女性SUI的共同决策(SDM):三个西方国家的实践。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Nienke J E Osse, Karine Gontijo-Santos Lima, Marian K Engberts, Hugo W F van Eijndhoven, Wenche M Klerkx, Michiel R de Boer, Philippe D Violette, Laura N Nguyen, Rufus Cartwright, Marco H Blanker, Paul L P Brand
{"title":"女性SUI的共同决策(SDM):三个西方国家的实践。","authors":"Nienke J E Osse, Karine Gontijo-Santos Lima, Marian K Engberts, Hugo W F van Eijndhoven, Wenche M Klerkx, Michiel R de Boer, Philippe D Violette, Laura N Nguyen, Rufus Cartwright, Marco H Blanker, Paul L P Brand","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06147-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Different decision-making styles can be used to provide counselling for the multiple reasonable treatment options for patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Shared decision-making (SDM) is currently advocated as the preferred style for preference sensitive decisions, as SDM takes patient preferences into account. This study aimed to map the current decision-making process for SUI in three Western countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included 124 patients and 18 physicians in a multicentre, prospective study in five hospitals in Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. We used patient and physician versions of the Control Preference Scale (CPS) questionnaires and examined audio-recordings of consultations with the OPTION-5 instrument to assess the degree of SDM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most patients (63%) perceived the decision-making as informative, some (29%) as shared and only a few (8%) as paternalistic. Dutch patients more often perceived the decision-making as informative than UK or Canadian patients. Patients' preferred and perceived decision-making styles matched in 70% of consultations. Patients' and physicians' perceptions of decision-making were the same in 60% of consultations, but their perceptions of SDM use did not match. This also did not match the OPTION-5 scores reflecting the use of SDM. Almost all patients were satisfied with the decision-making they perceived.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most patients and physicians prefer and perceive the current decision-making process as informative decision-making. However, patients and physicians have different perceptions of their mutual consultation. This highlights the imprecise concept of SDM for both patients and physicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shared Decision-Making (SDM) for Female SUI: Current Practice in Three Western Countries.\",\"authors\":\"Nienke J E Osse, Karine Gontijo-Santos Lima, Marian K Engberts, Hugo W F van Eijndhoven, Wenche M Klerkx, Michiel R de Boer, Philippe D Violette, Laura N Nguyen, Rufus Cartwright, Marco H Blanker, Paul L P Brand\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00192-025-06147-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Different decision-making styles can be used to provide counselling for the multiple reasonable treatment options for patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Shared decision-making (SDM) is currently advocated as the preferred style for preference sensitive decisions, as SDM takes patient preferences into account. This study aimed to map the current decision-making process for SUI in three Western countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included 124 patients and 18 physicians in a multicentre, prospective study in five hospitals in Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. We used patient and physician versions of the Control Preference Scale (CPS) questionnaires and examined audio-recordings of consultations with the OPTION-5 instrument to assess the degree of SDM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most patients (63%) perceived the decision-making as informative, some (29%) as shared and only a few (8%) as paternalistic. Dutch patients more often perceived the decision-making as informative than UK or Canadian patients. Patients' preferred and perceived decision-making styles matched in 70% of consultations. Patients' and physicians' perceptions of decision-making were the same in 60% of consultations, but their perceptions of SDM use did not match. This also did not match the OPTION-5 scores reflecting the use of SDM. Almost all patients were satisfied with the decision-making they perceived.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most patients and physicians prefer and perceive the current decision-making process as informative decision-making. However, patients and physicians have different perceptions of their mutual consultation. This highlights the imprecise concept of SDM for both patients and physicians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Urogynecology Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Urogynecology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06147-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06147-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:不同的决策方式可为压力性尿失禁(SUI)患者提供多种合理治疗方案的咨询。共享决策(SDM)目前被提倡作为偏好敏感决策的首选方式,因为SDM考虑了患者的偏好。本研究旨在绘制三个西方国家SUI的当前决策过程。方法:我们在加拿大、英国和荷兰的5家医院进行了一项多中心前瞻性研究,纳入124名患者和18名医生。我们使用患者和医生版本的控制偏好量表(CPS)问卷,并使用OPTION-5工具检查咨询录音,以评估SDM的程度。结果:大多数患者(63%)认为决策是有益的,一些(29%)认为是共享的,只有少数(8%)认为是家长式的。与英国或加拿大的患者相比,荷兰患者更经常认为决策是有益的。在70%的咨询中,患者的首选决策风格和感知决策风格相匹配。在60%的咨询中,患者和医生对决策的看法是相同的,但他们对SDM使用的看法并不匹配。这也与反映SDM使用情况的OPTION-5分数不匹配。几乎所有的患者都对他们所感知到的决策感到满意。结论:大多数患者和医生更喜欢并认为当前的决策过程是信息决策。然而,患者和医生对他们的相互咨询有不同的看法。这突出了SDM对患者和医生的不精确概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shared Decision-Making (SDM) for Female SUI: Current Practice in Three Western Countries.

Introduction: Different decision-making styles can be used to provide counselling for the multiple reasonable treatment options for patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Shared decision-making (SDM) is currently advocated as the preferred style for preference sensitive decisions, as SDM takes patient preferences into account. This study aimed to map the current decision-making process for SUI in three Western countries.

Methods: We included 124 patients and 18 physicians in a multicentre, prospective study in five hospitals in Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. We used patient and physician versions of the Control Preference Scale (CPS) questionnaires and examined audio-recordings of consultations with the OPTION-5 instrument to assess the degree of SDM.

Results: Most patients (63%) perceived the decision-making as informative, some (29%) as shared and only a few (8%) as paternalistic. Dutch patients more often perceived the decision-making as informative than UK or Canadian patients. Patients' preferred and perceived decision-making styles matched in 70% of consultations. Patients' and physicians' perceptions of decision-making were the same in 60% of consultations, but their perceptions of SDM use did not match. This also did not match the OPTION-5 scores reflecting the use of SDM. Almost all patients were satisfied with the decision-making they perceived.

Conclusion: Most patients and physicians prefer and perceive the current decision-making process as informative decision-making. However, patients and physicians have different perceptions of their mutual consultation. This highlights the imprecise concept of SDM for both patients and physicians.

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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
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