Literature DB >> 24760711

Medical expertise and patient involvement: a multiperspective qualitative observation study of the patient's role in oncological decision making.

Sabine Salloch1, Peter Ritter2, Sebastian Wäscher2, Jochen Vollmann2, Jan Schildmann2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Decision making in oncology poses intricate ethical questions because treatment decisions should account not only for evidence-based standards but also for the patient's individual values and preferences. However, there is a scarcity of empirical knowledge about patient involvement in oncological decision making.
METHODS: Direct, nonparticipant observation was used as a qualitative research method to gain an understanding of the interplay between medical expertise and patient participation in oncological decision making. Based on a multiperspective approach, observations were performed in three settings (tumor conference, ward round, and outpatient clinic) in the oncology department of a German university hospital. The observation transcripts were analyzed using central features of qualitative data analysis.
RESULTS: Major differences were identified regarding the decision-making processes in the three settings related to the patient's presence or absence. When the patient was absent, his or her wishes were cited only irregularly; however, patients actively advanced their wishes when present. Preselection of treatments by physicians was observed, narrowing the scope of options that were finally discussed with the patient. Dealing with decisions about risky treatments was especially regarded as part of the physician's professional expertise.
CONCLUSION: The study reveals aspects of decision making for cancer patients that have been underexposed in the empirical and theoretical literature so far. Among these are the relevance of structural aspects for the decisions made and the practice of preselection of treatment options. It should be further discussed how far medical expertise reaches and whether therapeutic decisions can be made without consulting the patient. ©AlphaMed Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; Observation; Patient participation; Qualitative research

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24760711      PMCID: PMC4041665          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  23 in total

Review 1.  Four models of the physician-patient relationship.

Authors:  E J Emanuel; L L Emanuel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992 Apr 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango).

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  The fieldworker as watcher and witness.

Authors:  C Bosk
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 2.683

4.  Identifying transitions in terminal illness trajectories: a critical factor in hospital-based palliative care.

Authors:  Karen Marie Dalgaard; Georg Thorsell; Charlotte Delmar
Journal:  Int J Palliat Nurs       Date:  2010-02

Review 5.  An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters.

Authors:  Gregory Makoul; Marla L Clayman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2005-07-26

Review 6.  Patients' preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review.

Authors:  Rebecca Say; Madeleine Murtagh; Richard Thomson
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2006-02

7.  Spiritual needs of Taiwan's older patients with terminal cancer.

Authors:  Fu-Jin Shih; Hung-Ru Lin; Meei-Ling Gau; Ching-Huey Chen; Szu-Mei Hsiao; Shaw-Nin Shih; Shuh-Jen Sheu
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.172

8.  Mental health, treatment preferences, advance care planning, location, and quality of death in advanced cancer patients with dependent children.

Authors:  Matthew E Nilsson; Paul K Maciejewski; Baohui Zhang; Alexi A Wright; Elizabeth D Trice; Anna C Muriel; Robert J Friedlander; Karen M Fasciano; Susan D Block; Holly G Prigerson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Use of chemotherapy at end of life in oncology patients.

Authors:  S Kao; J Shafiq; J Vardy; D Adams
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-05-25       Impact factor: 32.976

10.  Understanding palliative cancer chemotherapy: about shared decisions and shared trajectories.

Authors:  Susanne J de Kort; Jeannette Pols; Dick J Richel; Nelleke Koedoot; Dick L Willems
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2009-05-06
View more
  9 in total

1.  "My choice": breast cancer patients recollect doctors fertility preservation recommendations.

Authors:  Efrat Dagan; Suzi Modiano-Gattegno; Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-02-25       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Care for a Patient With Cancer As a Project: Management of Complex Task Interdependence in Cancer Care Delivery.

Authors:  Julia R Trosman; Ruth C Carlos; Melissa A Simon; Debra L Madden; William J Gradishar; Al B Benson; Bruce D Rapkin; Elisa S Weiss; Ilana F Gareen; Lynne I Wagner; Seema A Khan; Mikele M Bunce; Art Small; Christine B Weldon
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.840

3.  The normative background of empirical-ethical research: first steps towards a transparent and reasoned approach in the selection of an ethical theory.

Authors:  Sabine Salloch; Sebastian Wäscher; Jochen Vollmann; Jan Schildmann
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 2.652

4.  Elicitation of preferences in the second half of the shared decision making process needs attention; a qualitative study.

Authors:  W Savelberg; M Smidt; L J Boersma; T van der Weijden
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Explaining professionalism in moral reasoning: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Farahnaz Kamali; Alireza Yousefy; Nikoo Yamani
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2019-06-26

6.  Patient participation in multidisciplinary tumour conferences in breast cancer care (PINTU): a mixed-methods study protocol.

Authors:  Christian Heuser; Annika Diekmann; Nicole Ernstmann; Lena Ansmann
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences from the Providers' Perspective: Is It Feasible in Routine Cancer Care?

Authors:  Christian Heuser; Annika Diekmann; Barbara Schellenberger; Barbara Bohmeier; Walther Kuhn; Ute Karbach; Nicole Ernstmann; Lena Ansmann
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2020-11-27

8.  Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review.

Authors:  Janneke E W Walraven; Olga L van der Hel; J J M van der Hoeven; Valery E P P Lemmens; Rob H A Verhoeven; Ingrid M E Desar
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 2.908

9.  Patients' experiences of the decision-making process for clinical trial participation.

Authors:  Trine A Gregersen; Regner Birkelund; Maiken Wolderslund; Karina Dahl Steffensen; Jette Ammentorp
Journal:  Nurs Health Sci       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 2.214

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.