The role of shared decision-making in enhancing patient experience: Insights from a cohort of curative head and neck cancer patients

IF 2.5 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Radiography Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.radi.2024.07.020
{"title":"The role of shared decision-making in enhancing patient experience: Insights from a cohort of curative head and neck cancer patients","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2024.07.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Shared decision-making (SDM) is on the NHS policy agenda, and the preferred model for preference-sensitive decisions. This study establishes baseline patient-perceived SDM in a radical head and neck cohort, and explores patients’ views on SDM in a large, specialist trust.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An SDM questionnaire was distributed to all radical head and neck radiotherapy patients (N = 165), June–December 2023. This combined a well-validated instrument for measuring SDM from the patient perspective, SDM-Q-9, with additional questions exploring patient views. Thematic analysis was used to construct and interpret themes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>65/165 (39%) questionnaires were returned. SDM-Q-9 mean standardised score was 78.6 (SD 26.3). There was a moderate ceiling effect (26%). Scores were not sensitive to sex (p = 0.64) or age (ρ = 0.1). Higher levels of SDM were perceived by participants who stated SDM was very important (51/65, 79%) than somewhat or not at all important (82.4 vs. 62.7; p = 0.02; Cohen d = 0.75). Individuals who discussed their personal priorities with the clinician (46/65, 70.8%), were more likely to be very satisfied with their involvement in SDM (89.1% vs. 52.9%). Thematic analysis generated three themes: Control, Desire for Transparency and Understanding, and Doctor as the Expert.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patient-perceived SDM levels are high for head and neck patients. Participants who value SDM also perceive higher levels of SDM. Patient satisfaction increases when individuals discuss their personal priorities. The modest response rate and self-selection bias affect the generalisability of the results. Only radiotherapy patients were included; those who chose alternative treatment may perceive different levels of SDM. The moderate ceiling effect may limit the use of SDM-Q-9 to measure impact of future interventions to improve SDM.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><p>SDM-Q-9 should be combined with an objective, observer measure of SDM.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817424001949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Shared decision-making (SDM) is on the NHS policy agenda, and the preferred model for preference-sensitive decisions. This study establishes baseline patient-perceived SDM in a radical head and neck cohort, and explores patients’ views on SDM in a large, specialist trust.

Methods

An SDM questionnaire was distributed to all radical head and neck radiotherapy patients (N = 165), June–December 2023. This combined a well-validated instrument for measuring SDM from the patient perspective, SDM-Q-9, with additional questions exploring patient views. Thematic analysis was used to construct and interpret themes.

Results

65/165 (39%) questionnaires were returned. SDM-Q-9 mean standardised score was 78.6 (SD 26.3). There was a moderate ceiling effect (26%). Scores were not sensitive to sex (p = 0.64) or age (ρ = 0.1). Higher levels of SDM were perceived by participants who stated SDM was very important (51/65, 79%) than somewhat or not at all important (82.4 vs. 62.7; p = 0.02; Cohen d = 0.75). Individuals who discussed their personal priorities with the clinician (46/65, 70.8%), were more likely to be very satisfied with their involvement in SDM (89.1% vs. 52.9%). Thematic analysis generated three themes: Control, Desire for Transparency and Understanding, and Doctor as the Expert.

Conclusion

Patient-perceived SDM levels are high for head and neck patients. Participants who value SDM also perceive higher levels of SDM. Patient satisfaction increases when individuals discuss their personal priorities. The modest response rate and self-selection bias affect the generalisability of the results. Only radiotherapy patients were included; those who chose alternative treatment may perceive different levels of SDM. The moderate ceiling effect may limit the use of SDM-Q-9 to measure impact of future interventions to improve SDM.

Implications for practice

SDM-Q-9 should be combined with an objective, observer measure of SDM.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共同决策在改善患者体验中的作用:来自头颈部癌症治愈患者群组的启示。
导言:共同决策(SDM)已列入英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)的政策议程,也是对偏好敏感的决策的首选模式。本研究确定了头颈部根治术队列中患者感知的 SDM 基线,并探讨了一家大型专科信托机构中患者对 SDM 的看法:在 2023 年 6 月至 12 月期间,向所有头颈部放射治疗根治术患者(N = 165)发放了 SDM 问卷。该问卷结合了从患者角度测量 SDM 的有效工具 SDM-Q-9,以及探索患者观点的附加问题。采用主题分析法构建和解释主题:共收回 65/165 份问卷(39%)。SDM-Q-9 的平均标准化得分为 78.6(SD 26.3)。存在中度上限效应(26%)。得分对性别(p = 0.64)或年龄(ρ = 0.1)不敏感。认为 SDM 非常重要的参与者(51/65,79%)的 SDM 水平高于认为 SDM 有点重要或完全不重要的参与者(82.4 vs. 62.7;p = 0.02;Cohen d = 0.75)。与临床医生讨论过个人优先事项的患者(46/65,70.8%)更有可能对参与 SDM 感到非常满意(89.1% 对 52.9%)。主题分析产生了三个主题:控制、希望透明和理解以及医生是专家:结论:头颈部患者的 SDM 水平较高。重视 SDM 的参与者也认为 SDM 水平较高。当个人讨论其个人优先事项时,患者的满意度会提高。响应率不高和自我选择偏差影响了结果的普遍性。研究只纳入了接受放射治疗的患者;选择其他治疗方法的患者对 SDM 的认识水平可能不同。适度的上限效应可能会限制使用SDM-Q-9来衡量未来干预措施对改善SDM的影响:对实践的启示:SDM-Q-9 应与客观的 SDM 观察指标相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Radiography
Radiography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
34.60%
发文量
169
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: Radiography is an International, English language, peer-reviewed journal of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. Radiography is the official professional journal of the College of Radiographers and is published quarterly. Radiography aims to publish the highest quality material, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy and oncology.
期刊最新文献
An enquiry into the usefulness of an information portal for Deaf and hard of hearing people prior to x-ray examinations and improvement ideas Morphometry-based radiomics for predicting prognosis in soft tissue sarcomas of extremities following radiotherapy Virtual reality simulation for mastery learning of wrist radiograph technique An initial exploration of factors that may impact radiographer performance in reporting mammograms Diagnostic radiography workforce expectations of learners against the 2023 HCPC standards of proficiency: Results of a UK Delphi study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1