神经重症监护中风患者的共同决策:定性元综合。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurocritical Care Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1007/s12028-024-02106-y
Hui Zhang, Carmel Davies, Diarmuid Stokes, Deirdre O'Donnell
{"title":"神经重症监护中风患者的共同决策:定性元综合。","authors":"Hui Zhang, Carmel Davies, Diarmuid Stokes, Deirdre O'Donnell","doi":"10.1007/s12028-024-02106-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Decision-making for patients with stroke in neurocritical care is uniquely challenging because of the gravity and high preference sensitivity of these decisions. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended to align decisions with patient values. However, limited evidence exists on the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders involved in SDM for neurocritical patients with stroke. This review aims to address this gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of the experiences and perspectives of those involved in SDM for neurocritical stroke care to inform best practices in this context. A qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted following the methodological guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), using the thematic synthesis approach outlined by Thomas and Harden. Database searches covered PubMed, CIHAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to July 2023, supplemented by manual searches. After screening, quality appraisal was performed using the JBI Appraisal Checklist. Data analysis comprised line-by-line coding, development of descriptive themes, and creation of analytical themes using NVivo 12 software. The initial search yielded 7,492 articles, with 94 undergoing full-text screening. Eighteen articles from five countries, published between 2010 and 2023, were included in the meta-synthesis. These studies focused on the SDM process, covering life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), palliative care, and end-of-life care, with LST decisions being most common. Four analytical themes, encompassing ten descriptive themes, emerged: prognostic uncertainty, multifaceted balancing act, tripartite role dynamics and information exchange, and influences of sociocultural context. These themes form the basis for a conceptual model offering deeper insights into the essential elements, relationships, and behaviors that characterize SDM in neurocritical care. This meta-synthesis of 18 primary studies offers a higher-order interpretation and an emerging conceptual understanding of SDM in neurocritical care, with implications for practice and further research. The complex role dynamics among SDM stakeholders require careful consideration, highlighting the need for stroke-specific communication strategies. Expanding the evidence base across diverse sociocultural settings is critical to enhance the understanding of SDM in neurocritical patients with stroke.Trial registration This study is registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023461608.</p>","PeriodicalId":19118,"journal":{"name":"Neurocritical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Stroke in Neurocritical Care: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Hui Zhang, Carmel Davies, Diarmuid Stokes, Deirdre O'Donnell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12028-024-02106-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Decision-making for patients with stroke in neurocritical care is uniquely challenging because of the gravity and high preference sensitivity of these decisions. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended to align decisions with patient values. However, limited evidence exists on the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders involved in SDM for neurocritical patients with stroke. This review aims to address this gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of the experiences and perspectives of those involved in SDM for neurocritical stroke care to inform best practices in this context. A qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted following the methodological guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), using the thematic synthesis approach outlined by Thomas and Harden. Database searches covered PubMed, CIHAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to July 2023, supplemented by manual searches. After screening, quality appraisal was performed using the JBI Appraisal Checklist. Data analysis comprised line-by-line coding, development of descriptive themes, and creation of analytical themes using NVivo 12 software. The initial search yielded 7,492 articles, with 94 undergoing full-text screening. Eighteen articles from five countries, published between 2010 and 2023, were included in the meta-synthesis. These studies focused on the SDM process, covering life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), palliative care, and end-of-life care, with LST decisions being most common. Four analytical themes, encompassing ten descriptive themes, emerged: prognostic uncertainty, multifaceted balancing act, tripartite role dynamics and information exchange, and influences of sociocultural context. These themes form the basis for a conceptual model offering deeper insights into the essential elements, relationships, and behaviors that characterize SDM in neurocritical care. This meta-synthesis of 18 primary studies offers a higher-order interpretation and an emerging conceptual understanding of SDM in neurocritical care, with implications for practice and further research. The complex role dynamics among SDM stakeholders require careful consideration, highlighting the need for stroke-specific communication strategies. Expanding the evidence base across diverse sociocultural settings is critical to enhance the understanding of SDM in neurocritical patients with stroke.Trial registration This study is registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023461608.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurocritical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurocritical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02106-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocritical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02106-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

