4.5 Article

Preferences and experiences of chronically ill and disabled patients regarding shared decision-making: Does the type of care to be decided upon matter?

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 84, 期 1, 页码 111-117

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.032

关键词

Shared decision-making; Chronically ill and disabled; Medical care issues; Home care issues; Occupational healthcare issues; Lifestyle issues

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
  2. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment of The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: (1) To describe the importance chronically ill and disabled patients attach to involvement in decision-making when various care types are considered, and (2) to analyse the degree to which these patients are involved in shared decision-making (SDM) regarding these care types, and whether their involvement reflects the importance they attach to SDM. Methods: The study sample consisted of 812 chronically ill and disabled patients who experienced a situation of decision-making during the last year. Data were collected by a self-report survey in 2006 and were analysed by multilevel linear regression analyses. Results: Participants attached most importance to SDM when occupational healthcare issues were at stake, but perceived their actual involvement in these decisions as relatively low. Patients dealing with decision-making regarding medical care or home care experienced higher levels of involvement. The importance attached to SDM corresponds moderately with the actual role patients experience in the decision-making process. Conclusion: The type of care to decide upon impacts on the importance patients attach to SDM as well as on their actual involvement in decision-making. Practice implications: We suggest healthcare practitioners to pay attention to the preferred level of patient involvement each time a new care issue has to be decided upon. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据