探索苏格兰痴呆症政策中的预先护理计划话语:批判性话语分析

Tharin Phenwan , Judith Sixsmith , Linda McSwiggan , Deans Buchanan
{"title":"探索苏格兰痴呆症政策中的预先护理计划话语:批判性话语分析","authors":"Tharin Phenwan ,&nbsp;Judith Sixsmith ,&nbsp;Linda McSwiggan ,&nbsp;Deans Buchanan","doi":"10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Advance Care Planning (ACP) is a continuous process that enables individuals to discuss and document their preferences for future care in the event of terminal illness or incapacitation. In Scotland, the creation of ACPs is encouraged and integrated into current dementia policies as a means of safeguarding the human rights of people living with dementia (PwD). However, the uptake of ACP amongst PwD remains low, potentially due to PwD's fluctuating mental capacity and symptoms of forgetfulness. Moreover, the ACP process, which is typically aimed at healthcare professionals (HCPs), may not be suitable for PwD due to the lack of appropriate support they might need to fully engage with the ACP process which includes meaningful conversations, documentation and regular review.</div><div>This study employed Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis to explore how the discourses in Scottish dementia policies influence the initiation and revision of ACP for PwD. It examined how the voices of PwD, family carers, and HCPs shaped dementia policies regarding the initiation and revision of ACP.</div><div>Three discourses were identified: Shifting Agencies, Formulaic Rightness, and Visibility and Voices. The analysis revealed that dementia policies inadequately supported the initiation and revision of ACPs for PwD. This is attributed to the responsibility for initiating ACPs being variously ascribed to different stakeholders, creating ambiguity regarding process ownership. The ACP process is presented in policy as formulaic, ignoring the nuances of PwD's circumstances. The input and participation of PwD, family carers, and HCPs in policy related to ACPs was less visible, thus calling into question the legitimacy of those policies.</div><div>In light of these findings, the person(s) responsible for supporting the ACPprocess with and for PwD should be made explicit. The notion of ACP revision, which aims to reflect PwD's changing needs, warrants greater emphasis within these dementia policies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74826,"journal":{"name":"Social sciences & humanities open","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 101302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring advance care planning discourses in scottish dementia policies: A critical discourse analysis\",\"authors\":\"Tharin Phenwan ,&nbsp;Judith Sixsmith ,&nbsp;Linda McSwiggan ,&nbsp;Deans Buchanan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Advance Care Planning (ACP) is a continuous process that enables individuals to discuss and document their preferences for future care in the event of terminal illness or incapacitation. In Scotland, the creation of ACPs is encouraged and integrated into current dementia policies as a means of safeguarding the human rights of people living with dementia (PwD). However, the uptake of ACP amongst PwD remains low, potentially due to PwD's fluctuating mental capacity and symptoms of forgetfulness. Moreover, the ACP process, which is typically aimed at healthcare professionals (HCPs), may not be suitable for PwD due to the lack of appropriate support they might need to fully engage with the ACP process which includes meaningful conversations, documentation and regular review.</div><div>This study employed Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis to explore how the discourses in Scottish dementia policies influence the initiation and revision of ACP for PwD. It examined how the voices of PwD, family carers, and HCPs shaped dementia policies regarding the initiation and revision of ACP.</div><div>Three discourses were identified: Shifting Agencies, Formulaic Rightness, and Visibility and Voices. The analysis revealed that dementia policies inadequately supported the initiation and revision of ACPs for PwD. This is attributed to the responsibility for initiating ACPs being variously ascribed to different stakeholders, creating ambiguity regarding process ownership. The ACP process is presented in policy as formulaic, ignoring the nuances of PwD's circumstances. The input and participation of PwD, family carers, and HCPs in policy related to ACPs was less visible, thus calling into question the legitimacy of those policies.</div><div>In light of these findings, the person(s) responsible for supporting the ACPprocess with and for PwD should be made explicit. The notion of ACP revision, which aims to reflect PwD's changing needs, warrants greater emphasis within these dementia policies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74826,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social sciences & humanities open\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social sciences & humanities open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291125000294\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social sciences & humanities open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291125000294","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

预先护理计划(ACP)是一个持续的过程,使个人能够讨论和记录他们在绝症或丧失行为能力的情况下对未来护理的偏好。在苏格兰,鼓励建立acp,并将其纳入当前的痴呆症政策,作为保障痴呆症患者人权的一种手段。然而,残疾人士对ACP的吸收仍然很低,可能是由于残疾人士的精神能力波动和健忘的症状。此外,ACP流程通常针对医疗保健专业人员(hcp),可能不适合残疾人,因为他们可能需要适当的支持来充分参与ACP流程,包括有意义的对话、文档和定期审查。本研究采用Fairclough的批判性话语分析来探讨苏格兰痴呆症政策中的话语如何影响残疾人ACP的启动和修订。它研究了残疾人、家庭照顾者和卫生保健服务提供者的声音如何影响有关ACP启动和修订的痴呆症政策。确定了三种话语:转移代理,公式化正确性,可见性和声音。分析显示,痴呆政策不足以支持针对PwD的acp的启动和修订。这归因于启动acp的责任被不同地分配给不同的涉众,从而产生了关于过程所有权的模糊性。政策中提出的非加太进程是公式化的,忽视了残疾人情况的细微差别。残疾人士、家庭照顾者和卫生保健服务提供者在与acp有关的政策中的投入和参与较少,因此这些政策的合法性受到质疑。根据这些调查结果,应明确负责支持残疾人士的acp程序的人员。ACP修订的概念旨在反映残疾人不断变化的需求,在这些痴呆症政策中值得更加重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring advance care planning discourses in scottish dementia policies: A critical discourse analysis
Advance Care Planning (ACP) is a continuous process that enables individuals to discuss and document their preferences for future care in the event of terminal illness or incapacitation. In Scotland, the creation of ACPs is encouraged and integrated into current dementia policies as a means of safeguarding the human rights of people living with dementia (PwD). However, the uptake of ACP amongst PwD remains low, potentially due to PwD's fluctuating mental capacity and symptoms of forgetfulness. Moreover, the ACP process, which is typically aimed at healthcare professionals (HCPs), may not be suitable for PwD due to the lack of appropriate support they might need to fully engage with the ACP process which includes meaningful conversations, documentation and regular review.
This study employed Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis to explore how the discourses in Scottish dementia policies influence the initiation and revision of ACP for PwD. It examined how the voices of PwD, family carers, and HCPs shaped dementia policies regarding the initiation and revision of ACP.
Three discourses were identified: Shifting Agencies, Formulaic Rightness, and Visibility and Voices. The analysis revealed that dementia policies inadequately supported the initiation and revision of ACPs for PwD. This is attributed to the responsibility for initiating ACPs being variously ascribed to different stakeholders, creating ambiguity regarding process ownership. The ACP process is presented in policy as formulaic, ignoring the nuances of PwD's circumstances. The input and participation of PwD, family carers, and HCPs in policy related to ACPs was less visible, thus calling into question the legitimacy of those policies.
In light of these findings, the person(s) responsible for supporting the ACPprocess with and for PwD should be made explicit. The notion of ACP revision, which aims to reflect PwD's changing needs, warrants greater emphasis within these dementia policies.
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
Social sciences & humanities open
Social sciences & humanities open Psychology (General), Decision Sciences (General), Social Sciences (General)
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
159 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信