Suppr超能文献

挪威标准化癌症患者路径中的共同决策——患者体验的叙述。

Shared decision-making in standardized cancer patient pathways in Norway-Narratives of patient experiences.

机构信息

Department of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.

Department of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2021 Oct;24(5):1780-1789. doi: 10.1111/hex.13317. Epub 2021 Jul 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cancer patient pathways (CPPs) were implemented in Norway in 2015-2017 to advance cancer diagnostics and treatment initiation. The aim of CPPs is to ensure standardized waiting times, but also to strengthen patient participation and shared decision-making. This study investigates how patients enrolled in a CPP experienced shared decision-making.

METHODS

This study comprised of 19 individual semistructured interviews with patients who had been enrolled in a CPP at three hospitals in Norway. Twelve patients had breast cancer, four patients had prostate cancer and three patients had malignant melanoma. We analyzed their experiences using a narrative approach.

FINDINGS

This study showed how participating in a standardized CPP provided different possibilities for shared decision-making. The patients' narratives of shared decision-making in CPPs included stories from the three cancer diagnoses through the following themes: (1) The predictable safeness of standardizations, (2) the ambivalence of making decisions and (3) opposing standardizations and pushing for action.

CONCLUSION

Standardized CPPs provided patients with predictability and safety. Shared decision-making was possible when the cancer diagnoses supported preference-sensitive treatment options. Balancing standardizations with individualized care is necessary to facilitate patient participation in CPPs, and the possibility of shared decision-making needs to be discussed for each specific CPP.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A service user representative from the Norwegian Cancer Society participated in designing this study.

摘要

背景

癌症患者路径(CPP)于 2015-2017 年在挪威实施,旨在推进癌症诊断和治疗启动。CPP 的目的是确保标准化的等待时间,但也要加强患者参与和共同决策。本研究调查了参加 CPP 的患者如何体验共同决策。

方法

本研究包括对挪威三家医院的 19 名参加 CPP 的患者进行的 19 次单独半结构化访谈。12 名患者患有乳腺癌,4 名患者患有前列腺癌,3 名患者患有恶性黑色素瘤。我们使用叙事方法分析了他们的经验。

结果

本研究展示了参与标准化 CPP 为共同决策提供了不同的可能性。CPP 中患者的共同决策叙述包括通过以下主题从三种癌症诊断中得出的故事:(1)标准化的可预测安全性,(2)决策的矛盾心理,(3)反对标准化和推动行动。

结论

标准化的 CPP 为患者提供了可预测性和安全性。当癌症诊断支持偏好敏感的治疗方案时,共同决策是可能的。需要平衡标准化与个体化护理,以促进患者参与 CPP,并且需要为每个特定的 CPP 讨论共同决策的可能性。

患者或公众的贡献

挪威癌症协会的一名服务用户代表参与了这项研究的设计。

相似文献

1
Shared decision-making in standardized cancer patient pathways in Norway-Narratives of patient experiences.
Health Expect. 2021 Oct;24(5):1780-1789. doi: 10.1111/hex.13317. Epub 2021 Jul 21.
4
Lost in the loop - a qualitative study on patient experiences of care in standardized cancer patient pathways.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Dec 7;23(1):1371. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10364-3.
6
The impact of shared decision making on time consumption and clinical decisions. A prospective cohort study.
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Jul;104(7):1560-1567. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.12.014. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
7
8
How shared is decision-making in multidisciplinary tumour conferences with patient participation? An observational study.
Health Expect. 2022 Dec;25(6):3297-3306. doi: 10.1111/hex.13638. Epub 2022 Oct 31.

引用本文的文献

4
Effect of cancer waiting time standards in the English National Health Service: a threshold analysis.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Aug 14;24(1):929. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11350-z.
5
Lost in the loop - a qualitative study on patient experiences of care in standardized cancer patient pathways.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Dec 7;23(1):1371. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10364-3.
7
Mapping Choice of Healthcare Institutes for Cancer Care: A Study in Northeast India.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2023 Oct 1;24(10):3569-3575. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2023.24.10.3569.
8
Deconstructing (e)health literacy: aspects that promote and inhibit understanding of health information in breast cancer patient pathways.
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2022 Dec;17(1):2137961. doi: 10.1080/17482631.2022.2137961.

本文引用的文献

5
Patient-Centered Care, Yes; Patients As Consumers, No.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Mar;38(3):368-373. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05019.
6
Surgical breast cancer patient pathway: Experiences of patients and relatives and their unmet needs.
Health Expect. 2019 Apr;22(2):262-272. doi: 10.1111/hex.12869. Epub 2019 Jan 12.
7
Patient involvement and institutional logics: A discussion paper.
Nurs Philos. 2019 Apr;20(2):e12234. doi: 10.1111/nup.12234. Epub 2018 Dec 27.
8
Characterizing Approaches to Dialysis Decision Making with Older Adults: A Qualitative Study of Nephrologists.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018 Aug 7;13(8):1188-1196. doi: 10.2215/CJN.01740218. Epub 2018 Jul 26.
9
Evaluating the Concept of Choice in Healthcare.
Malays J Med Sci. 2017 Dec;24(6):92-96. doi: 10.21315/mjms2017.24.6.11. Epub 2017 Dec 29.
10
Patient and physician views of shared decision making in cancer.
Health Expect. 2017 Dec;20(6):1248-1253. doi: 10.1111/hex.12564. Epub 2017 May 2.

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