4.5 Article

Accelerating implementation of shared decision-making in the Netherlands: An exploratory investigation

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 101, 期 12, 页码 2097-2104

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.06.021

关键词

Shared decision-making; Implementation; Patient-centered care; Practice improvement; Multilevel

资金

  1. ZonMw, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To prioritize strategies to implement shared decision-making (SDM) in daily practice, resulting in an agenda for a nationwide approach. Methods: This was a qualitative, exploratory investigation involving: Interviews (N = 43) to elicit perceived barriers to and facilitators of change, focus group discussions (N = 51) to develop an implementation strategy, and re-affirmation through written feedback (n = 19). Professionals, patients, researchers and policymakers from different healthcare sectors participated. Determinants for change were addressed at four implementation levels: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) clinician and/or patient, (3) organizational context and (4) socio-political context. Results: Following the identification of perceived barriers, four strategies were proposed to scale up SDM: 1) stimulating intrinsic motivation among clinicians via an integrated programmatic approach, 2) training and implementation in routine practice, 3) stimulating the empowerment of patients, 4) creating an enabling socio-political context. Conclusion: Clinicians mentioned that applying SDM makes their job more rewarding and indicated that implementation in daily practice needs ground-up redesign. The challenge is to effectively influence the behavior of clinicians and patients alike, and adapt clinical pathways to facilitate the exploration of patient values. Practice implications: Stakeholders should connect nationwide initiatives to pool information, and make the healthcare system supportive of implementing SDM. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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