Department of Public and Occupational Health and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Quality of Care, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience and Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, Rehabilitation & Development, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Health Expect. 2024 Oct;27(5):e70009. doi: 10.1111/hex.70009.
This study aimed to investigate how shared decision-making (SDM) and the use of different types of outcome information are applied in routine care management for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) in an academic outpatient clinic.
This qualitative study used the following: (a) observations of clinical encounters (N = 23) between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), (b) interviews with those patients (N = 17) and (c) interviews with those HCPs (N = 7). HCPs were not trained in SDM before the study. Audio recordings were transcribed literally. Transcriptions were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.
Outcome information was hardly discussed with patients, apart from clinical outcome information at an individual level, such as MRI or lab results. This use of clinical outcome information did not automatically lead to a process of SDM. HCPs tended to implicitly present choices to patients after signalling and discussing 'problems'. In the interviews, patients indicated that they tended to consent to the advice given by HCPs and to prefer not too much change in treatment plans. However, they also emphasized the importance of being informed about available options with benefits and harms. We observed multiple discussions about patients' preferences, especially related to patients' experiences and priorities.
Overall, SDM and the use of different types of outcome information did not seem to be enacted in routine care management for people with MS, mostly because choices were not explicitly mentioned or discussed. However, discussions about patients' experiences and priorities did take place. Training HCPs further and developing patient information seem reasonable steps to proceed.
People with MS contributed as research participants and provided us with their experiences in interviews. Furthermore, representatives of two patient organizations contributed to the study by reviewing the interview protocol for people with MS.
本研究旨在探讨在学术门诊环境下,临床医生如何在多发性硬化症(MS)常规护理管理中应用共享决策(SDM)和使用不同类型的结局信息。
本定性研究采用了以下方法:(a)观察患者和医疗保健专业人员(HCP)之间的临床就诊(N=23),(b)对这些患者(N=17)进行访谈,以及(c)对这些 HCP(N=7)进行访谈。HCP 在研究前未接受过 SDM 培训。音频记录被逐字转录。使用定性主题分析对转录进行分析。
除了个体层面的临床结局信息(如 MRI 或实验室结果)外,很少与患者讨论结局信息。这种临床结局信息的使用并不自动导致 SDM 过程。HCP 倾向于在发出信号并讨论“问题”后,向患者暗示选择。在访谈中,患者表示,他们倾向于同意 HCP 提供的建议,并希望治疗计划不要有太大变化。然而,他们也强调了了解可用选项及其获益和危害的重要性。我们观察到多次讨论患者的偏好,特别是与患者的经历和优先事项有关。
总体而言,SDM 和不同类型结局信息的使用在多发性硬化症患者的常规护理管理中似乎并未实施,主要是因为选择并未明确提及或讨论。然而,确实进行了有关患者经历和优先事项的讨论。进一步培训 HCP 并开发患者信息似乎是合理的步骤。
多发性硬化症患者作为研究参与者,在访谈中提供了他们的经历。此外,两个患者组织的代表通过审查多发性硬化症患者的访谈方案,为该研究做出了贡献。