住院患者参与患者安全行为:定性研究的决策类型。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2025-09-13 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S538389
Chunni Wang, Haoning Shi, Xingyao Du, Ying Peng, Mingzhao Xiao, Qinghua Zhao, Huanhuan Huang
{"title":"住院患者参与患者安全行为:定性研究的决策类型。","authors":"Chunni Wang, Haoning Shi, Xingyao Du, Ying Peng, Mingzhao Xiao, Qinghua Zhao, Huanhuan Huang","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S538389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient participation in safety behaviors has been recognized as a critical component of reducing medical errors and improving healthcare outcomes in hospitalized settings. However, there is currently a lack of research to understand the decision-making processes that drive these behaviors.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to identify and construct the different types of decision-making personas adopted by inpatients when thinking about participating in patient safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Chongqing from October to December 2024. Inpatients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected via purposive sampling, and semi-structured interviews were performed to explore their motivation, willingness, decision-making factors, decision-making balance, and effect evaluation during their participation in patient safety decision-making. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi's seven-step method, facilitating the process from raw data to factual labeling and ultimately to the construction of personas dimensions. Patient characteristics were extracted and personas were constructed by artificial intelligence (AI), with the visualization of these personas achieved through a combination of character images and labels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study developed four distinct personas that reflect the decision-making types of inpatients' participation in patient safety, with the personas classifications as follows: self-driven decision-makers, passive collaborators, resource-limited decision avoiders, and self-assertive decision-makers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diversity of patients' decision-making types necessitates targeted interventions, such as shared decision-making tools, simplified communication, community support provision, and trust reconstruction. Future research should also include longitudinal studies and cross-cultural validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"18 ","pages":"3029-3039"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inpatient Participation in Patient Safety Behaviors: Decision-Making Typologies from a Qualitative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Chunni Wang, Haoning Shi, Xingyao Du, Ying Peng, Mingzhao Xiao, Qinghua Zhao, Huanhuan Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/RMHP.S538389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient participation in safety behaviors has been recognized as a critical component of reducing medical errors and improving healthcare outcomes in hospitalized settings. However, there is currently a lack of research to understand the decision-making processes that drive these behaviors.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to identify and construct the different types of decision-making personas adopted by inpatients when thinking about participating in patient safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Chongqing from October to December 2024. Inpatients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected via purposive sampling, and semi-structured interviews were performed to explore their motivation, willingness, decision-making factors, decision-making balance, and effect evaluation during their participation in patient safety decision-making. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi's seven-step method, facilitating the process from raw data to factual labeling and ultimately to the construction of personas dimensions. Patient characteristics were extracted and personas were constructed by artificial intelligence (AI), with the visualization of these personas achieved through a combination of character images and labels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study developed four distinct personas that reflect the decision-making types of inpatients' participation in patient safety, with the personas classifications as follows: self-driven decision-makers, passive collaborators, resource-limited decision avoiders, and self-assertive decision-makers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diversity of patients' decision-making types necessitates targeted interventions, such as shared decision-making tools, simplified communication, community support provision, and trust reconstruction. Future research should also include longitudinal studies and cross-cultural validation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56009,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"3029-3039\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444088/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S538389\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S538389","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:患者参与安全行为已被认为是减少医疗差错和改善住院医疗结果的关键组成部分。然而,目前缺乏研究来理解驱动这些行为的决策过程。目的:本研究旨在识别和建构住院患者在考虑参与患者安全时所采用的不同类型的决策角色。方法:2024年10 - 12月在重庆市某三级医院进行定性现象学研究。采用有目的抽样的方法,选取符合纳入标准和排除标准的住院患者,采用半结构化访谈法探讨其参与患者安全决策的动机、意愿、决策因素、决策平衡和效果评价。数据分析使用Colaizzi的七步法,促进了从原始数据到事实标签,最终到人物角色维度构建的过程。通过人工智能(AI)提取患者特征并构建人物角色,并通过角色图像和标签的组合实现这些人物角色的可视化。结果:本研究发展出四种不同的住院患者参与患者安全决策类型的人物角色,其分类为:自我驱动型决策者、被动合作者、资源有限型决策回避者和自我自信型决策者。结论:患者决策类型的多样性需要有针对性的干预措施,如共享决策工具、简化沟通、提供社区支持和重建信任。未来的研究还应包括纵向研究和跨文化验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Inpatient Participation in Patient Safety Behaviors: Decision-Making Typologies from a Qualitative Study.

Inpatient Participation in Patient Safety Behaviors: Decision-Making Typologies from a Qualitative Study.

Background: Patient participation in safety behaviors has been recognized as a critical component of reducing medical errors and improving healthcare outcomes in hospitalized settings. However, there is currently a lack of research to understand the decision-making processes that drive these behaviors.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify and construct the different types of decision-making personas adopted by inpatients when thinking about participating in patient safety.

Methods: A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Chongqing from October to December 2024. Inpatients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected via purposive sampling, and semi-structured interviews were performed to explore their motivation, willingness, decision-making factors, decision-making balance, and effect evaluation during their participation in patient safety decision-making. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi's seven-step method, facilitating the process from raw data to factual labeling and ultimately to the construction of personas dimensions. Patient characteristics were extracted and personas were constructed by artificial intelligence (AI), with the visualization of these personas achieved through a combination of character images and labels.

Results: This study developed four distinct personas that reflect the decision-making types of inpatients' participation in patient safety, with the personas classifications as follows: self-driven decision-makers, passive collaborators, resource-limited decision avoiders, and self-assertive decision-makers.

Conclusion: The diversity of patients' decision-making types necessitates targeted interventions, such as shared decision-making tools, simplified communication, community support provision, and trust reconstruction. Future research should also include longitudinal studies and cross-cultural validation.

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
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Public and community health Policy and law Preventative and predictive healthcare Risk and hazard management Epidemiology, detection and screening Lifestyle and diet modification Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs Health and safety and occupational health Healthcare services provision Health literacy and education Advertising and promotion of health issues Health economic evaluations and resource management Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
×
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