探讨患者决策辅助工具的价值厘清与健康素养设计:一项质性访谈研究。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Julie Ayre, Hazel Jenkins, Richie Kumarage, Kirsten J McCaffery, Christopher G Maher, Mark J Hancock
{"title":"探讨患者决策辅助工具的价值厘清与健康素养设计:一项质性访谈研究。","authors":"Julie Ayre, Hazel Jenkins, Richie Kumarage, Kirsten J McCaffery, Christopher G Maher, Mark J Hancock","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251334356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThis study explores patient and clinician perceptions of a patient decision aid, focusing on 2 features that are often absent: a health-literate approach (e.g., using plain language, encouraging question asking) and a tool that explicitly shows how treatment options align with patient values. The aim was to gather qualitative feedback from patients and clinicians to better understand how such features might be useful in guiding future decision aid development.MethodsWe present a secondary analysis of data collected during the development of a decision aid for patients considering surgery for sciatica (20 patients with sciatica or low-back pain; 20 clinicians). Patient and clinician feedback on the design was collected via semi-structured interviews with a think-aloud protocol. Transcripts were analyzed using framework analysis.ResultsTheme 1 explored designs that reinforced key messages about personal autonomy, including an interactive values-clarification tool. Theme 2 explored how participants valued encouragement and scaffolding to ask questions. Theme 3 described how patients preferred information they felt was complete, balanced, and understandable.LimitationsFurther experimental and observational research is needed to quantitatively evaluate these decision aid features including evaluation among patients with and without low health literacy.ConclusionsA health-literate approach to decision aid design and embedding an interactive values-clarification tool may be useful strategies for increasing patient capacity to engage in key aspects of shared decision making. These features may support patients in developing an understanding of personal autonomy in the choice at hand and confidence to ask questions.ImplicationsFindings presented here were specific to the clinical context but provide generalizable practical insights for decision aid developers. This study provides insight into potential future areas of research for decision aid design.HighlightsThis qualitative study explored clinician and patient perceptions of health literacy features and an interactive values-clarification task within a decision aid for patients considering surgery for sciatica.The first theme described how patients and clinicians appreciated sections of the decision aid that reinforced the importance of personal choice. Patients and clinicians thought the interactive values-clarification task would help patients reflect on their values and support shared decision-making discussions.The second theme described how patients and clinicians appreciated strategies to encourage patients to ask questions of the surgeon.The third theme described patients' preference for information that they felt was complete, balanced, and understandable.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X251334356"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Values Clarification and Health-Literate Design in Patient Decision Aids: A Qualitative Interview Study.\",\"authors\":\"Julie Ayre, Hazel Jenkins, Richie Kumarage, Kirsten J McCaffery, Christopher G Maher, Mark J Hancock\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X251334356\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundThis study explores patient and clinician perceptions of a patient decision aid, focusing on 2 features that are often absent: a health-literate approach (e.g., using plain language, encouraging question asking) and a tool that explicitly shows how treatment options align with patient values. The aim was to gather qualitative feedback from patients and clinicians to better understand how such features might be useful in guiding future decision aid development.MethodsWe present a secondary analysis of data collected during the development of a decision aid for patients considering surgery for sciatica (20 patients with sciatica or low-back pain; 20 clinicians). Patient and clinician feedback on the design was collected via semi-structured interviews with a think-aloud protocol. Transcripts were analyzed using framework analysis.ResultsTheme 1 explored designs that reinforced key messages about personal autonomy, including an interactive values-clarification tool. Theme 2 explored how participants valued encouragement and scaffolding to ask questions. Theme 3 described how patients preferred information they felt was complete, balanced, and understandable.LimitationsFurther experimental and observational research is needed to quantitatively evaluate these decision aid features including evaluation among patients with and without low health literacy.ConclusionsA health-literate approach to decision aid design and embedding an interactive values-clarification tool may be useful strategies for increasing patient capacity to engage in key aspects of shared decision making. These features may support patients in developing an understanding of personal autonomy in the choice at hand and confidence to ask questions.ImplicationsFindings presented here were specific to the clinical context but provide generalizable practical insights for decision aid developers. This study provides insight into potential future areas of research for decision aid design.HighlightsThis qualitative study explored clinician and patient perceptions of health literacy features and an interactive values-clarification task within a decision aid for patients considering surgery for sciatica.The first theme described how patients and clinicians appreciated sections of the decision aid that reinforced the importance of personal choice. Patients and clinicians thought the interactive values-clarification task would help patients reflect on their values and support shared decision-making discussions.The second theme described how patients and clinicians appreciated strategies to encourage patients to ask questions of the surgeon.The third theme described patients' preference for information that they felt was complete, balanced, and understandable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"272989X251334356\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251334356\",\"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":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251334356","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

