8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Integrating patient perspectives in medical decision-making: a qualitative interview study examining potentials within the rare disease information exchange process in practice

      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

          Background

          Many European countries have recently implemented national rare disease plans. Although the network is strengthening, especially on the macro and meso levels, patients still go a long way through healthcare systems, with many health professionals involved and scarce evidence to gather. Specifically, patient involvement in the form of shared decision-making can offer further potential to increase healthcare systems’ efficiency on a micro level. Therefore, we examine the implementation of the shared decision-making concept thus far, and explore whether efficiency potentials exist—which are particularly relevant within the rare disease field—and how they can be triggered.

          Methods

          Our empirical evidence comes from 101 interviews conducted from March to September 2014 in Germany; 55 patients, 13 family members, and 33 health professionals participated in a qualitative interview study. Transcripts were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis.

          Results

          The interviews indicate that the decision-making process is increasingly relevant in practice. In comparison, however, the shared decision-making agreement itself was rarely reported. A majority of interactions are dominated by individual, informed decision-making, followed by paternalistic approaches. The patient-physician relationship was characterized by a distorted trust-building process, which is affected by not only dependencies due to the diseases’ severity and chronic course, but an often-reported stigmatization of patients as stimulants. Moreover, participation was high due to a pronounced engagement of those affected, diminishing as patients’ strength vanish during their odyssey through health care systems. The particular roles of “expert patients” or “lay experts” in the rare disease field were revealed, with further potential in integrating the gathered information.

          Conclusions

          The study reveals the named efficiency potentials, which are unique for rare diseases and make the further integration of shared decision-making very attractive, facilitating diagnostics and disease management. It is noteworthy that integrating shared decision-making in the rare disease field does not only require strengthening the position of patients but also that of physicians. Efforts can be made to further integrate the concept within political frameworks to trigger the identified potential and assess the health-economic impact.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

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

          Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.

          We have no clear overview of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in the decision-making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Living with a rare disorder: a systematic review of the qualitative literature

            Abstract Background Individuals with rare diseases may face challenges that are different from those experienced in more common medical conditions. A wide range of different rare conditions has resulted in a myriad of studies investigating the specificities of the diagnosis in focus. The shared psychological experiences of individuals with a rare condition, however, have not been reviewed systematically. Methods We performed a systematic review, including qualitative studies on adults, published between 2000 and 2016. Papers including more than one rare genetic or nongenetic diagnosis were included. Studies based on single diagnoses were excluded except for four specific conditions: hemophilia (bleeding disorder), phenylketonuria (metabolic disorder), Fabry disease (lysosomal storage disorder), and epidermolysis bullosa (skin disorder). Results The review identified 21 studies. Findings were synthesized and categorized according to three main themes: (1) Consequences of living with a rare disorder, (2) Social aspects of living with a rare disorder, and (3) Experiences with the health care system. Findings point to several unique challenges, such as the psychological, medical, and social consequences of a lack of knowledge about the condition in health care and social settings. Conclusion The findings highlight the need for more research on the shared psychological and social impact of living with a rare diagnosis across conditions, in order to identify risk factors and inform clinical practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study

              Background In recent years, interventions and health policy programmes have been established to promote patient empowerment, with a particular focus on patients affected by long-term conditions. However, a clear definition of patient empowerment is lacking, making it difficult to assess effectiveness of interventions designed to promote it. The aim in this study was to develop a conceptual map of patient empowerment, including components of patient empowerment and relationships with other constructs such as health literacy, self-management and shared decision-making. Methods A mixed methods study was conducted comprising (i) a scoping literature review to identify and map the components underpinning published definitions of patient empowerment (ii) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (patients, patient representatives, health managers and health service researchers) to further develop the conceptual map. Data were analysed using qualitative methods. A combination of thematic and framework analysis was used to integrate and map themes underpinning published definitions of patient empowerment with the views of key UK stakeholders. Results The scoping literature review identified 67 articles that included a definition of patient empowerment. A range of diverse definitions of patient empowerment was extracted. Thematic analysis identified key underpinning themes, and these themes were used to develop an initial coding framework for analysis of interview data. 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. Transcripts were analysed using the initial coding framework, and findings were used to further develop the conceptual map. The resulting conceptual map describes that patient empowerment can be conceived as a state ranging across a spectrum from low to high levels of patient empowerment, with the level of patient empowerment potentially measurable using a set of indicators. Five key components of the conceptual map were identified: underpinning ethos, moderators, interventions, indicators and outcomes. Relationships with other constructs such as health literacy, self-management and shared decision-making are illustrated in the conceptual map. Conclusion A novel conceptual map of patient empowerment grounded in published definitions of patient empowerment and qualitative interviews with UK stakeholders is described, that may be useful to healthcare providers and researchers designing, implementing and evaluating interventions to promote patient empowerment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0907-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ab@cherh.de
                Journal
                BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
                BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
                BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6947
                18 September 2019
                18 September 2019
                2019
                : 19
                : 188
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0001 2163 2777, GRID grid.9122.8, Center of Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Leibniz Universität Hanover, ; Hanover, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0210-5370
                Article
                911
                10.1186/s12911-019-0911-z
                6751820
                31533712
                953aaf91-612a-4819-ad2d-0a5cfba2036e
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 24 July 2018
                : 9 September 2019
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Bioinformatics & Computational biology
                shared decision-making,rare diseases,expert patient,patient preferences,patient centered care,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article