Suppr超能文献

一种用于探究患者对信息及参与决策的偏好的工具的评估与伦理审查。

Evaluation and ethical review of a tool to explore patient preferences for information and involvement in decision making.

作者信息

Murtagh F E M, Thorns A

机构信息

Department of Palliative Care and Policy, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ, UK.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2006 Jun;32(6):311-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.012484.

Abstract

AIM

To improve clinical and ethical understanding of patient preferences for information and involvement in decision making.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and evaluate a clinical tool to elicit these preferences and to consider the ethical issues raised.

DESIGN

A before and after study.

SETTING

Three UK hospices.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with advanced life-threatening illnesses and their doctors.

INTERVENTION

Questionnaire on information and decision-making preferences.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient-based outcome measures were satisfaction with the amount of information given, with the way information was given, with family or carer information, and confidence about future decision making. Doctor-based outcome measures were confidence in matching information to patient preference, matching family or carer communication to patient preference, knowing patient preferences and matching future decision making with patient preference.

RESULTS

Of 336 admissions, 101 patients (mean age 67.3 years, 47.5% men) completed the study (control, n = 40; intervention, n = 61). Patient satisfaction with the way information was given (chi2 = 6.38, df = 2, p = 0.041) and family communication (chi2 = 14.65, df = 2, p < 0.001) improved after introduction of the tool. Doctor confidence improved across all outcome measures (all p values < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction and doctor confidence were improved by administering the questionnaire, but complex ethical issues were raised by implementing and applying this research. The balance of ethical considerations were changed by advanced life-threatening illness, because there is increased risk of harm through delivery of information discordant with the patient's own preferences. The importance of truly understanding patient preferences towards the end of life is highlighted by this study.

摘要

目的

提高对患者信息偏好及参与决策的临床和伦理理解。

目标

开发并评估一种临床工具以引出这些偏好,并考虑由此引发的伦理问题。

设计

前后对照研究。

地点

英国的三家临终关怀医院。

参与者

患有晚期危及生命疾病的患者及其医生。

干预措施

关于信息和决策偏好的问卷。

主要结局指标

基于患者的结局指标包括对所提供信息量的满意度、对信息提供方式的满意度、对家属或护理人员信息的满意度以及对未来决策的信心。基于医生的结局指标包括将信息与患者偏好相匹配的信心、将家属或护理人员沟通与患者偏好相匹配的信心、了解患者偏好以及使未来决策与患者偏好相匹配。

结果

在336例入院患者中,101例患者(平均年龄67.3岁,47.5%为男性)完成了研究(对照组,n = 40;干预组,n = 61)。引入该工具后,患者对信息提供方式的满意度(χ² = 6.38,自由度 = 2,p = 0.041)和家属沟通的满意度(χ² = 14.65,自由度 = 2,p < 0.001)有所提高。医生在所有结局指标上的信心均有所提高(所有p值 < 0.001)。

结论

通过发放问卷提高了患者满意度和医生信心,但实施和应用这项研究引发了复杂的伦理问题。晚期危及生命的疾病改变了伦理考量的平衡,因为提供与患者自身偏好不符的信息会增加伤害风险。这项研究凸显了在生命末期真正理解患者偏好的重要性。

相似文献

3
Preferences of acutely ill patients for participation in medical decision-making.
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Apr;17(2):97-100. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.021378.
5
Veterans' decision-making preferences and perceived involvement in care for chronic heart failure.
Heart Lung. 2008 Nov-Dec;37(6):440-8. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2008.02.003. Epub 2008 Sep 30.
8
Patient preferences regarding spine surgical decision making.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Nov 15;31(24):2857-60; discussion 2861-2. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000245840.42669.f1.
9
Preferences for medical collaboration: patient-physician congruence and patient outcomes.
Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Jun;57(3):308-14. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.08.006.

引用本文的文献

1
In Defence of Causing Patients to Worry: Ethical Issues in the Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty.
Bioethics. 2025 Sep;39(7):700-708. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13436. Epub 2025 Jun 11.
4
Patient preferences in geriatric wards, a survey of health care professionals' practice, experience and attitudes.
Eur Geriatr Med. 2024 Feb;15(1):153-158. doi: 10.1007/s41999-023-00922-7. Epub 2024 Jan 29.
5
Oncologists' Communication About Uncertain Information in Second Opinion Consultations: A Focused Qualitative Analysis.
Front Psychol. 2021 May 31;12:635422. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635422. eCollection 2021.
10
Governance mechanisms in the physician-patient relationship: a literature review and conceptual framework.
Health Expect. 2013 Mar;16(1):14-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00807.x. Epub 2012 Aug 10.

本文引用的文献

1
Decision support: helping patients and families to find a balance at the end of life.
Int J Palliat Nurs. 2004 Jun;10(6):270-7. doi: 10.12968/ijpn.2004.10.6.13268.
2
The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors.
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):542-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.542.
3
Using satisfaction to measure the quality of palliative care: a review of the literature.
J Adv Nurs. 2003 May;42(4):324-39. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02624.x.
4
Consent with understanding: a movement towards informed decisions.
Clin Med (Lond). 2002 Nov-Dec;2(6):523-6. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.2-6-523.
5
Communication in end-of-life cancer care: a comparison of team assessments in three European countries.
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Sep 1;20(17):3674-82. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.11.008.
6
End-of-life care for older adults in ICUs.
Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2002;20:181-229.
7
Disclosure preferences about terminal illness: an examination of decision-related factors.
Death Stud. 2002 Jan;26(1):1-20. doi: 10.1080/07481180210144.
8
Preferences for care near the end of life: scale development and validation.
Res Nurs Health. 2001 Aug;24(4):298-306. doi: 10.1002/nur.1031.
9
No news is not good news: information preferences of patients with cancer.
Psychooncology. 1995 Oct;4(3):197-202. doi: 10.1002/pon.2960040305.
10
Palliative care research.
Eur J Cancer. 2001 Oct;37 Suppl 8:S153-9. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00260-x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验