Respecting patient choices: using the ’Go Wish' cards as a teaching tool

Jurdi, Katia El; Sabra, Ramzi; Arawi, Thalia

doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2017-001342

Cited by 9 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is illustrated in Figure 1 , using two triangles for each card statement. The triangle on the upper-right represents the card dimension according to Osman and colleagues’ (2018) categorization, while the lower-left triangle represents our categorization of the participant’s reasoning about the statement. A gray triangle represents either no categorization of card statement by Osman and colleagues (2018) (i.e., for wild cards and card statements added in the Swedish version), or no recorded reasoning about this item.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The triangle on the upper-right represents the card dimension according to Osman and colleagues’ (2018) categorization, while the lower-left triangle represents our categorization of the participant’s reasoning about the statement. A gray triangle represents either no categorization of card statement by Osman and colleagues (2018) (i.e., for wild cards and card statements added in the Swedish version), or no recorded reasoning about this item. When the entire rectangle is of the same color, Osman and colleagues’ (2018) categorization of the statement dimension matches our interpretation of the participant’s reasoning.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A gray triangle represents either no categorization of card statement by Osman and colleagues (2018) (i.e., for wild cards and card statements added in the Swedish version), or no recorded reasoning about this item. When the entire rectangle is of the same color, Osman and colleagues’ (2018) categorization of the statement dimension matches our interpretation of the participant’s reasoning.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As becomes evident in Figure 1 , Thomas’ and Peter’s card rankings are most similar at first glance, with their top three prioritizations ranked identically. Among his 10 most prioritized cards, Thomas chose a majority of statements which Osman and colleagues (2018) categorized as socially related (six cards), whereas Peter had a more varied mix, with a predominance of cards categorized by Osman and colleagues (2018) as focused on physical aspects.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead of continuing to organize data by themes based on similarities, we began to explore patterns in rankings of prioritized DöBra cards by individual participants. This step was inspired by the categorization of the GoWish card statements into physical, practical, existential, and social dimensions documented by Osman, El Jurdi, Sabra, and Arawi (2018) . This contributed to a new perspective in data analysis, as the great individual variation in rankings was striking and we therefore continued to explore differences among participants in how they reasoned.…”

Section: Design and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring Community-Dwelling Older Adults’ Considerations About Values and Preferences for Future End-of-Life Care: A Study from Sweden

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives There is a substantial body of research on advance care planning (ACP), often originating from English-speaking countries and focused on health care settings. However, studies of content of ACP conversations in community settings remain scarce. We therefore explore community-dwelling, older adults’ reasoning about end-of-life (EoL) values and preferences in ACP conversations. Research Design and Methods In this participatory action research project, planned and conducted in collaboration with national community-based organizations, we interviewed 65 older adults without known EoL care needs, about their values and preferences for future EoL care. Conversations were stimulated by sorting and ranking statements in a Swedish version of GoWish cards, called the DöBra cards, and verbatim transcripts were analyzed inductively. Results While participants shared some common preferences about EoL care, there was great variation among individuals in how they reasoned. Although EoL preferences and prioritizations could be identical, different individuals explained these choices very differently. We exemplify this variation using data from four participants who discussed their respective EoL preferences by focusing on either physical, social, existential, or practical implications. Discussion and Implications A previously undocumented benefit of the GoWish/DöBra cards is how the flexibility of the card statements support substantial discussion of an individual’s EoL preferences and underlying values. Such in-depth descriptions of participants’ reasoning and considerations are important for understanding the very individual nature of prioritizing EoL preferences. We suggest future users of the DöBra/GoWish cards consider the underlying reasoning of individuals’ prioritizations to strengthen person-centeredness in EoL conversations and care provision.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%