BMJ open · 2025
'A return on investment'. How shared decision-making benefits doctors: a key informant interview study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elwyn Glyn, Leavitt Hannah B, Vesling Mallory, Jacobs Christopher Rex, Lund Lea
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To elicit the benefits of shared decision-making to doctors who are champions of this approach.
DESIGN: A qualitative interview study that used practical thematic analysis.
SETTING: We identified a purposive international sample of doctors in active clinical practice who were recognised champions of shared decision-making, working in various clinical disciplines.
PARTICIPANTS: 24 doctors in active clinical practice were interviewed; 14 were male and 10 were female; 20 had been in clinical practice for over 10 years (range 1-30). 12 practised in North America, 10 in Europe, 1 in South America and 1 in Asia; 4 doctors worked in internal medicine, 4 in primary care, 5 in surgery, 3 in paediatrics, 3 in oncology and 1 in each of the following disciplines: emergency medicine, palliative care, geriatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, anaesthesiology, and cardiology.
RESULTS: This selected sample of doctors consistently reported that shared decision-making provided benefits to themselves, their patients and their teams. Shared decision-making reinforced and enhanced their self-identity as ethical professionals, supporting patient autonomy, increasing their professional fulfilment and reducing their risk of burnout. These intrinsic benefits accompanied reports of other consequential benefits, namely, patients' achieving better-informed, preference-sensitive decisions, a higher likelihood of improved patient outcomes, improved efficiency and team function. The doctors viewed the approach as providing connectedness, shared responsibility resulting in a lighter burden, acting as a buttress against moral injury and the emotional strain of clinical work and, where relevant, mitigation against becoming the second victim of a bad or unexpected outcome.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Doctors who champion shared decision-making report significant benefits to themselves and their patients. These benefits have not been widely reported, which has implications for motivating doctors to adopt shared decision-making. Instead of addressing presumed gaps in communication skills, it might be better to highlight the positive impact on professional fulfilment and the protective effect of shared decision-making.
DESIGN: A qualitative interview study that used practical thematic analysis.
SETTING: We identified a purposive international sample of doctors in active clinical practice who were recognised champions of shared decision-making, working in various clinical disciplines.
PARTICIPANTS: 24 doctors in active clinical practice were interviewed; 14 were male and 10 were female; 20 had been in clinical practice for over 10 years (range 1-30). 12 practised in North America, 10 in Europe, 1 in South America and 1 in Asia; 4 doctors worked in internal medicine, 4 in primary care, 5 in surgery, 3 in paediatrics, 3 in oncology and 1 in each of the following disciplines: emergency medicine, palliative care, geriatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, anaesthesiology, and cardiology.
RESULTS: This selected sample of doctors consistently reported that shared decision-making provided benefits to themselves, their patients and their teams. Shared decision-making reinforced and enhanced their self-identity as ethical professionals, supporting patient autonomy, increasing their professional fulfilment and reducing their risk of burnout. These intrinsic benefits accompanied reports of other consequential benefits, namely, patients' achieving better-informed, preference-sensitive decisions, a higher likelihood of improved patient outcomes, improved efficiency and team function. The doctors viewed the approach as providing connectedness, shared responsibility resulting in a lighter burden, acting as a buttress against moral injury and the emotional strain of clinical work and, where relevant, mitigation against becoming the second victim of a bad or unexpected outcome.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Doctors who champion shared decision-making report significant benefits to themselves and their patients. These benefits have not been widely reported, which has implications for motivating doctors to adopt shared decision-making. Instead of addressing presumed gaps in communication skills, it might be better to highlight the positive impact on professional fulfilment and the protective effect of shared decision-making.