关于决策质量的主观衡量标准。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-04-24 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13291
Jasper Debrabander
{"title":"关于决策质量的主观衡量标准。","authors":"Jasper Debrabander","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In times of person-centered care, it is all the more important to support patients in making good decisions about their care. One way to offer such support to patients is by way of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs). Ranging from patient brochures to web-based tools, PDAs explicitly state the decisions patients face, inform them about their medical options, help them to clarify and discuss their values, and ultimately make a decision. However, lingering discussions surround effectiveness research on PDAs. In this article, I focus on two subjective measures of decision quality that are widely used as outcome measures in effectiveness research on PDAs (i.e., the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and measures of regret). Although these measurement instruments have attracted critical attention in the scientific literature, bioethicists have hardly engaged with them. Therefore, I set myself to analyze the relationship between (the different subscales of) the DCS and measures of regret, on the one hand, and ethical principles such as beneficence and autonomy, on the other hand. In light of that analysis, I will clarify some discussions regarding the use of these measures of decision quality in effectiveness research on PDAs. This should help us to align the way we evaluate PDAs with ethical principles and avoid that our attempts to support patients in making good decisions about their care that is so central to person-centered care point in unethical directions.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On subjective measures of decision quality\",\"authors\":\"Jasper Debrabander\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.13291\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In times of person-centered care, it is all the more important to support patients in making good decisions about their care. One way to offer such support to patients is by way of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs). Ranging from patient brochures to web-based tools, PDAs explicitly state the decisions patients face, inform them about their medical options, help them to clarify and discuss their values, and ultimately make a decision. However, lingering discussions surround effectiveness research on PDAs. In this article, I focus on two subjective measures of decision quality that are widely used as outcome measures in effectiveness research on PDAs (i.e., the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and measures of regret). Although these measurement instruments have attracted critical attention in the scientific literature, bioethicists have hardly engaged with them. Therefore, I set myself to analyze the relationship between (the different subscales of) the DCS and measures of regret, on the one hand, and ethical principles such as beneficence and autonomy, on the other hand. In light of that analysis, I will clarify some discussions regarding the use of these measures of decision quality in effectiveness research on PDAs. This should help us to align the way we evaluate PDAs with ethical principles and avoid that our attempts to support patients in making good decisions about their care that is so central to person-centered care point in unethical directions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13291\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13291","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在以人为本的医疗护理时代,支持患者对自己的护理做出正确的决定显得尤为重要。为病人提供这种支持的一种方式是病人决策辅助工具(PDA)。从患者手册到网络工具,PDA 明确说明了患者面临的决定,告知他们医疗选择,帮助他们澄清和讨论自己的价值观,并最终做出决定。然而,围绕掌上电脑有效性研究的讨论仍在继续。在本文中,我将重点讨论两种主观的决策质量测量方法,它们在 PDA 的有效性研究中被广泛用作结果测量方法(即决策冲突量表(DCS)和后悔测量方法)。尽管这些测量工具在科学文献中引起了批判性的关注,但生命伦理学者几乎没有参与其中。因此,我着手分析决策冲突量表和后悔量表的(不同分量表)与惠益和自主等伦理原则之间的关系。根据这一分析,我将澄清一些关于在掌上电脑有效性研究中使用这些决策质量测量方法的讨论。这应有助于我们将评估掌上电脑的方式与伦理原则统一起来,避免我们为支持病人就其护理做出正确决定而做出的尝试指向不道德的方向,而这正是以人为本的护理的核心。
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
On subjective measures of decision quality

In times of person-centered care, it is all the more important to support patients in making good decisions about their care. One way to offer such support to patients is by way of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs). Ranging from patient brochures to web-based tools, PDAs explicitly state the decisions patients face, inform them about their medical options, help them to clarify and discuss their values, and ultimately make a decision. However, lingering discussions surround effectiveness research on PDAs. In this article, I focus on two subjective measures of decision quality that are widely used as outcome measures in effectiveness research on PDAs (i.e., the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and measures of regret). Although these measurement instruments have attracted critical attention in the scientific literature, bioethicists have hardly engaged with them. Therefore, I set myself to analyze the relationship between (the different subscales of) the DCS and measures of regret, on the one hand, and ethical principles such as beneficence and autonomy, on the other hand. In light of that analysis, I will clarify some discussions regarding the use of these measures of decision quality in effectiveness research on PDAs. This should help us to align the way we evaluate PDAs with ethical principles and avoid that our attempts to support patients in making good decisions about their care that is so central to person-centered care point in unethical directions.

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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
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