Pickles Kristen, Carter Stacy M, Rychetnik Lucie, McCaffery Kirsten, Entwistle Vikki A
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 23;8(1):e018009. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018009.
(1) To characterise variation in general practitioners' (GPs') accounts of communicating with men about prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (2) to characterise GPs' reasons for communicating as they do and (3) to explain why and under what conditions GP communication approaches vary.
A grounded theory study. We interviewed 69 GPs consulting in primary care practices in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29).
GPs explained their communication practices in relation to their primary goals. In Australia, three different communication goals were reported: to encourage asymptomatic men to either have a PSA test, or not test, or alternatively, to support men to make their own decision. As well as having different primary goals, GPs aimed to provide different information (from comprehensive to strongly filtered) and to support men to develop different kinds of understanding, from population-level to 'gist' understanding. Taking into account these three dimensions (goals, information, understanding) and building on Entwistle s Consider an Offer framework, we derived four overarching approaches to communication: , , , and . We also describe ways in which situational and relational factors influenced GPs' preferred communication approach.
GPs' reported approach to communicating about prostate cancer screening varies according to three dimensions-their primary goal, information provision preference and understanding sought-and in response to specific practice situations. If GP communication about PSA screening is to become more standardised in Australia, it is likely that each of these dimensions will require attention in policy and practice support interventions.
(1)描述全科医生(GP)在使用前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)检测与男性沟通前列腺癌筛查时的差异,(2)描述全科医生如此沟通的原因,(3)解释全科医生沟通方式为何以及在何种情况下会有所不同。
一项扎根理论研究。我们采访了在澳大利亚(n = 40)和英国(n = 29)基层医疗诊所咨询的69名全科医生。
全科医生根据其主要目标解释了他们的沟通做法。在澳大利亚,报告了三种不同的沟通目标:鼓励无症状男性进行PSA检测,或不进行检测,或者支持男性自行做决定。除了有不同的主要目标外,全科医生旨在提供不同的信息(从全面到经过严格筛选),并支持男性形成不同类型的理解,从人群层面的理解到“要点”理解。考虑到这三个维度(目标、信息、理解)并基于恩特威斯尔的“考虑提议”框架,我们得出了四种总体沟通方式: , , 和 。我们还描述了情境和关系因素影响全科医生偏好的沟通方式的方式。
全科医生报告的关于前列腺癌筛查的沟通方式因三个维度而异——他们的主要目标、信息提供偏好和寻求的理解——并因应特定的实践情况。如果澳大利亚全科医生关于PSA筛查的沟通要变得更加标准化,那么在政策和实践支持干预中可能需要关注这些维度中的每一个。