在初级医疗中为多病患者进行肺癌筛查所面临的挑战:定性研究。

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1370/afm.3080
Minal S Kale, Orly Morgan, Juan Wisnivesky, Julie Schnur, Michael A Diefenbach
{"title":"在初级医疗中为多病患者进行肺癌筛查所面临的挑战:定性研究。","authors":"Minal S Kale, Orly Morgan, Juan Wisnivesky, Julie Schnur, Michael A Diefenbach","doi":"10.1370/afm.3080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":50973,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Family Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11237206/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Minal S Kale, Orly Morgan, Juan Wisnivesky, Julie Schnur, Michael A Diefenbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1370/afm.3080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Family Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11237206/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3080\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3080","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:许多符合肺癌筛查条件的人都有合并症,这使他们与医生的共同决策对话变得复杂。我们的研究旨在更好地了解初级保健医生(PCPs)如何在评估肺癌筛查的风险和益处以及与患者进行共同决策对话时考虑合并症因素:我们通过视频会议对 15 名初级保健医生进行了半结构化访谈,以评估共同决策实践的程度,探讨他们对合并症与肺癌筛查的交叉点的理解,以及这种理解如何影响他们对这一人群的临床治疗方法:我们确定了 3 个主题。第一个主题是讨论还是不讨论肺癌筛查。据初级保健医生描述,他们在决定是否开始讨论肺癌筛查时,会对合并症复杂的患者采取额外的措施,并利用主观的临床判断来决定讨论是否有成效、是否有益。初级保健医生在进行心理评估时会考虑患者的健康状况、预期寿命、生活质量以及是否能获得支持系统的帮助。第二个主题是共同决策不是简单的讨论。当初级保健医生开始讨论肺癌筛查时,尽管有些人认为他们可以提供客观的信息,但其他人却在个人偏见中挣扎。第三个主题是,接受筛查的决定最终取决于患者。患者有最终决定权,即使他们的决定与初级保健医生的建议不一致:关于肺癌筛查的共同决策对话与复杂合并症患者的标准有很大不同。未来的研究应包括努力确定肺癌筛查对合并症患者的风险和益处,为指南和临床应用提供依据。
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
Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

Purpose: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients.

Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population.

Results: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice.

Conclusions: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

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
Annals of Family Medicine
Annals of Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Family Medicine is a peer-reviewed research journal to meet the needs of scientists, practitioners, policymakers, and the patients and communities they serve.
期刊最新文献
Prehospital Clinical Decision-Making for Medication Administration for Behavioral Emergencies. Rapid Antigen Testing in School Health Offices for Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A. Assessment and comparison of the ILI case definition in clinical and school-based community settings: ORCHARDS/IISP. Efficacy and Safety of BB-12 Supplemented Strawberry Yogurt For Healthy Children on Antibiotics (PLAY ON). Exploratory Pilot Studies to Demonstrate Mechanisms of Preventing Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea and the Role for Probiotics.
×
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