5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Potential impact of encounter patient decision aids on the patient–clinician dialogue: a qualitative study on Dutch and American medical specialists’ experiences

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To examine the experiences among Dutch and American clinicians on the impact of using encounter patient decision aids (ePDAs) on their clinical practice, and subsequently to formulate recommendations for sustained ePDA use in clinical practice.

          Design

          Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clinicians who used 11 different ePDAs (applicable to their specialty) for 3 months after a short training. The verbatim transcribed interviews were coded with thematic analysis by six researchers via ATLAS.ti.

          Setting

          Nine hospitals in the Netherlands and two hospitals in the USA.

          Participants

          Twenty-five clinicians were interviewed: 16 Dutch medical specialists from four different disciplines (gynaecologists, ear-nose-throat specialists, neurologists and orthopaedic surgeon), 5 American gynaecologists and 4 American gynaecology medical trainees.

          Results

          The interviews showed that the ePDA potentially impacted the patient–clinician dialogue in several ways. We identified six themes that illustrate this: that is, (1) communication style, for example, structuring the conversation; (2) the patient’s role, for example, encouraging patients to ask more questions; (3) the clinician’s role, for example, prompting clinicians to discuss more information; (4) workflow, for example, familiarity with the ePDA’s content helped to integrate it into practice; (5) shared decision-making (SDM), for example, mixed experiences whether the ePDA contributed to SDM; and (6) content of the ePDA. Recommendations to possibly improve ePDA use based on the clinician’s experiences: (1) add pictorial health information to the ePDA instead of text only and (2) instruct clinicians how to use the ePDA in a flexible (depending on their discipline and setting) and personalised way adapting the ePDA to the patients’ needs (e.g., mark off irrelevant options).

          Conclusions

          ePDAs contributed to the patient–clinician dialogue in several ways according to medical specialists. A flexible and personalised approach appeared appropriate to integrate the use of ePDAs into the clinician’s workflow, and customise their use to individual patients’ needs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

              Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                1 February 2022
                : 12
                : 2
                : e048146
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of IQ healthcare , Radboudumc , Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Knowledge Institute of the Dutch Association of Medical Specialists , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Radboudumc , Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [4 ]The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice , Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Ester A. Rake; ester.rake@ 123456radboudumc.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2262-3818
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5039-3370
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0917-6286
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-048146
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048146
                8808398
                35105563
                0e99914c-4ead-4b09-92b0-b8f96fcbcd03
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 December 2020
                : 15 January 2022
                Categories
                Communication
                1506
                1684
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                qualitative research,medical education & training,gynaecology,neurology,orthopaedic & trauma surgery,otolaryngology

                Comments

                Comment on this article