Suppr超能文献

迪拜医生对共同决策的看法:一项横断面研究。

Physicians' perspective on shared decision-making in Dubai: a cross-sectional study.

机构信息

Department of Health Management and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.

College of Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, P.O. Box 505055, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

出版信息

Hum Resour Health. 2020 May 7;18(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12960-020-00475-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an integral part of patient-centered delivery of care. Maximizing the opportunity of patients to participate in decisions related to their health is an expectation in care delivery nowadays. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of physicians in regard to SDM in a large private hospital network in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

METHODS

This study utilized a cross-sectional design, where a survey questionnaire was assembled to capture quantitative and qualitative data on the perception of physicians in relation to SDM. The survey instrument included three sections: the first solicited physicians' personal and professional information, the second entailed a 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), and the third included an open-ended section. Statistical analysis assessed whether the average SDM-Q-9 score differed significantly by gender, age, years of experience, professional status-generalist versus specialist, and work location-hospitals versus polyclinics. Non-parametric analysis (two independent variables) with the Mann-Whitney test was utilized. The qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty physicians from various specialties participated in this study (25 of each gender-85% response rate). Although the quantitative data analysis revealed that most physicians (80%) rated themselves quite highly when it comes to SDM, qualitative analysis underscored a number of barriers that limited the opportunity for SDM. Analysis identified four themes that influence the acceptability of SDM, namely physician-specific (where the physicians' extent of adopting SDM is related to their own belief system and their perception that the presence of evidence negates the need for SDM), patient-related (e.g., patients' unwillingness to be involved in decisions concerning their health), contextual/environmental (e.g., sociocultural impediments), and relational (the information asymmetry and the power gradient that influence how the physician and patient relate to one another).

CONCLUSIONS

SDM and evidence-based management (EBM) are not mutually exclusive. Professional learning and development programs targeting caregivers should focus on the consolidation of the two perspectives. We encourage healthcare managers and leaders to translate declared policies into actionable initiatives supporting patient-centered care. This could be achieved through the dedication of the necessary resources that would enable SDM, and the development of interventions that are designed both to improve health literacy and to educate patients on their rights.

摘要

背景

共同决策(SDM)是患者为中心的医疗服务的一个组成部分。最大限度地让患者有机会参与与他们的健康相关的决策,这是当今医疗服务的期望。本研究的目的是探讨在阿拉伯联合酋长国迪拜的一家大型私立医院网络中,医生对 SDM 的看法。

方法

本研究采用横断面设计,编制了一份调查问卷,以获取关于医生对 SDM 的看法的定量和定性数据。调查工具包括三个部分:第一部分征求医生的个人和专业信息,第二部分包括 9 项 SDM 问卷(SDM-Q-9),第三部分包括一个开放式部分。统计分析评估了平均 SDM-Q-9 得分是否因性别、年龄、经验年限、专业身份(全科医生与专科医生)以及工作地点(医院与诊所)而有显著差异。采用非参数分析(两个独立变量)和 Mann-Whitney 检验。对定性数据进行主题分析。

结果

来自不同专业的 50 名医生参与了这项研究(男女各 25 名,回应率为 85%)。尽管定量数据分析显示,大多数医生(80%)在 SDM 方面自我评价很高,但定性分析强调了一些限制 SDM 机会的障碍。分析确定了影响 SDM 可接受性的四个主题,即医生特定的(医生采用 SDM 的程度与他们自己的信仰体系以及他们认为证据的存在否定了 SDM 的必要性有关)、患者相关的(例如,患者不愿意参与与他们的健康相关的决策)、上下文/环境相关的(例如,社会文化障碍)和关系相关的(信息不对称和权力梯度,影响医生和患者彼此之间的关系)。

结论

SDM 和循证管理(EBM)并非相互排斥。针对护理人员的专业学习和发展计划应侧重于巩固这两个观点。我们鼓励医疗保健管理人员和领导者将宣布的政策转化为支持以患者为中心的医疗服务的可操作举措。这可以通过投入必要的资源来实现,这些资源将使 SDM 成为可能,并制定旨在提高健康素养和教育患者权利的干预措施。

相似文献

1
Physicians' perspective on shared decision-making in Dubai: a cross-sectional study.
Hum Resour Health. 2020 May 7;18(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12960-020-00475-x.
2
Patients' and physicians' gender and perspective on shared decision-making: A cross-sectional study from Dubai.
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 1;17(9):e0270700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270700. eCollection 2022.
5
Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire--physician version (SDM-Q-Doc).
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug;88(2):284-90. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 Apr 3.
10
A skills network approach to physicians' competence in shared decision making.
Health Expect. 2020 Dec;23(6):1466-1476. doi: 10.1111/hex.13130. Epub 2020 Sep 1.

引用本文的文献

4
Using Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Approach to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making in Osteoarthritis Management: A Patient Perception Study.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2025 Feb;77(2):240-250. doi: 10.1002/acr.25429. Epub 2024 Oct 17.
5
Current Status of Shared Decision-Making in Intraocular Lens Selection for Cataract Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024 Jun 24;18:1311-1321. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S468452. eCollection 2024.
6
Barriers and Stimulus in Shared Decision Making Among Aesthetic Dermatologists in China: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study.
Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2024 May 20;17:1153-1164. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S457802. eCollection 2024.
9
Patient-centered care in the Middle East and North African region: a systematic literature review.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Feb 9;23(1):135. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09132-0.
10
Patients' and physicians' gender and perspective on shared decision-making: A cross-sectional study from Dubai.
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 1;17(9):e0270700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270700. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: A systematic review.
Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Sep;98(9):1046-57. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.004. Epub 2015 May 23.
3
Measuring shared decision making: a review of constructs, measures, and opportunities for cardiovascular care.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Jul;7(4):620-6. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000350. Epub 2014 May 27.
5
Barriers to patient-centered care: a thematic analysis study.
Int J Nurs Knowl. 2014 Feb;25(1):2-8. doi: 10.1111/2047-3095.12012. Epub 2013 Nov 13.
6
Primary care: proposed solutions to the physician shortage without training more physicians.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Nov;32(11):1881-6. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0234.
7
Patient-centered approaches to health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Dec;70(6):567-96. doi: 10.1177/1077558713496318. Epub 2013 Jul 26.
8
Shared decision making and other variables as correlates of satisfaction with health care decisions in a United States national survey.
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jul;88(1):100-5. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.02.010. Epub 2012 Mar 11.
9
Patient and cardiologist perceptions on decision making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a qualitative study.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011 Dec;34(12):1634-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03237.x. Epub 2011 Oct 5.
10
Theoretical versus pragmatic design in qualitative research.
Nurse Res. 2011;18(2):39-51. doi: 10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.39.c8283.

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