sub-categories) of five types of conflicts (categories) between shared decision-making and CSMR emerged. Most health professionals agreed in principle that women have the right to decide over their own body, but did not believe this included the right to choose surgery without medical indications (patient autonomy). The health professionals also expressed that they had to consider not only the woman's current preferences and health but also her future health, which could be negatively impacted by a CSMR (treatment quality and patient safety). Furthermore, the health professionals did not consider costs in the individual decision, but thought CSMR might lead to crowding-out effects (avoiding treatments that harm others). Although the health professionals emphasised that every CSMR request was addressed individually, they referred to different strategies for avoiding arbitrariness (equality and non-discrimination). Lastly, they described that CSMR entailed a multifaceted decision being individual yet collective, and the use of birth contracts in order to increase a woman's sense of security (an uncomplicated decision-making process).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The complex landscape for handling CSMR in Sweden, arising from a restrictive approach centred on collective and standardised solutions alongside a simultaneous shift towards person-centred care and individual decision-making, was evident in the health professionals' reasoning. Although most health professionals emphasised that the mode of delivery is ultimately a professional decision, they still strived towards shared decision-making through information and support. Given the different views on CSMR, it is of utmost importance for healthcare professionals and women to reach a consensus on how to address this issue and to discuss what patient autonomy and shared decision-making mean in this specific context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reproductive Health\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11221017/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reproductive Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-024-01831-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-024-01831-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:如今,以人为本的护理已被视为医疗政策和实践的基石,但满足患者的个人偏好可能具有挑战性,例如应产妇要求进行剖腹产(CSMR)。本研究旨在探讨瑞典医护人员对 CSMR 的看法,并分析以人为本的医疗服务可能产生的潜在冲突,特别是与共同决策有关的冲突:方法:在半结构化访谈的基础上,采用归纳和演绎的内容分析方法进行了一项定性研究。研究对瑞典南部和中部不同医院的 12 名医疗专业人员进行了有目的的抽样调查,其中包括 7 名产科医生、3 名助产士和 2 名新生儿科医生。访谈是通过电话或视频会议录制的,音频文件在转录后被删除:在访谈中,共同决策与 CSMR 之间出现了五种冲突(类别)的十二种表达方式(子类别)。大多数医疗专业人员原则上同意妇女有权决定自己的身体,但并不认为这包括在没有医学指征的情况下选择手术的权利(患者自主权)。医疗专业人员还表示,他们不仅要考虑妇女目前的喜好和健康状况,还要考虑其未来的健康状况,因为 CSMR 可能会对其未来的健康状况产生负面影响(治疗质量和患者安全)。此外,医护人员在做出个人决定时并不考虑成本,但认为 CSMR 可能会导致排挤效应(避免伤害他人的治疗)。尽管医疗专业人员强调,每项 CSMR 申请都是单独处理的,但他们提到了避免任意性的不同策略(平等和非歧视)。最后,他们指出,CSMR 是一项多方面的决定,既是个人的决定,也是集体的决定,并使用生育合同以增加妇女的安全感(决策过程不复杂):瑞典在处理 CSMR 方面的复杂情况在医疗专业人员的推理中显而易见,这种复杂情况源于以集体和标准化解决方案为中心的限制性方法,以及同时向以人为本的护理和个人决策的转变。尽管大多数医护人员都强调,提供服务的方式最终是由专业人员决定的,但他们仍然努力通过信息和支持来实现共同决策。鉴于对 CSMR 的不同看法,医护人员和妇女就如何解决这一问题达成共识以及讨论在这一特定情况下病人自主和共同决策的含义至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Caesarean section on maternal request: a qualitative study of conflicts related to shared decision-making and person-centred care in Sweden.

Background: Today, person-centred care is seen as a cornerstone of health policy and practice, but accommodating individual patient preferences can be challenging, for example involving caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). The aim of this study was to explore Swedish health professionals' perspectives on CSMR and analyse them with regard to potential conflicts that may arise from person-centred care, specifically in relation to shared decision-making.

Methods: A qualitative study using both inductive and deductive content analysis was conducted based on semi-structured interviews. It was based on a purposeful sampling of 12 health professionals: seven obstetricians, three midwives and two neonatologists working at different hospitals in southern and central Sweden. The interviews were recorded either in a telephone call or in a video conference call, and audio files were deleted after transcription.

Results: In the interviews, twelve types of expressions (sub-categories) of five types of conflicts (categories) between shared decision-making and CSMR emerged. Most health professionals agreed in principle that women have the right to decide over their own body, but did not believe this included the right to choose surgery without medical indications (patient autonomy). The health professionals also expressed that they had to consider not only the woman's current preferences and health but also her future health, which could be negatively impacted by a CSMR (treatment quality and patient safety). Furthermore, the health professionals did not consider costs in the individual decision, but thought CSMR might lead to crowding-out effects (avoiding treatments that harm others). Although the health professionals emphasised that every CSMR request was addressed individually, they referred to different strategies for avoiding arbitrariness (equality and non-discrimination). Lastly, they described that CSMR entailed a multifaceted decision being individual yet collective, and the use of birth contracts in order to increase a woman's sense of security (an uncomplicated decision-making process).

Conclusions: The complex landscape for handling CSMR in Sweden, arising from a restrictive approach centred on collective and standardised solutions alongside a simultaneous shift towards person-centred care and individual decision-making, was evident in the health professionals' reasoning. Although most health professionals emphasised that the mode of delivery is ultimately a professional decision, they still strived towards shared decision-making through information and support. Given the different views on CSMR, it is of utmost importance for healthcare professionals and women to reach a consensus on how to address this issue and to discuss what patient autonomy and shared decision-making mean in this specific context.

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
Reproductive Health
Reproductive Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
220
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Reproductive Health focuses on all aspects of human reproduction. The journal includes sections dedicated to adolescent health, female fertility and midwifery and all content is open access. Reproductive health is defined as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being in all matters relating to the reproductive system, at all stages of life. Good reproductive health implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. Men and women should be informed about and have access to safe, effective, affordable, and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, and the right to appropriate health-care services that enable women to safely go through pregnancy and childbirth.
×
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