两个世界的相遇:医生与患者之间关于癌症治疗决策的分歧叙述》(The Encounter of Two Worlds: Divided Narratives of Decision-Making on Cancer Treatment Between Physicians and Patients.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Weiwei Lu, Dennis Sing Wing Wong
{"title":"两个世界的相遇:医生与患者之间关于癌症治疗决策的分歧叙述》(The Encounter of Two Worlds: Divided Narratives of Decision-Making on Cancer Treatment Between Physicians and Patients.","authors":"Weiwei Lu,&nbsp;Dennis Sing Wing Wong","doi":"10.1111/hex.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Divided narratives pose long-standing difficulties in physician and patient communication. In decision-making on cancer treatment, divided narratives between physicians and patients hinder mutual understanding and agreement over the illness and its treatment. For effective decision-making on treatments, it is necessary to investigate the similarities and differences in these divided narratives.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study adopted a qualitative research design of narrative inquiry to examine the data, which included interviews with 32 cancer patients and 16 paired physicians in two hospitals in China. Data analysis was conducted using grounded theory to generate findings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Both physicians and patients were concerned about goals and obstacles to their decision-making on cancer treatment. Four common aspects of goal setting were identified from the divided narratives: decision pools, treatment goals, identity practice and preferred identity. Four common obstacles were identified: pains and trust, communication gap, financial issues and complex family. However, the meanings attached to these eight aspects differed between physicians and patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Cancer treatment decision-making is an encounter of the scientific world and lifeworld. A divided narrative approach can identify the similarities and differences in the decision-making on cancer treatment between physicians and patients. Physicians generally adopt a rational decision-making approach, whereas patients generally adopt a relational decision-making approach. Despite the common concerns in their goals and obstacles, physicians and patients differed in their contextualized interpretations, which demonstrates the physicians' and the patients' pursuit of preferred identities in decision-making. The results of this study provide a new perspective to treatment decision-making, emphasizing the importance of narrative integration in reaching mutual agreement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient and Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>The findings were shared with 15 cancer patients and caregivers for feedback and advice in June 2024. This study was also presented at the international conferences of COMET (International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Communication, Medicine, and Ethics) and ICCH (International Conference on Communication in Healthcare) 2023 for continuous feedback and comments.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447199/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Encounter of Two Worlds: Divided Narratives of Decision-Making on Cancer Treatment Between Physicians and Patients\",\"authors\":\"Weiwei Lu,&nbsp;Dennis Sing Wing Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Divided narratives pose long-standing difficulties in physician and patient communication. In decision-making on cancer treatment, divided narratives between physicians and patients hinder mutual understanding and agreement over the illness and its treatment. For effective decision-making on treatments, it is necessary to investigate the similarities and differences in these divided narratives.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study adopted a qualitative research design of narrative inquiry to examine the data, which included interviews with 32 cancer patients and 16 paired physicians in two hospitals in China. Data analysis was conducted using grounded theory to generate findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Both physicians and patients were concerned about goals and obstacles to their decision-making on cancer treatment. Four common aspects of goal setting were identified from the divided narratives: decision pools, treatment goals, identity practice and preferred identity. Four common obstacles were identified: pains and trust, communication gap, financial issues and complex family. However, the meanings attached to these eight aspects differed between physicians and patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Cancer treatment decision-making is an encounter of the scientific world and lifeworld. A divided narrative approach can identify the similarities and differences in the decision-making on cancer treatment between physicians and patients. Physicians generally adopt a rational decision-making approach, whereas patients generally adopt a relational decision-making approach. Despite the common concerns in their goals and obstacles, physicians and patients differed in their contextualized interpretations, which demonstrates the physicians' and the patients' pursuit of preferred identities in decision-making. The results of this study provide a new perspective to treatment decision-making, emphasizing the importance of narrative integration in reaching mutual agreement.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient and Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>The findings were shared with 15 cancer patients and caregivers for feedback and advice in June 2024. This study was also presented at the international conferences of COMET (International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Communication, Medicine, and Ethics) and ICCH (International Conference on Communication in Healthcare) 2023 for continuous feedback and comments.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"27 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447199/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70029\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:在医生和患者的沟通过程中,分歧叙述是一个长期存在的难题。在癌症治疗的决策过程中,医生和患者之间的分化叙述阻碍了双方对疾病及其治疗的相互理解和共识。为了有效地做出治疗决策,有必要研究这些分歧叙述的异同:本研究采用叙事探究的定性研究设计来研究数据,包括对中国两家医院的 32 名癌症患者和 16 名配对医生进行访谈。采用基础理论进行数据分析,得出研究结果:结果:医生和患者都关注癌症治疗的目标和决策障碍。从不同的叙述中发现了目标设定的四个共同方面:决策库、治疗目标、身份实践和首选身份。同时也发现了四个共同的障碍:痛苦与信任、沟通障碍、经济问题和复杂的家庭。然而,医生和患者对这八个方面的理解各不相同:癌症治疗决策是科学世界与生活世界的交汇。分层叙事方法可以找出医生和患者在癌症治疗决策方面的异同。医生一般采用理性决策方法,而患者一般采用关系决策方法。尽管医生和患者在目标和障碍方面有共同的关注点,但他们在情境化解释方面却存在差异,这表明医生和患者在决策过程中都在追求自己喜欢的身份。这项研究的结果为治疗决策提供了一个新的视角,强调了叙事整合在达成共同协议中的重要性:2024 年 6 月,与 15 名癌症患者和护理人员分享了研究结果,征求他们的反馈意见和建议。本研究还在 COMET(国际和跨学科沟通、医学和伦理会议)和 ICCH(国际医疗保健沟通会议)2023 年国际会议上进行了介绍,以获得持续的反馈和意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Encounter of Two Worlds: Divided Narratives of Decision-Making on Cancer Treatment Between Physicians and Patients

The Encounter of Two Worlds: Divided Narratives of Decision-Making on Cancer Treatment Between Physicians and Patients

Introduction

Divided narratives pose long-standing difficulties in physician and patient communication. In decision-making on cancer treatment, divided narratives between physicians and patients hinder mutual understanding and agreement over the illness and its treatment. For effective decision-making on treatments, it is necessary to investigate the similarities and differences in these divided narratives.

Methods

This study adopted a qualitative research design of narrative inquiry to examine the data, which included interviews with 32 cancer patients and 16 paired physicians in two hospitals in China. Data analysis was conducted using grounded theory to generate findings.

Results

Both physicians and patients were concerned about goals and obstacles to their decision-making on cancer treatment. Four common aspects of goal setting were identified from the divided narratives: decision pools, treatment goals, identity practice and preferred identity. Four common obstacles were identified: pains and trust, communication gap, financial issues and complex family. However, the meanings attached to these eight aspects differed between physicians and patients.

Conclusion

Cancer treatment decision-making is an encounter of the scientific world and lifeworld. A divided narrative approach can identify the similarities and differences in the decision-making on cancer treatment between physicians and patients. Physicians generally adopt a rational decision-making approach, whereas patients generally adopt a relational decision-making approach. Despite the common concerns in their goals and obstacles, physicians and patients differed in their contextualized interpretations, which demonstrates the physicians' and the patients' pursuit of preferred identities in decision-making. The results of this study provide a new perspective to treatment decision-making, emphasizing the importance of narrative integration in reaching mutual agreement.

Patient and Public Contribution

The findings were shared with 15 cancer patients and caregivers for feedback and advice in June 2024. This study was also presented at the international conferences of COMET (International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Communication, Medicine, and Ethics) and ICCH (International Conference on Communication in Healthcare) 2023 for continuous feedback and comments.

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
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
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