Objectives: To explore how people with chronic kidney disease who are pre-dialysis, family members and healthcare professionals together navigate common shared decision-making processes and to assess how this impacts future treatment choice.

Design: Coproductive qualitative study, underpinned by the Making Good Decisions in Collaboration shared decision-model. Semistructured interviews with a purposive sample from February 2019 - January 2020. Interview data were analysed using framework analysis. Coproduction of logic models/roadmaps and recommendations.

Setting: Five Welsh kidney services.

Participants: 95 participants (37 patients, 19 family members and 39 professionals); 44 people supported coproduction (18 patients, 8 family members and 18 professionals).

Findings: Shared decision-making was too generic and clinically focused and had little impact on people getting onto home dialysis. Preferences of where, when and how to implement shared decision-making varied widely. Apathy experienced by patients, caused by lack of symptoms, denial, social circumstances and health systems issues made future treatment discussions difficult. Families had unmet and unrecognised needs, which significantly influenced patient decisions. Protocols containing treatment hierarchies and standards were understood by professionals but not translated for patients and families. Variation in dialysis treatment was discussed to match individual lifestyles. Patients and professionals were, however, defaulting to the perceived simplest option. It was easy for patients to opt for hospital-based treatments by listing important but easily modifiable factors.

Conclusions: Shared decision-making processes need to be individually tailored with more attention on patients who could choose a home therapy but select a different option. There are critical points in the decision-making process where changes could benefit patients. Patients need to be better educated and their preconceived ideas and misconceptions gently challenged. Healthcare professionals need to update their knowledge in order to provide the best advice and guidance. There needs to be more awareness of the costs and benefits of the various treatment options when making decisions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8634024PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053937DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

shared decision-making
20
family members
12
patients
9
qualitative study
8
healthcare professionals
8
decision-making processes
8
future treatment
8
patients family
8
shared
6
decision-making
6

Similar Publications

Objective: The objective of this study is to analyse the perspectives of screening candidates and healthcare professionals on shared decision-making (SDM) in prostate cancer (PCa) screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.

Design: Descriptive qualitative study (May-December 2022): six face-to-face focus groups and four semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using ATLAS.ti software.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia, linked with a significantly heightened risk of stroke. While moderate exercise reduces AF risk, high-level endurance athletes paradoxically exhibit a higher incidence. However, their stroke risk remains uncertain due to their younger age, higher cardiovascular fitness, and lower rate of comorbidities.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Rich data on diverse patients and their treatments and outcomes within Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems can be used to generate real world evidence. A health recommender system (HRS) framework can be applied to a decision support system application to generate data summaries for similar patients during the clinical encounter to assist physicians and patients in making evidence-based shared treatment decisions.

Objective: A human-centered design (HCD) process was used to develop a HRS for treatment decision support in orthopaedic medicine, the Informatics Consult for Individualized Treatment (I-C-IT).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The direct and indirect financial burden of cancer care, from medication costs to lost wages, results in financial toxicity for patients. Despite the growing recognition of financial toxicity as a problem for patients, there are few solutions available at the point of care. Structured cost conversations between oncologists and patients to help identify financial toxicity and intervene early when it is recognized have been posited as a patient facing intervention.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!