输精管结扎手术提供者在自主与非恶意之间的决策平衡:对提供者的定性访谈

Alison T. Hoover, Dominick Shattuck, Karen L. Andes
{"title":"输精管结扎手术提供者在自主与非恶意之间的决策平衡:对提供者的定性访谈","authors":"Alison T. Hoover, Dominick Shattuck, Karen L. Andes","doi":"10.12688/gatesopenres.15036.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Male sterilization, or vasectomy, is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy with less than a 2% risk of complications. Despite the high efficacy, low risk, low cost, and gender equity benefits of vasectomy, just 2% of women reported that they and their partners relied on vasectomy as their contraceptive method globally in 2019. Health care providers can be both a facilitator and a barrier in men’s health generally, and may be in vasectomy provision as well. This study sought to describe the decision-making rationales of experienced vasectomy providers when evaluating patient candidacy in complex cases. Methods Fifteen vasectomy providers belonging to the global Vasectomy Network google group from seven countries participated in online interviews using a semi-structured in-depth interview guide. Providers were asked about their vasectomy training, their reasons for vasectomy provision, challenging cases they have faced, and approaches used to manage challenging cases. Vignettes were used to further elicit decision-making rationale. Thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA20. Results Provider decision-making was predicated on ensuring patients were well-informed, able to consent, and certain about their choice to have a vasectomy. Once those foundational conditions were met, providers filtered patient characteristics through their training, laws and policies, sociocultural norms, experience, and peer influence to produce a cost-benefit breakdown. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, providers determined whether to weigh autonomy or non-maleficence more heavily when determining vasectomy patient candidacy. Conclusions Despite clinical best practices that promote prioritizing patient autonomy over non-maleficence, some providers continued to weigh non-maleficence over autonomy in vasectomy patient candidacy evaluations. Non-maleficence was particularly prioritized in cases providers deemed to be at higher risk of regret. The findings of this study suggest vasectomy provider training should emphasize evidence-based best practices in shared decision-making and patient-centered care to facilitate vasectomy provision that honors patient autonomy and rights.","PeriodicalId":12593,"journal":{"name":"Gates Open Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vasectomy provider decision-making balancing autonomy and non-maleficence: qualitative interviews with providers\",\"authors\":\"Alison T. Hoover, Dominick Shattuck, Karen L. Andes\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/gatesopenres.15036.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Male sterilization, or vasectomy, is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy with less than a 2% risk of complications. Despite the high efficacy, low risk, low cost, and gender equity benefits of vasectomy, just 2% of women reported that they and their partners relied on vasectomy as their contraceptive method globally in 2019. Health care providers can be both a facilitator and a barrier in men’s health generally, and may be in vasectomy provision as well. This study sought to describe the decision-making rationales of experienced vasectomy providers when evaluating patient candidacy in complex cases. Methods Fifteen vasectomy providers belonging to the global Vasectomy Network google group from seven countries participated in online interviews using a semi-structured in-depth interview guide. Providers were asked about their vasectomy training, their reasons for vasectomy provision, challenging cases they have faced, and approaches used to manage challenging cases. Vignettes were used to further elicit decision-making rationale. Thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA20. Results Provider decision-making was predicated on ensuring patients were well-informed, able to consent, and certain about their choice to have a vasectomy. Once those foundational conditions were met, providers filtered patient characteristics through their training, laws and policies, sociocultural norms, experience, and peer influence to produce a cost-benefit breakdown. