Cargando…

How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hahlweg, Pola, Härter, Martin, Nestoriuc, Yvonne, Scholl, Isabelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5623495/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28963286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016360
_version_ 1783268100821483520
author Hahlweg, Pola
Härter, Martin
Nestoriuc, Yvonne
Scholl, Isabelle
author_facet Hahlweg, Pola
Härter, Martin
Nestoriuc, Yvonne
Scholl, Isabelle
author_sort Hahlweg, Pola
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of current decision-making processes beyond the dyadic physician–patient interaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative study using participant observation with semistructured field notes, which were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Field notes from participant observations were collected at n=54 outpatient consultations and during two 1-week-long observations at two inpatient wards in different clinics of one comprehensive cancer centre in Germany. RESULTS: Most of the time, either one physician alone or a group of physicians made the treatment decisions. Patients were seldom actively involved. Patients who were ‘active’ (ie, asked questions, demanded participation, opposed treatment recommendations) facilitated shared decision-making. Time pressure, frequent alternation of responsible physicians and poor coordination of care were the main observed barriers for shared decision-making. We found high variation in decision-making behaviour between different physicians as well as the same physician with different patients. CONCLUSION: Most of the time physicians made the treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was very rarely implemented in current routine cancer care. The entire decision-making process was not observed to follow the principles of shared decision-making. However, some aspects of shared decision-making were occasionally incorporated. Individual as well as organisational factors were found to influence the degree of shared decision-making. If future routine cancer care wishes to follow the principles of shared decision-making, strategies are needed to foster shared decision-making in routine cancer care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5623495
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56234952017-10-10 How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice Hahlweg, Pola Härter, Martin Nestoriuc, Yvonne Scholl, Isabelle BMJ Open Patient-Centred Medicine OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of current decision-making processes beyond the dyadic physician–patient interaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative study using participant observation with semistructured field notes, which were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Field notes from participant observations were collected at n=54 outpatient consultations and during two 1-week-long observations at two inpatient wards in different clinics of one comprehensive cancer centre in Germany. RESULTS: Most of the time, either one physician alone or a group of physicians made the treatment decisions. Patients were seldom actively involved. Patients who were ‘active’ (ie, asked questions, demanded participation, opposed treatment recommendations) facilitated shared decision-making. Time pressure, frequent alternation of responsible physicians and poor coordination of care were the main observed barriers for shared decision-making. We found high variation in decision-making behaviour between different physicians as well as the same physician with different patients. CONCLUSION: Most of the time physicians made the treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was very rarely implemented in current routine cancer care. The entire decision-making process was not observed to follow the principles of shared decision-making. However, some aspects of shared decision-making were occasionally incorporated. Individual as well as organisational factors were found to influence the degree of shared decision-making. If future routine cancer care wishes to follow the principles of shared decision-making, strategies are needed to foster shared decision-making in routine cancer care. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5623495/ /pubmed/28963286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016360 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Patient-Centred Medicine
Hahlweg, Pola
Härter, Martin
Nestoriuc, Yvonne
Scholl, Isabelle
How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice
title How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice
title_full How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice
title_fullStr How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice
title_full_unstemmed How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice
title_short How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice
title_sort how are decisions made in cancer care? a qualitative study using participant observation of current practice
topic Patient-Centred Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5623495/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28963286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016360
work_keys_str_mv AT hahlwegpola howaredecisionsmadeincancercareaqualitativestudyusingparticipantobservationofcurrentpractice
AT hartermartin howaredecisionsmadeincancercareaqualitativestudyusingparticipantobservationofcurrentpractice
AT nestoriucyvonne howaredecisionsmadeincancercareaqualitativestudyusingparticipantobservationofcurrentpractice
AT schollisabelle howaredecisionsmadeincancercareaqualitativestudyusingparticipantobservationofcurrentpractice