神经重症监护中脑卒中患者的决策具有独特的挑战性,因为这些决策的严重性和高度偏好敏感性。建议采用共同决策(SDM)使决策符合患者的价值观。然而,有关神经重症卒中患者 SDM 主要利益相关者的经验和看法的证据有限。本综述旨在通过全面分析神经重症卒中护理 SDM 参与者的经验和观点来填补这一空白,从而为该领域的最佳实践提供参考。根据乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute,JBI)的方法指南,采用托马斯(Thomas)和哈登(Harden)概述的主题综合方法进行了定性元综合。数据库检索涵盖了从开始到 2023 年 7 月的 PubMed、CIHAHL、EMBASE、PsycINFO 和 Web of Science,并辅以人工检索。筛选后,使用 JBI 鉴定清单进行质量鉴定。数据分析包括逐行编码、制定描述性主题以及使用 NVivo 12 软件创建分析主题。初步检索共获得 7,492 篇文章,其中 94 篇进行了全文筛选。来自 5 个国家、发表于 2010 年至 2023 年的 18 篇文章被纳入元综合研究。这些研究侧重于 SDM 流程,涵盖维持生命治疗 (LST)、姑息治疗和临终关怀,其中 LST 决定最为常见。研究提出了四个分析主题,包括十个描述性主题:预后的不确定性、多方面的平衡行为、三方角色动态和信息交流,以及社会文化背景的影响。这些主题构成了一个概念模型的基础,为深入了解神经重症监护中 SDM 的基本要素、关系和行为提供了依据。本研究对 18 项主要研究进行了元综合,为神经重症监护中的 SDM 提供了更高阶的解释和新的概念理解,并对实践和进一步研究产生了影响。SDM 利益相关者之间复杂的角色动态需要仔细考虑,强调了卒中特定沟通策略的必要性。在不同的社会文化背景下扩大证据基础对于加强对中风神经重症患者 SDM 的理解至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Stroke in Neurocritical Care: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis.

Decision-making for patients with stroke in neurocritical care is uniquely challenging because of the gravity and high preference sensitivity of these decisions. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended to align decisions with patient values. However, limited evidence exists on the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders involved in SDM for neurocritical patients with stroke. This review aims to address this gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of the experiences and perspectives of those involved in SDM for neurocritical stroke care to inform best practices in this context. A qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted following the methodological guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), using the thematic synthesis approach outlined by Thomas and Harden. Database searches covered PubMed, CIHAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to July 2023, supplemented by manual searches. After screening, quality appraisal was performed using the JBI Appraisal Checklist. Data analysis comprised line-by-line coding, development of descriptive themes, and creation of analytical themes using NVivo 12 software. The initial search yielded 7,492 articles, with 94 undergoing full-text screening. Eighteen articles from five countries, published between 2010 and 2023, were included in the meta-synthesis. These studies focused on the SDM process, covering life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), palliative care, and end-of-life care, with LST decisions being most common. Four analytical themes, encompassing ten descriptive themes, emerged: prognostic uncertainty, multifaceted balancing act, tripartite role dynamics and information exchange, and influences of sociocultural context. These themes form the basis for a conceptual model offering deeper insights into the essential elements, relationships, and behaviors that characterize SDM in neurocritical care. This meta-synthesis of 18 primary studies offers a higher-order interpretation and an emerging conceptual understanding of SDM in neurocritical care, with implications for practice and further research. The complex role dynamics among SDM stakeholders require careful consideration, highlighting the need for stroke-specific communication strategies. Expanding the evidence base across diverse sociocultural settings is critical to enhance the understanding of SDM in neurocritical patients with stroke.Trial registration This study is registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023461608.

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
Neurocritical Care
Neurocritical Care 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.60%
发文量
221
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurocritical Care is a peer reviewed scientific publication whose major goal is to disseminate new knowledge on all aspects of acute neurological care. It is directed towards neurosurgeons, neuro-intensivists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and critical care nurses treating patients with urgent neurologic disorders. These are conditions that may potentially evolve rapidly and could need immediate medical or surgical intervention. Neurocritical Care provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in intensive care neurology, neurosurgery and neuroanesthesia and includes information about new therapeutic avenues and technological innovations. Neurocritical Care is the official journal of the Neurocritical Care Society.
期刊最新文献
A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis of Short-Term Corticosteroid Therapy for Refractory Pain Following Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. Long-Term Outcomes After Severe Acute Brain Injury Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: Recovery Trajectories Among Patients and Mental Health Symptoms of Their Surrogate Decision Makers. Neuroimaging Markers of Brain Reserve and Associations with Delirium in Patients with Intracerebral Hemorrhage. Unsupervised Clustering in Neurocritical Care: A Systematic Review. War and Neurologic Trauma.
×
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