Cargando…

Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey

BACKGROUND: Patient participation in clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been marked as an important issue. There seems to be a wide variety of practices globally, but extensive theoretical or empirical studies on the matter are missing. Scarce publications indicate that, in Europe, patient...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eijkholt, Marleen, de Snoo-Trimp, Janine, Ligtenberg, Wieke, Molewijk, Bert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9219170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35733137
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00801-z
_version_ 1784732053929984000
author Eijkholt, Marleen
de Snoo-Trimp, Janine
Ligtenberg, Wieke
Molewijk, Bert
author_facet Eijkholt, Marleen
de Snoo-Trimp, Janine
Ligtenberg, Wieke
Molewijk, Bert
author_sort Eijkholt, Marleen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient participation in clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been marked as an important issue. There seems to be a wide variety of practices globally, but extensive theoretical or empirical studies on the matter are missing. Scarce publications indicate that, in Europe, patient participation in CESS (fused and abbreviated hereafter as: PP) varies from region to region, and per type of support. Practices vary from being non-existent, to patients being a full conversation partner. This contrasts with North America, where PP seems more or less standard. While PP seems to be on the rise in Europe, there is no data to confirm this. This study sought a deep understanding of both habits and the attitudes towards PP in the Netherlands, including respondents’ practical and normative perspectives on the matter. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a national survey on PP for Dutch CESS staff. Our survey comprised a total of 25 open and close-ended questions, focused on four topics related to PP (1) goals of CESS, (2) status quo of PP, (3) ideas and ideals concerning PP, and (4) obstacles for PP. DISCUSSION: The four most important findings were that: (1) Patient participation in Dutch CESS is far from standard. (2) Views on patient participation are very much intertwined with the goals of ethics support. (3) Hesitations, fears and perceived obstacles for PP were not on principle and (4) Most respondents see PP as a positive opportunity, yet requiring additional training, practical guidance and experience. CONCLUSIONS: Various normative reasons require PP. However, PP seems far from standard and somewhat rare in Dutch CESS settings. Our respondents did not raise many principled objections to PP. Instead, reasons for the lack of PP are intertwined with viewpoints on the goals of CESS, which seemingly focus on supporting health care professionals (HCPs). Training and practical guidance was thought to be helpful for gaining experience for both CESS staff and HCPs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9219170
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92191702022-06-24 Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey Eijkholt, Marleen de Snoo-Trimp, Janine Ligtenberg, Wieke Molewijk, Bert BMC Med Ethics Research BACKGROUND: Patient participation in clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been marked as an important issue. There seems to be a wide variety of practices globally, but extensive theoretical or empirical studies on the matter are missing. Scarce publications indicate that, in Europe, patient participation in CESS (fused and abbreviated hereafter as: PP) varies from region to region, and per type of support. Practices vary from being non-existent, to patients being a full conversation partner. This contrasts with North America, where PP seems more or less standard. While PP seems to be on the rise in Europe, there is no data to confirm this. This study sought a deep understanding of both habits and the attitudes towards PP in the Netherlands, including respondents’ practical and normative perspectives on the matter. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a national survey on PP for Dutch CESS staff. Our survey comprised a total of 25 open and close-ended questions, focused on four topics related to PP (1) goals of CESS, (2) status quo of PP, (3) ideas and ideals concerning PP, and (4) obstacles for PP. DISCUSSION: The four most important findings were that: (1) Patient participation in Dutch CESS is far from standard. (2) Views on patient participation are very much intertwined with the goals of ethics support. (3) Hesitations, fears and perceived obstacles for PP were not on principle and (4) Most respondents see PP as a positive opportunity, yet requiring additional training, practical guidance and experience. CONCLUSIONS: Various normative reasons require PP. However, PP seems far from standard and somewhat rare in Dutch CESS settings. Our respondents did not raise many principled objections to PP. Instead, reasons for the lack of PP are intertwined with viewpoints on the goals of CESS, which seemingly focus on supporting health care professionals (HCPs). Training and practical guidance was thought to be helpful for gaining experience for both CESS staff and HCPs. BioMed Central 2022-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9219170/ /pubmed/35733137 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00801-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Eijkholt, Marleen
de Snoo-Trimp, Janine
Ligtenberg, Wieke
Molewijk, Bert
Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey
title Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey
title_full Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey
title_fullStr Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey
title_full_unstemmed Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey
title_short Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey
title_sort patient participation in dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9219170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35733137
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00801-z
work_keys_str_mv AT eijkholtmarleen patientparticipationindutchethicssupportpracticeidealschallengesandrecommendationsanationalsurvey
AT desnootrimpjanine patientparticipationindutchethicssupportpracticeidealschallengesandrecommendationsanationalsurvey
AT ligtenbergwieke patientparticipationindutchethicssupportpracticeidealschallengesandrecommendationsanationalsurvey
AT molewijkbert patientparticipationindutchethicssupportpracticeidealschallengesandrecommendationsanationalsurvey