本研究探讨了患者和临床医生对患者决策辅助工具的看法,重点关注经常缺失的两个特征:健康素养方法(例如,使用简单的语言,鼓励提问)和明确显示治疗方案如何符合患者价值观的工具。目的是收集患者和临床医生的定性反馈,以更好地了解这些特征如何在指导未来决策辅助开发方面有用。方法:我们对考虑手术治疗坐骨神经痛患者决策辅助工具的开发过程中收集的数据进行了二次分析(20例患有坐骨神经痛或腰痛;20临床医生)。患者和临床医生对设计的反馈是通过半结构化访谈收集的。使用框架分析分析转录本。主题1探讨了强化个人自主关键信息的设计,包括一个交互式价值澄清工具。主题2探讨了参与者如何重视鼓励和提问框架。主题3描述了患者如何选择他们认为完整、平衡和可理解的信息。需要进一步的实验和观察研究来定量评估这些辅助决策的特征,包括对健康素养低和不低的患者的评估。结论健康素养的决策辅助设计方法和嵌入交互式价值澄清工具可能是提高患者参与共同决策关键方面能力的有用策略。这些特征可以帮助患者发展对个人自主选择的理解,并有信心提出问题。本文的研究结果是针对临床背景的,但为决策辅助开发人员提供了可推广的实用见解。这项研究为决策辅助设计的潜在未来研究领域提供了见解。本定性研究探讨了临床医生和患者对健康素养特征的看法,并在考虑坐骨神经痛手术的患者决策辅助中进行了交互式价值澄清任务。第一个主题描述了患者和临床医生如何欣赏决策援助中强调个人选择重要性的部分。患者和临床医生认为,互动价值观澄清任务将帮助患者反思他们的价值观,并支持共同决策讨论。第二个主题描述了患者和临床医生如何欣赏鼓励患者向外科医生提问的策略。第三个主题描述了患者对他们认为完整、平衡和可理解的信息的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Values Clarification and Health-Literate Design in Patient Decision Aids: A Qualitative Interview Study.

BackgroundThis study explores patient and clinician perceptions of a patient decision aid, focusing on 2 features that are often absent: a health-literate approach (e.g., using plain language, encouraging question asking) and a tool that explicitly shows how treatment options align with patient values. The aim was to gather qualitative feedback from patients and clinicians to better understand how such features might be useful in guiding future decision aid development.MethodsWe present a secondary analysis of data collected during the development of a decision aid for patients considering surgery for sciatica (20 patients with sciatica or low-back pain; 20 clinicians). Patient and clinician feedback on the design was collected via semi-structured interviews with a think-aloud protocol. Transcripts were analyzed using framework analysis.ResultsTheme 1 explored designs that reinforced key messages about personal autonomy, including an interactive values-clarification tool. Theme 2 explored how participants valued encouragement and scaffolding to ask questions. Theme 3 described how patients preferred information they felt was complete, balanced, and understandable.LimitationsFurther experimental and observational research is needed to quantitatively evaluate these decision aid features including evaluation among patients with and without low health literacy.ConclusionsA health-literate approach to decision aid design and embedding an interactive values-clarification tool may be useful strategies for increasing patient capacity to engage in key aspects of shared decision making. These features may support patients in developing an understanding of personal autonomy in the choice at hand and confidence to ask questions.ImplicationsFindings presented here were specific to the clinical context but provide generalizable practical insights for decision aid developers. This study provides insight into potential future areas of research for decision aid design.HighlightsThis qualitative study explored clinician and patient perceptions of health literacy features and an interactive values-clarification task within a decision aid for patients considering surgery for sciatica.The first theme described how patients and clinicians appreciated sections of the decision aid that reinforced the importance of personal choice. Patients and clinicians thought the interactive values-clarification task would help patients reflect on their values and support shared decision-making discussions.The second theme described how patients and clinicians appreciated strategies to encourage patients to ask questions of the surgeon.The third theme described patients' preference for information that they felt was complete, balanced, and understandable.

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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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