4.4 Article

Exploring the decision-making preferences of people with colorectal cancer

期刊

HEALTH EXPECTATIONS
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 103-113

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00320.x

关键词

colorectal cancer; decision-making; patient participation; qualitative

资金

  1. Department of Health [PB-PG-0610-22123] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To explore patient views on participation in treatment, physical care and psychological care decisions and factors that facilitate and hinder patients from making decisions. Design Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients. Setting and participants Three NHS Trusts in the north-west of England. Theoretical sampling including 41 patients who had been treated for colorectal cancer. Results For patients, participation in the decision-making process was about being informed and feeling involved in the consultation process, whether patients actually made decisions or not. The perceived availability of treatment choices (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy) was related to type of treatment. Factors that impacted on whether patients wanted to make decisions included a lack of information, a lack of medical knowledge and trust in medical expertise. Patients perceived that they could have a more participatory role in decisions related to physical and psychological care. Conclusion This Study has implications for health professionals aiming to implement policy guidelines that promote patient participation and shared partnerships. Patients in this study wanted to be well informed and involved in the consultation process but did not necessarily want to use the information they received to make decisions. The presentation of choices and preferences for participation may be context specific and it cannot be assumed that patients who do not want to make decisions about one aspect of their care and treatment do not want to make decisions about other aspects of their care and treatment.

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

4.4
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