Shared decision-making between patients and healthcare providers at rural health facilities in Eastern Uganda: an exploratory qualitative study.

IF 3.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1186/s12910-025-01172-x
Ranga Solomon Owino, Olivia Kituuka, Paul Kutyabami, Nelson K Sewankambo
{"title":"Shared decision-making between patients and healthcare providers at rural health facilities in Eastern Uganda: an exploratory qualitative study.","authors":"Ranga Solomon Owino, Olivia Kituuka, Paul Kutyabami, Nelson K Sewankambo","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01172-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shared decision-making in healthcare is a collaborative process where patients are supported to make informed decisions according to their preferences. Healthcare decisions affect patients' lives which necessitates patients to participate in decisions concerning their health. This study explored experiences and ethical issues related to shared decision-making in a rural healthcare setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An exploratory qualitative study was conducted at Budumba Health Centre III and Butaleja Health Centre III in rural Eastern Uganda. In this study, 23 in-depth interviews were conducted among 12 healthcare providers and 11 patients. Data was analyzed thematically using NVivo-12 plus software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four themes emerged which included: Paternalistic cultures of care, challenges, strategies for improvement, and ethical issues. Patients at both facilities expressed the need to be involved in decision-making processes. However, many stressed that they are not engaged in decision-making about their health. Many healthcare providers noted that shared decision-making could improve patient prognosis but are faced with challenges related to low male involvement and the influence of cultural and religious practices, including myths and patriarchal attitudes which impact effective patient engagement. Ethical issues identified include concerns about informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, deception, and harm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlighted the need for better sensitization of patients and comprehensive training for healthcare providers to minimize and resolve ethical issues that emerge during shared decision-making processes. Therefore, targeted interventions are needed to enhance decision-making processes in rural healthcare including but not limited to developing shared decision-making manual and continuous training of healthcare providers to ethically engage patients. Further research is needed to explore larger facilities with a bigger scope including patients under 18 years of age and and their surrogates.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11773793/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01172-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Shared decision-making in healthcare is a collaborative process where patients are supported to make informed decisions according to their preferences. Healthcare decisions affect patients' lives which necessitates patients to participate in decisions concerning their health. This study explored experiences and ethical issues related to shared decision-making in a rural healthcare setting.

Methods: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted at Budumba Health Centre III and Butaleja Health Centre III in rural Eastern Uganda. In this study, 23 in-depth interviews were conducted among 12 healthcare providers and 11 patients. Data was analyzed thematically using NVivo-12 plus software.

Results: Four themes emerged which included: Paternalistic cultures of care, challenges, strategies for improvement, and ethical issues. Patients at both facilities expressed the need to be involved in decision-making processes. However, many stressed that they are not engaged in decision-making about their health. Many healthcare providers noted that shared decision-making could improve patient prognosis but are faced with challenges related to low male involvement and the influence of cultural and religious practices, including myths and patriarchal attitudes which impact effective patient engagement. Ethical issues identified include concerns about informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, deception, and harm.

Conclusions: This study highlighted the need for better sensitization of patients and comprehensive training for healthcare providers to minimize and resolve ethical issues that emerge during shared decision-making processes. Therefore, targeted interventions are needed to enhance decision-making processes in rural healthcare including but not limited to developing shared decision-making manual and continuous training of healthcare providers to ethically engage patients. Further research is needed to explore larger facilities with a bigger scope including patients under 18 years of age and and their surrogates.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
乌干达东部农村卫生设施中患者和卫生保健提供者共同决策:一项探索性质的研究。
背景:医疗保健中的共享决策是一个协作过程,支持患者根据自己的喜好做出明智的决定。医疗保健决策影响患者的生活,这就要求患者参与有关其健康的决策。本研究探讨了农村卫生保健环境中与共同决策相关的经验和伦理问题。方法:在乌干达东部农村的布敦巴第三保健中心和布塔莱贾第三保健中心进行了一项探索性质的研究。在本研究中,对12名医疗服务提供者和11名患者进行了23次深度访谈。使用NVivo-12 plus软件对数据进行主题分析。结果:出现了四个主题,包括:家长式关怀文化、挑战、改进策略和伦理问题。两家医院的患者都表示有必要参与决策过程。然而,许多人强调,他们不参与有关自己健康的决策。许多医疗保健提供者指出,共同决策可以改善患者预后,但面临着与男性参与度低以及文化和宗教习俗(包括影响患者有效参与的神话和父权态度)的影响有关的挑战。确定的伦理问题包括对知情同意、隐私和保密、欺骗和伤害的关注。结论:本研究强调需要更好地提高患者的敏感性,并对医疗保健提供者进行全面培训,以尽量减少和解决在共同决策过程中出现的伦理问题。因此,需要有针对性的干预措施来加强农村医疗保健的决策过程,包括但不限于制定共同决策手册和对医疗保健提供者进行持续培训,以使患者在道德上参与进来。需要进一步的研究,以探索更大的设施,更大的范围,包括18岁以下的患者及其代理人。
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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
期刊最新文献
The effects of artificial intelligence ethics awareness, digital literacy, and metacognition on nursing students' attitudes toward artificial intelligence. Understanding clinical ethics situations: a co-created repertoire of practices. Decision-making and institutional support for ECMO and ventilator allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cross-sectional survey of designated physicians at Japan's advanced critical care and emergency centers. When advance directives clash with family consent: designing an operational framework for end-of-life decision-making in China and Korea. Physician experiences and perceptions of patient-initiated recording in emergency departments: a multi-center survey in Southwestern China.
×
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:604180095
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