Implementation of shared decision-making in healthcare policy and practice: a complex adaptive systems perspective

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI:10.1332/174426419X15468571657773
S. Munro, J. Kornelsen, Elizabeth S Wilcox, Sarah Kaufman, N. Bansback, Kitty K Corbett, P. Janssen
{"title":"Implementation of shared decision-making in healthcare policy and practice: a complex adaptive systems perspective","authors":"S. Munro, J. Kornelsen, Elizabeth S Wilcox, Sarah Kaufman, N. Bansback, Kitty K Corbett, P. Janssen","doi":"10.1332/174426419X15468571657773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Despite the suggested benefits of shared decision-making (SDM), its implementation in policy and practice has been slow and inconsistent. Use of complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory may provide understanding of how healthcare system factors influence implementation\n of SDM. Methods:Using the example of choice of mode of birth after a previous caesarean section, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, providers, and decision makers in British Columbia, Canada, to explore the system characteristics and processes\n that influence implementation of SDM. Implementation and knowledge translation principles guided study design, and constructionist grounded theory informed iterative data collection and analysis. Findings:Analysis of interviews (n=58) revealed that patients formed early\n preferences for mode of delivery (after the primary caesarean) through careful deliberation of social risks and benefits. Physicians acted as information providers of clinical risks and benefits, while decision makers revealed concerns related to liability and patient safety. These concerns\n stemmed from perceptions of limited access to surgical resources, which had resulted from budget constraints. Discussion and conclusions:To facilitate the effective implementation of SDM in policy and practice it may be critical to initiate SDM once patients become aware\n of their healthcare options, assist patients to address the social risks that influence their preferences, manage perceptions of risk related to patient safety and litigation among physicians, and enhance access to healthcare resources.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"393-411"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15468571657773","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background:Despite the suggested benefits of shared decision-making (SDM), its implementation in policy and practice has been slow and inconsistent. Use of complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory may provide understanding of how healthcare system factors influence implementation of SDM. Methods:Using the example of choice of mode of birth after a previous caesarean section, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, providers, and decision makers in British Columbia, Canada, to explore the system characteristics and processes that influence implementation of SDM. Implementation and knowledge translation principles guided study design, and constructionist grounded theory informed iterative data collection and analysis. Findings:Analysis of interviews (n=58) revealed that patients formed early preferences for mode of delivery (after the primary caesarean) through careful deliberation of social risks and benefits. Physicians acted as information providers of clinical risks and benefits, while decision makers revealed concerns related to liability and patient safety. These concerns stemmed from perceptions of limited access to surgical resources, which had resulted from budget constraints. Discussion and conclusions:To facilitate the effective implementation of SDM in policy and practice it may be critical to initiate SDM once patients become aware of their healthcare options, assist patients to address the social risks that influence their preferences, manage perceptions of risk related to patient safety and litigation among physicians, and enhance access to healthcare resources.
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
医疗保健政策和实践中共享决策的实施:一个复杂的适应性系统视角
背景:尽管共享决策有好处,但其在政策和实践中的实施缓慢且不一致。复杂自适应系统(CAS)理论的使用可以提供对医疗系统因素如何影响SDM实施的理解。方法:以既往剖腹产后的分娩方式选择为例,对加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省的患者、提供者和决策者进行了深入的半结构化访谈,以探讨影响SDM实施的系统特征和过程。实施和知识翻译原则指导了研究设计,基于建构主义的理论为迭代数据收集和分析提供了信息。调查结果:访谈分析(n=58)显示,患者通过仔细考虑社会风险和收益,早期形成了对分娩方式的偏好(在初次剖腹产后)。医生是临床风险和收益的信息提供者,而决策者则透露了与责任和患者安全相关的担忧。这些担忧源于人们对获得外科资源的机会有限的看法,这是预算限制造成的。讨论和结论:为了促进SDM在政策和实践中的有效实施,一旦患者意识到他们的医疗选择,就启动SDM,帮助患者解决影响他们偏好的社会风险,管理医生对患者安全和诉讼相关风险的感知,并增加获得医疗资源的机会,这一点可能至关重要。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
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