评估能力的审慎方法:评估和评估那些接近接受支持性临终关怀的患者的福祉变化

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Philip Kinghorn, A. Canaway, Cara Bailey, H. Al-Janabi, J. Coast
{"title":"评估能力的审慎方法:评估和评估那些接近接受支持性临终关怀的患者的福祉变化","authors":"Philip Kinghorn, A. Canaway, Cara Bailey, H. Al-Janabi, J. Coast","doi":"10.1080/19452829.2021.2008885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Aim: Explore the use of deliberative valuation to elicit relative weights for a set of capabilities identified as being important and relevant to those close to patients receiving supportive care at the end of life. Methods: Focus groups, involving the general UK population (n = 38) and policy-makers (n = 29) with experience of, and influence on, priorities for end of life care. Public participants completed two valuation tasks (budget pie and visual analogue scale (VAS)) individually, discussed their responses, and then recorded a final (individual) response. Policy-makers completed the VAS tasks in a separate series of focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of participants’ responses are reported. Results: Individual values were aggregated to form relative weights for the capabilities. Capabilities given greatest weighting were “good communication between care providers and close persons” and “practical support for close persons”. The quantitative impact of deliberation on weights overall was negligible, but qualitative findings indicated that disclosure of personal experiences did appear to prompt others to consider issues from new perspectives. Discussion: Deliberative valuation was found to be a potentially feasible method for generating weights. However, further consideration needs to be given as to how to optimise recruitment whilst ensuring that participants actively engage with the task.","PeriodicalId":46538,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities","volume":"23 1","pages":"455 - 476"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Deliberative Approach to Valuing Capabilities: Assessing and Valuing Changes in the Well-Being of those Close to Patients Receiving Supportive End of Life Care\",\"authors\":\"Philip Kinghorn, A. Canaway, Cara Bailey, H. Al-Janabi, J. Coast\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19452829.2021.2008885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Aim: Explore the use of deliberative valuation to elicit relative weights for a set of capabilities identified as being important and relevant to those close to patients receiving supportive care at the end of life. Methods: Focus groups, involving the general UK population (n = 38) and policy-makers (n = 29) with experience of, and influence on, priorities for end of life care. Public participants completed two valuation tasks (budget pie and visual analogue scale (VAS)) individually, discussed their responses, and then recorded a final (individual) response. Policy-makers completed the VAS tasks in a separate series of focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of participants’ responses are reported. Results: Individual values were aggregated to form relative weights for the capabilities. Capabilities given greatest weighting were “good communication between care providers and close persons” and “practical support for close persons”. The quantitative impact of deliberation on weights overall was negligible, but qualitative findings indicated that disclosure of personal experiences did appear to prompt others to consider issues from new perspectives. Discussion: Deliberative valuation was found to be a potentially feasible method for generating weights. However, further consideration needs to be given as to how to optimise recruitment whilst ensuring that participants actively engage with the task.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46538,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"455 - 476\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2021.2008885\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2021.2008885","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要目的:探索使用审慎评估来获得一组能力的相对权重,这些能力被认为是重要的,并且与那些在生命结束时接受支持性护理的患者关系密切。方法:焦点小组,包括英国普通人群(n = 38)和决策者(n = 29)具有临终关怀优先事项的经验和影响。公众参与者分别完成了两项评估任务(预算饼图和视觉模拟量表(VAS)),讨论了他们的回答,然后记录了最终(个人)回答。政策制定者在一系列单独的重点小组中完成了VAS任务。报告了对参与者反应的定量和定性分析。结果:个体值被聚合以形成能力的相对权重。被赋予最大权重的能力是“护理提供者和亲近者之间的良好沟通”和“对亲近者的实际支持”。审议对权重的量化影响总体上可以忽略不计,但定性调查结果表明,披露个人经历似乎确实促使其他人从新的角度考虑问题。讨论:深思熟虑的估价被发现是一种潜在的可行方法来产生权重。然而,需要进一步考虑如何优化招聘,同时确保参与者积极参与任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Deliberative Approach to Valuing Capabilities: Assessing and Valuing Changes in the Well-Being of those Close to Patients Receiving Supportive End of Life Care
ABSTRACT Aim: Explore the use of deliberative valuation to elicit relative weights for a set of capabilities identified as being important and relevant to those close to patients receiving supportive care at the end of life. Methods: Focus groups, involving the general UK population (n = 38) and policy-makers (n = 29) with experience of, and influence on, priorities for end of life care. Public participants completed two valuation tasks (budget pie and visual analogue scale (VAS)) individually, discussed their responses, and then recorded a final (individual) response. Policy-makers completed the VAS tasks in a separate series of focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of participants’ responses are reported. Results: Individual values were aggregated to form relative weights for the capabilities. Capabilities given greatest weighting were “good communication between care providers and close persons” and “practical support for close persons”. The quantitative impact of deliberation on weights overall was negligible, but qualitative findings indicated that disclosure of personal experiences did appear to prompt others to consider issues from new perspectives. Discussion: Deliberative valuation was found to be a potentially feasible method for generating weights. However, further consideration needs to be given as to how to optimise recruitment whilst ensuring that participants actively engage with the task.
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
6.70%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development is the peer-reviewed journal of the Human Development and Capabilities Association. It was launched in January 2000 to promote new perspectives on challenges of human development, capability expansion, poverty eradication, social justice and human rights. The Journal aims to stimulate innovative development thinking that is based on the premise that development is fundamentally about improving the well-being and agency of people, by expanding the choices and opportunities they have. Accordingly, the Journal recognizes that development is about more than just economic growth and development policy is more than just economic policy: it cuts across economic, social, political and environmental issues. The Journal publishes original work in philosophy, economics, and other social sciences that expand concepts, measurement tools and policy alternatives for human development. It provides a forum for an open exchange of ideas among a broad spectrum of academics, policy makers and development practitioners who are interested in confronting the challenges of human development at global, national and local levels.
×
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