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, providers determined whether to weigh autonomy or non-maleficence more heavily when determining vasectomy patient candidacy. Conclusions Despite clinical best practices that promote prioritizing patient autonomy over non-maleficence, some providers continued to weigh non-maleficence over autonomy in vasectomy patient candidacy evaluations. Non-maleficence was particularly prioritized in cases providers deemed to be at higher risk of regret. The findings of this study suggest vasectomy provider training should emphasize evidence-based best practices in shared decision-making and patient-centered care to facilitate vasectomy provision that honors patient autonomy and rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gates Open Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gates Open Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.15036.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gates Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.15036.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:男性绝育或输精管切除术在预防怀孕方面的有效性为99.9%,并发症风险低于2%。尽管输精管结扎术具有高效、低风险、低成本和性别平等的好处,但2019年,全球只有2%的女性报告称,她们及其伴侣依赖输精管结扎术作为避孕方法。一般来说,医疗保健提供者既可以促进男性健康,也可以成为男性健康的障碍,在输精管结扎方面也可能是如此。本研究旨在描述有经验的输精管结扎提供者在评估患者在复杂情况下的候选资格时的决策依据。方法采用半结构化深度访谈指南,对全球输精管切除术网络谷歌组的15名输精管切除术提供者进行在线访谈。提供者被问及他们的输精管结扎培训,输精管结扎提供的原因,他们面临的具有挑战性的病例,以及用于管理具有挑战性的病例的方法。小插曲被用来进一步引出决策的基本原理。使用MAXQDA20进行主题分析。结果:提供者的决策是基于确保患者得到充分的信息,能够同意,并确定他们选择进行输精管切除术。一旦满足了这些基本条件,提供者就会通过他们的培训、法律和政策、社会文化规范、经验和同伴影响来过滤患者的特征,从而产生成本效益分解。基于成本效益分析,在决定输精管结扎患者的候选资格时,提供者决定是否更重视自主或非恶意。尽管临床最佳实践提倡优先考虑患者的自主权而不是非恶意,但一些提供者在输精管结扎患者候选人评估中仍然将非恶意置于自主性之上。在提供者被认为有较高后悔风险的情况下,特别优先考虑非恶意行为。本研究的结果表明,输精管结扎提供者培训应强调以证据为基础的共同决策和以患者为中心的护理的最佳实践,以促进输精管结扎提供,尊重患者的自主权和权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Vasectomy provider decision-making balancing autonomy and non-maleficence: qualitative interviews with providers
Background Male sterilization, or vasectomy, is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy with less than a 2% risk of complications. Despite the high efficacy, low risk, low cost, and gender equity benefits of vasectomy, just 2% of women reported that they and their partners relied on vasectomy as their contraceptive method globally in 2019. Health care providers can be both a facilitator and a barrier in men’s health generally, and may be in vasectomy provision as well. This study sought to describe the decision-making rationales of experienced vasectomy providers when evaluating patient candidacy in complex cases. Methods Fifteen vasectomy providers belonging to the global Vasectomy Network google group from seven countries participated in online interviews using a semi-structured in-depth interview guide. Providers were asked about their vasectomy training, their reasons for vasectomy provision, challenging cases they have faced, and approaches used to manage challenging cases. Vignettes were used to further elicit decision-making rationale. Thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA20. Results Provider decision-making was predicated on ensuring patients were well-informed, able to consent, and certain about their choice to have a vasectomy. Once those foundational conditions were met, providers filtered patient characteristics through their training, laws and policies, sociocultural norms, experience, and peer influence to produce a cost-benefit breakdown. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, providers determined whether to weigh autonomy or non-maleficence more heavily when determining vasectomy patient candidacy. Conclusions Despite clinical best practices that promote prioritizing patient autonomy over non-maleficence, some providers continued to weigh non-maleficence over autonomy in vasectomy patient candidacy evaluations. Non-maleficence was particularly prioritized in cases providers deemed to be at higher risk of regret. The findings of this study suggest vasectomy provider training should emphasize evidence-based best practices in shared decision-making and patient-centered care to facilitate vasectomy provision that honors patient autonomy and rights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gates Open Research
Gates Open Research Immunology and Microbiology-Immunology and Microbiology (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
期刊最新文献
Knowledge and uptake of contraceptive and other sexual reproductive health services among in-school adolescents in three South African townships: Baseline findings from the Girls Achieve Power (GAP Year) Trial. Vaccine decision-making among pregnant women: a protocol for a cross-sectional mixed-method study in Brazil, Ghana, Kenya and Pakistan. Simulated data for census-scale entity resolution research without privacy restrictions: a large-scale dataset generated by individual-based modeling. Stories of women's marriage and fertility experiences: Qualitative research on urban and rural cases in Bali, Indonesia. Health care-seeking behavior for childhood illnesses in western Kenya: Qualitative findings from the Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance (CHAMPS) 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