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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |