Literature DB >> 26141698

Exploring patient involvement in decision making for vascular procedures.

Matthew A Corriere1, Jennifer A Avise2, Laura A Peterson2, Jeanette M Stafford3, Douglas Easterling4, Derrick S Boone5, Edward Ip4, Adam S Hyde5, Gregory L Burke2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Developing patient-centered approaches to health care requires increased engagement of patients in their own care, including treatment decisions. Current levels of patient involvement in treatment choices have not been quantified, however, and whether patients desire greater decision-making responsibility is unknown. We conducted a prospective study to explore patients' desired vs experienced roles in treatment decisions, characterize perceptions of treatment outcomes, and identify important sources of information.
METHODS: Patients undergoing elective vascular procedures completed a survey consisting of multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. Statistics are displayed as mean ± standard deviation or count (%). Differences among procedure categories were evaluated using χ(2) or the Fisher exact test at P < .05 based on responses scored 1 to 2, indicating importance, agreement, or satisfaction based on a 1 to 5 Likert scale where 1 = "very important," "strongly agree" or "very satisfied".
RESULTS: Of 101 patients who were contacted, 81 participated. Procedure categories included abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in 20, arteriovenous (AV) hemodialysis access in 21, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in 20, and intervention for lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in 20. Participants preferred discussion of all treatments being considered vs only the provider's recommended treatment (90% vs 56%) and choosing together with the provider vs having the provider choose for them (93% vs 62%). Although participants indicated adequate information to ask questions without feeling overwhelmed, only 77% agreed that they had the opportunity to ask questions and only 54% indicated that they were offered a choice. Thirty-seven participants (46%) considered their first treatment was successful, 38% considered a subsequent treatment was successful, and 16% considered none of their treatments were successful. Participants undergoing PAD and AV access procedures most often felt confused or overwhelmed (25% and 24%, respectively, vs 0% for AAA and CEA; P < .01). Patients with PAD had adequate information least often (70% vs 85% for AAA, 100% for AV access, and 95% for CEA; P = .01), had the lowest satisfaction with understanding of their diagnosis (65% vs 95% for AAA, 100% for AV access, and 95% for CEA; P < .01), and most often considered none of their treatments successful (35% vs 0% for AAA, 15% for AV access, and 15% for CEA; P = .02). Providers were identified as the most important information source.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients have variable levels of participation in decision making related to vascular procedures and often consider their treatments unsuccessful. Although providers are important sources of information, patients still prefer to discuss all options being considered and contribute to shared decision making.
Copyright © 2015 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26141698     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.04.443

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  5 in total

1.  Patient Perceptions Correlate Weakly With Observed Patient Involvement in Decision-making in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Authors:  Kevin Mertz; Sara Eppler; Jeffrey Yao; Derek F Amanatullah; Loretta Chou; Kirkham B Wood; Marc Safran; Robert Steffner; Michael Gardner; Robin Kamal
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient experiences of central venous access devices in anti-cancer treatment.

Authors:  Caoimhe Ryan; Hannah Hesselgreaves; Olivia Wu; Jim Paul; Judith Dixon-Hughes; Jonathan G Moss
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2018-04-18

3.  Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Caoimhe Ryan; Hannah Hesselgreaves; Olivia Wu; Jonathan Moss; James Paul; Judith Dixon-Hughes; Evi Germeni
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Patient Perceived Involvement in Their Treatment is Influenced by Factors Other Than Independently Rated Clinician Communication Effectiveness.

Authors:  Luke X van Rossenberg; David Ring; Xander Jacobs; George Sulkers; Mark van Heijl; Bastiaan T van Hoorn
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2021-12-08

Review 5.  Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences.

Authors:  Laura A Shinkunas; Caleb J Klipowicz; Erica M Carlisle
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 2.796

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.