共同决策中的健康、伦理和沟通概念。

Q4 Medicine Communication and Medicine Pub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1558/cam.32845
Lauris Christopher Kaldjian
{"title":"共同决策中的健康、伦理和沟通概念。","authors":"Lauris Christopher Kaldjian","doi":"10.1558/cam.32845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Shared decision making depends on respectful dialogue that allows patients and clinicians to discuss medical facts and the beliefs and values that give them meaning for a particular patient. This dialogue is most likely to succeed when tests and treatments are placed within a purpose-oriented landscape that sets goals of care in the foreground so that the direction of decision making is clear before too much focus is placed on interventional options. The beliefs and values that guide patients allow them to identify and prioritize their most important goals of care in light of other dimensions of decision making. These beliefs and values will also reveal concepts of health that anchor goals of care. When patients and clinicians disagree about treatments or goals, it may be because a clinician is guided by a biostatistical concept of health, while a patient is guided by one that prioritizes well-being. Such disagreements may also be described in terms of patient preference (autonomy) and the clinician's assessment of the patient's best interests (beneficence). By probing the beliefs and values that explain goals of care and concepts of health, dialogue can help reconcile disagreements in shared decision making. And even when resolution is not forthcoming, and a decision must be 'un-shared', dialogue can demonstrate respect for patients through the consideration clinicians show when they take time to understand and explain.</p>","PeriodicalId":39728,"journal":{"name":"Communication and Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concepts of health, ethics, and communication in shared decision making.\",\"authors\":\"Lauris Christopher Kaldjian\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/cam.32845\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Shared decision making depends on respectful dialogue that allows patients and clinicians to discuss medical facts and the beliefs and values that give them meaning for a particular patient. This dialogue is most likely to succeed when tests and treatments are placed within a purpose-oriented landscape that sets goals of care in the foreground so that the direction of decision making is clear before too much focus is placed on interventional options. The beliefs and values that guide patients allow them to identify and prioritize their most important goals of care in light of other dimensions of decision making. These beliefs and values will also reveal concepts of health that anchor goals of care. When patients and clinicians disagree about treatments or goals, it may be because a clinician is guided by a biostatistical concept of health, while a patient is guided by one that prioritizes well-being. Such disagreements may also be described in terms of patient preference (autonomy) and the clinician's assessment of the patient's best interests (beneficence). By probing the beliefs and values that explain goals of care and concepts of health, dialogue can help reconcile disagreements in shared decision making. And even when resolution is not forthcoming, and a decision must be 'un-shared', dialogue can demonstrate respect for patients through the consideration clinicians show when they take time to understand and explain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication and Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.32845\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.32845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

共同决策取决于相互尊重的对话,使患者和临床医生能够讨论医学事实以及使其对特定患者具有意义的信仰和价值观。当测试和治疗被置于一个以目的为导向的环境中,在前景中设定护理目标,以便在过多地关注干预选择之前明确决策方向时,这种对话最有可能成功。指导患者的信念和价值观使他们能够根据决策的其他方面确定并优先考虑他们最重要的护理目标。这些信念和价值观也将揭示锚定护理目标的健康概念。当患者和临床医生对治疗方法或目标不一致时,可能是因为临床医生受生物统计学健康概念的指导,而患者受优先考虑福祉的指导。这种分歧也可以用患者偏好(自主)和临床医生对患者最佳利益(慈善)的评估来描述。通过探讨解释护理目标和健康概念的信念和价值观,对话可以帮助调和共同决策中的分歧。即使没有解决方案,而且决定必须是“非共享的”,对话也可以通过临床医生在花时间理解和解释时表现出的考虑来表现对患者的尊重。
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
Concepts of health, ethics, and communication in shared decision making.

Shared decision making depends on respectful dialogue that allows patients and clinicians to discuss medical facts and the beliefs and values that give them meaning for a particular patient. This dialogue is most likely to succeed when tests and treatments are placed within a purpose-oriented landscape that sets goals of care in the foreground so that the direction of decision making is clear before too much focus is placed on interventional options. The beliefs and values that guide patients allow them to identify and prioritize their most important goals of care in light of other dimensions of decision making. These beliefs and values will also reveal concepts of health that anchor goals of care. When patients and clinicians disagree about treatments or goals, it may be because a clinician is guided by a biostatistical concept of health, while a patient is guided by one that prioritizes well-being. Such disagreements may also be described in terms of patient preference (autonomy) and the clinician's assessment of the patient's best interests (beneficence). By probing the beliefs and values that explain goals of care and concepts of health, dialogue can help reconcile disagreements in shared decision making. And even when resolution is not forthcoming, and a decision must be 'un-shared', dialogue can demonstrate respect for patients through the consideration clinicians show when they take time to understand and explain.

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
Communication and Medicine
Communication and Medicine Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Communication & Medicine continues to abide by the following distinctive aims: • To consolidate different traditions of discourse and communication research in its commitment to an understanding of psychosocial, cultural and ethical aspects of healthcare in contemporary societies. • To cover the different specialities within medicine and allied healthcare studies. • To underscore the significance of specific areas and themes by bringing out special issues from time to time. • To be fully committed to publishing evidence-based, data-driven original studies with practical application and relevance as key guiding principles.
期刊最新文献
‘But this is a wizardry something that has to be removed first’ Implications of HIV status disclosure Team talk and the evaluation of medical guidance documentation Tensions between institutional and professional frames in team talk in gerontological social work Communication skills, expertise and ethics in healthcare education and practice
×
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