患者和医护人员在共同决策系统性乳腺癌辅助治疗时的信息和沟通重点:一项调查研究

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING European Journal of Oncology Nursing Pub Date : 2024-04-10 DOI:10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102574
Olga C. Damman , Inge S. van Strien-Knippenberg , Ellen G. Engelhardt , Domino Determann D , Martine C. de Bruijne , Sabine Siesling , Inge R. Konings , Danielle R. Timmermans
{"title":"患者和医护人员在共同决策系统性乳腺癌辅助治疗时的信息和沟通重点:一项调查研究","authors":"Olga C. Damman ,&nbsp;Inge S. van Strien-Knippenberg ,&nbsp;Ellen G. Engelhardt ,&nbsp;Domino Determann D ,&nbsp;Martine C. de Bruijne ,&nbsp;Sabine Siesling ,&nbsp;Inge R. Konings ,&nbsp;Danielle R. Timmermans","doi":"10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in Shared Decision Making about adjuvant systemic treatment of primary breast cancer and identify key decision-relevant information accordingly.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients (N = 122) and professionals working with breast cancer patients (N = 118), of whom 38 were nurse practitioners and 32 nurses, were recruited using convenience sampling, and surveyed about information/communication aspects key to decision-making, using ranking assignments. We further posed a simple open question, questions about receiving population-based statistics versus personalized statistics concerning treatment outcomes, and their attitude and experience concerning Shared Decision Making. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and a qualitative analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Both patients and professionals prioritized information about treatment outcomes (i.e., survival, recurrence) as key decision-relevant information for patients. Patients prioritized information about relatively severe treatment side-effects and late effects (e.g., blood clot, stroke), whilst professionals prioritized information about effects that occur relatively often (e.g., hair loss, fatigue). Patients specifically wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. Both groups prioritized personalized statistics over population-based statistics.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Some differences between patients and professionals were found in information and communication priorities, specifically related to the different side-effects. It seems worthwhile to precisely address these side-effects in Shared Decision Making concerning adjuvant systemic treatment. Furthermore, it seems important to deliberate together on the question if expected benefit of treatment is worth the potential negative impact for the individual patient.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51048,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oncology Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in shared decision making regarding adjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment: A survey study\",\"authors\":\"Olga C. Damman ,&nbsp;Inge S. van Strien-Knippenberg ,&nbsp;Ellen G. Engelhardt ,&nbsp;Domino Determann D ,&nbsp;Martine C. de Bruijne ,&nbsp;Sabine Siesling ,&nbsp;Inge R. Konings ,&nbsp;Danielle R. Timmermans\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102574\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in Shared Decision Making about adjuvant systemic treatment of primary breast cancer and identify key decision-relevant information accordingly.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients (N = 122) and professionals working with breast cancer patients (N = 118), of whom 38 were nurse practitioners and 32 nurses, were recruited using convenience sampling, and surveyed about information/communication aspects key to decision-making, using ranking assignments. We further posed a simple open question, questions about receiving population-based statistics versus personalized statistics concerning treatment outcomes, and their attitude and experience concerning Shared Decision Making. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and a qualitative analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Both patients and professionals prioritized information about treatment outcomes (i.e., survival, recurrence) as key decision-relevant information for patients. Patients prioritized information about relatively severe treatment side-effects and late effects (e.g., blood clot, stroke), whilst professionals prioritized information about effects that occur relatively often (e.g., hair loss, fatigue). Patients specifically wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. Both groups prioritized personalized statistics over population-based statistics.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Some differences between patients and professionals were found in information and communication priorities, specifically related to the different side-effects. It seems worthwhile to precisely address these side-effects in Shared Decision Making concerning adjuvant systemic treatment. Furthermore, it seems important to deliberate together on the question if expected benefit of treatment is worth the potential negative impact for the individual patient.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Oncology Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Oncology Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462388924000723\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oncology Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462388924000723","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 评估患者和医疗保健专业人员在原发性乳腺癌辅助系统治疗共同决策中的信息和沟通优先级,并据此确定与决策相关的关键信息。方法 采用便利抽样法招募患者(122 人)和为乳腺癌患者服务的专业人员(118 人),其中 38 人是执业护士,32 人是护士,并采用排名分配法对决策关键的信息/沟通方面进行调查。我们还进一步提出了一个简单的开放性问题、关于接受治疗结果的人群统计与个性化统计的问题,以及他们对共同决策的态度和经验。我们采用描述性分析和定性分析对数据进行了分析。结果患者和专业人员都将治疗结果(即存活率、复发率)信息作为与患者决策相关的关键信息。患者优先考虑有关相对严重的治疗副作用和晚期影响(如血栓、中风)的信息,而专业人员则优先考虑有关相对经常发生的影响(如脱发、疲劳)的信息。患者特别想知道治疗的好处是否值得产生负面影响。结论发现患者和专业人员在信息和沟通优先级方面存在一些差异,特别是与不同副作用相关的信息和沟通优先级。看来值得在有关辅助性系统治疗的共同决策中准确地处理这些副作用。此外,共同商讨治疗的预期益处是否值得为患者带来潜在的负面影响似乎也很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in shared decision making regarding adjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment: A survey study

Purpose

To assess information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in Shared Decision Making about adjuvant systemic treatment of primary breast cancer and identify key decision-relevant information accordingly.

Methods

Patients (N = 122) and professionals working with breast cancer patients (N = 118), of whom 38 were nurse practitioners and 32 nurses, were recruited using convenience sampling, and surveyed about information/communication aspects key to decision-making, using ranking assignments. We further posed a simple open question, questions about receiving population-based statistics versus personalized statistics concerning treatment outcomes, and their attitude and experience concerning Shared Decision Making. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and a qualitative analysis.

Results

Both patients and professionals prioritized information about treatment outcomes (i.e., survival, recurrence) as key decision-relevant information for patients. Patients prioritized information about relatively severe treatment side-effects and late effects (e.g., blood clot, stroke), whilst professionals prioritized information about effects that occur relatively often (e.g., hair loss, fatigue). Patients specifically wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. Both groups prioritized personalized statistics over population-based statistics.

Conclusions

Some differences between patients and professionals were found in information and communication priorities, specifically related to the different side-effects. It seems worthwhile to precisely address these side-effects in Shared Decision Making concerning adjuvant systemic treatment. Furthermore, it seems important to deliberate together on the question if expected benefit of treatment is worth the potential negative impact for the individual patient.

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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.60%
发文量
109
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Oncology Nursing is an international journal which publishes research of direct relevance to patient care, nurse education, management and policy development. EJON is proud to be the official journal of the European Oncology Nursing Society. The journal publishes the following types of papers: • Original research articles • Review articles
期刊最新文献
The effect of using virtual reality goggles on psychological well-being and care burden of informal caregivers of patients hospitalized in a palliative care clinic Effect of an integrated narrative program (INP) on quality of life among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): An experimental trial Effect of training based on Orem's self-care deficit theory on breast cancer patients' management of chemotherapy-related side effects and self-care behaviors: A randomized controlled trial Effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation in cancer survivors: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Editorial Board
×
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