31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Role of GPs in shared decision making with patients about palliative cancer treatment: a qualitative study in the Netherlands

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          GPs are well placed to enhance shared decision making (SDM) about treatment for patients with advanced cancer. However, to date, little is known about GPs’ views about their contribution to SDM.

          Aim

          To explore GPs’ perspectives on their role in SDM about palliative cancer treatment and the requirements they report to fulfil this role.

          Design and setting

          Qualitative interview study among Dutch GPs.

          Method

          GPs were sampled purposefully and conveniently. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis.

          Results

          Fifteen GPs took part in this study. Most of them reported practices that potentially support SDM: checking the quality of a decision, complementing SDM, and enabling SDM. Even though most of the GPs believed that decision making about systemic cancer treatment is primarily the oncologist’s responsibility, they did recognise their added value in the SDM process because of their gatekeeper position, the additional opportunity they offer patients to discuss treatment decisions, and their knowledge and experience as primary healthcare providers at the end of life. Requirements for them to support the SDM process were described as: good collaboration with oncologists; sufficient information about the disease and its treatment; time to engage in conversations about treatment; a trusting relationship with patients; and patient-centred communication.

          Conclusion

          GPs may support SDM by checking the quality of a decision and by complementing and enabling the SDM process to reach high-quality decisions. This conceptualisation of the GP’s supporting role in SDM may help us to understand how SDM is carried out through interprofessional collaboration and provide tools for how to adopt a role in the interprofessional SDM process.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

          Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes.

            Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health). PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies. Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome. Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health). Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes. The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design. SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes. © The Author(s) 2014.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: PhD student
                Role: PhD student
                Role: Doctor of medicine
                Role: Full professor and head of department of medical oncology
                Role: Representative
                Role: GP
                Role: Full professor
                Role: Assistant professor and behavioural scientist
                Journal
                Br J Gen Pract
                Br J Gen Pract
                bjgp
                bjgp
                The British Journal of General Practice
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                0960-1643
                1478-5242
                April 2022
                08 February 2022
                08 February 2022
                : 72
                : 717
                : e276-e284
                Affiliations
                Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
                Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
                Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
                Cancer Center Amsterdam; Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
                NFK, Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations, Utrecht.
                Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
                Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
                GP Training Institute, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute; Cancer Center Amsterdam; Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence Danique Bos-van den Hoek, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Email: d.w.bos@ 123456amsterdamumc.nl
                Article
                10.3399/BJGP.2021.0446
                8843392
                34990389
                b45509fb-540b-43f2-8d59-b8a1a91a16b8
                © The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 20 July 2021
                : 20 August 2021
                : 21 October 2021
                Categories
                Research

                cancer,general practice,hospital treatment,qualitative interview study,decision making, shared

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content221

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors582