While on balance a beneficial experience, the further promotion of decision-maker involvement in the research process should involve helping researchers and decision-makers identify strategic opportunities for decision-maker involvement and support the costs associated with the involvement. Consideration should also be given to undertaking and evaluating interactions between researchers and decision-makers outside of the research process.
The aim of this study is to synthesize knowledge about the process of shared decision-making (SDM) in palliative care. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Web of Science were searched with core concepts: shared decisions, patient participation in decision-making, and palliative care. Titles and abstracts were screened according to inclusion criteria (original research, adult patients, Western contexts, decision-making, palliative treatment or setting), yielding 37 articles for analysis. A narrative synthesis was created using the methods of thematic analysis, conceptual mapping, and critical reflection on the synthesis process. Results demonstrate that while a majority of patients want to participate in treatment decisions to some extent, most do not achieve their preferred levels of involvement because decisions are delayed and alternative treatment options are seldom discussed. The literature regarding the process of SDM itself remains scarce in palliative care. Further research is needed in order to better understand the longitudinal, interactive, and interdisciplinary process of decision-making in palliative care.
This article explores the challenges of mandated collaboration among public health care organizations. This in-depth longitudinal multiple case study examines the interests and values of various organizational actors in three collaborative initiatives, focusing on the mobilization of power within the governance frameworks available to them. The authors elaborate on three alternate readings of the processes examined: The managerialist views poor interorganizational collaboration as a failure to adequately manage the process; the symbolic focuses on the value of collaborative initiatives even in the absence of instrumental results; and the third examines the systemic web of power relationships reproduced over time.
Misconceptions about the practice of family medicine, created and reproduced in health care system and societal contexts, encourage the practice of specialized medicine. In addition, the academic environment appears to promote organ- and disease-based medical knowledge, which goes against the holistic and patient-centered approach characteristic of the practice of family medicine. In order to improve the reputation of family medicine and for it to be considered as an attractive career path by medical students, it is recommended that family medicine is developed as an academic medical field, and that improvements are made in the conditions and status of this medical practice within the health care system.
The participation of patients in making decisions about their care is especially important towards the end of life because palliative care decisions involve extensive uncertainty and are heavily influenced by personal values. Yet, there is a scarcity of studies directly observing clinical interactions between palliative patients and their health care providers. In this study, we aimed to understand how patient participation in palliative care decisions is constructed through discourse in a community hospital-based palliative care team. This qualitative study combined ethnographic observations of a palliative care team with discourse analysis. Eighteen palliative care patients with cancer diagnoses, six family physicians, and two nurses were involved in the study. Multiple interactions were observed between each patient and health care providers over the course of 1 year, for a total of 101 consultations, 24 of which were audio-recorded. The analysis consisted in looking for the interpretive repertoires (i.e., familiar lines of argument used to justify actions) that were used to justify patient participation in decision-making during clinical interactions, as well as exploring their implications for decision roles and end-of-life care. Patients and their health care providers seldom addressed their decision-making roles explicitly. Rather, they constructed patient participation in palliative care decisions in a covert manner. Four interpretive repertoires were used to justify patient participation: (1) exposing uncertainty, (2) co-constructing patient preferences, (3) affirming patient autonomy, and finally (4) upholding the authority of health care providers. The results demonstrate how patients and health care providers used these arguments to negotiate their respective roles in decision-making. In conclusion, patients and health care providers used a variety of interpretive repertoires to covertly negotiate their roles in decision-making, and to legitimize decisions that shaped patients’ dying trajectories. Discourse analysis encourages awareness of the role of language in either promoting or hindering patient participation in decision-making.
This qualitative research synthesis reviews interpretive scholarly papers on multi-disciplinary primary care teams. A bibliographic search was conducted in electronic databases: Medline, Embase, and the Web of Science Citation Index, and in the references of retrieved papers. The research consists of a taxonomic analysis of 19 qualitative studies about primary care teams published in peer-reviewed journals between 2001 and July 2008 in English and French. Nineteen qualitative studies were synthesized. Two major concerns emerged: (1) strategies for organizational change toward effective co-operative practice, and (2) dimensions of team interactions and work relations. The authors conclude that qualitative results suggest common strategies to improve the development of primary care teams, while identifying dimensions of team interactions that remain problematic. A fundamental aspect of team formation appears to be overlooked, i.e., the construction of a collective identity, which would involve the whole team in a shared ideal of co-operative practice. The adoption of discourse analysis is suggested as a more sophisticated qualitative methodology to explore this issue.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.