Q1 Arts and Humanities
Reina Ozeki-Hayashi, Dominic J C Wilkinson
{"title":"'An Unimaginable Challenge': A Cross-Cultural Qualitative Study of Ethics and Decision-Making Around Tracheostomy Ventilation in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.","authors":"Reina Ozeki-Hayashi, Dominic J C Wilkinson","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2474928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rate of tracheostomy with invasive ventilation (TIV) for patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) varies widely. Previous studies have shown that doctors' values may affect decision-making. There have been no previous international qualitative comparisons of medical decision-making process for TIV or why practice varies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 16 doctors actively involved in the management of ALS patients from Japan (<i>n</i> = 7), the UK (<i>n</i> = 5), and the US (<i>n</i> = 4). We used three hypothetical cases to explore decision-making. Conversations were transcribed and thematically analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our data reveals similarities but also marked differences in views between the US, the UK and Japan. Almost all participants stated that they ought to respect patient autonomy. However, their approaches varied. British participants wanted to (and felt that they should) respect patient autonomy, but they also believed that TIV was not a realistic option. US participants were likely to prioritize patient autonomy over other ethical principles, and Japanese participants were likely to limit patient autonomy indirectly. The option of TIV appeared to be heavily influenced by the availability of healthcare resources in all three countries. The high cost, limited availability and difficulty of treatment meant that particularly in the UK and the US, it is challenging to receive TIV even if patients wanted this.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study illustrates how the emphasis on autonomy varies along with variations in the way care is organized in the setting of highly resource intensive treatment and progressive severe disabling illness. There is a need to review elements of the decision-making process in all three countries. This includes the need for transparent, ideally centralized, decision-making guidelines about the provision of TIV. Although we investigated a rare neuromuscular disease, our results will be relevant to other diseases requiring highly resource-intensive treatment toward the end of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2474928","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肌萎缩侧索硬化症(ALS)患者接受气管插管有创通气(TIV)的比例差异很大。以往的研究表明,医生的价值观可能会影响决策。此前,国际上尚未对 TIV 的医疗决策过程或实践差异的原因进行过定性比较:我们对来自日本(7 人)、英国(5 人)和美国(4 人)的 16 名积极参与 ALS 患者管理的医生进行了半结构化深度访谈。我们使用了三个假设病例来探讨决策问题。我们对对话进行了记录和主题分析:我们的数据显示,美国、英国和日本的观点既有相似之处,也有明显差异。几乎所有参与者都表示他们应该尊重患者的自主权。但是,他们的做法各不相同。英国参与者希望(并认为他们应该)尊重患者的自主权,但他们也认为 TIV 并不是一个现实的选择。美国与会者可能会将病人自主权置于其他伦理原则之上,而日本与会者可能会间接限制病人自主权。在这三个国家中,TIV 方案似乎在很大程度上受到医疗资源可用性的影响。高昂的费用、有限的可用性和治疗难度意味着,特别是在英国和美国,即使患者希望接受 TIV 治疗,也很困难:我们的研究表明,在高度资源密集型治疗和进行性重度致残疾病的情况下,对自主权的重视程度会随着治疗组织方式的变化而变化。有必要重新审视这三个国家的决策过程。这包括需要制定有关提供 TIV 的透明、理想的集中决策指南。虽然我们研究的是一种罕见的神经肌肉疾病,但我们的研究结果也适用于其他需要在生命末期进行高度资源密集型治疗的疾病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'An Unimaginable Challenge': A Cross-Cultural Qualitative Study of Ethics and Decision-Making Around Tracheostomy Ventilation in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

Background: The rate of tracheostomy with invasive ventilation (TIV) for patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) varies widely. Previous studies have shown that doctors' values may affect decision-making. There have been no previous international qualitative comparisons of medical decision-making process for TIV or why practice varies.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 16 doctors actively involved in the management of ALS patients from Japan (n = 7), the UK (n = 5), and the US (n = 4). We used three hypothetical cases to explore decision-making. Conversations were transcribed and thematically analyzed.

Results: Our data reveals similarities but also marked differences in views between the US, the UK and Japan. Almost all participants stated that they ought to respect patient autonomy. However, their approaches varied. British participants wanted to (and felt that they should) respect patient autonomy, but they also believed that TIV was not a realistic option. US participants were likely to prioritize patient autonomy over other ethical principles, and Japanese participants were likely to limit patient autonomy indirectly. The option of TIV appeared to be heavily influenced by the availability of healthcare resources in all three countries. The high cost, limited availability and difficulty of treatment meant that particularly in the UK and the US, it is challenging to receive TIV even if patients wanted this.

Conclusions: Our study illustrates how the emphasis on autonomy varies along with variations in the way care is organized in the setting of highly resource intensive treatment and progressive severe disabling illness. There is a need to review elements of the decision-making process in all three countries. This includes the need for transparent, ideally centralized, decision-making guidelines about the provision of TIV. Although we investigated a rare neuromuscular disease, our results will be relevant to other diseases requiring highly resource-intensive treatment toward the end of life.

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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
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