‘A good decision is the one that feels right for me’: Codesign with patients to inform theoretical underpinning of a decision aid website

Author:

Kohut Kelly12ORCID,Morton Kate1,Hurley Karen3,Turner Lesley4,Dale Caroline4,Eastbrook Susan4,Gold Rochelle4,Henwood Kate4,Patton Sonia4,Punjabi Reshma4,White Helen4,Young Charlene4,Young Julie4,Bancroft Elizabeth56,Barnett Lily2,Cable Sarah2,Connolly Gaya2,Coad Beth2,Forman Andrea2,Hanson Helen2,Kavanaugh Grace7,Sahan Katherine8,Snape Katie2,Torr Bethany7,Way Rosalind7,Winchester Elizabeth2,Youngs Alice2,Eccles Diana9ORCID,Foster Claire1, ,

Affiliation:

1. School of Health Sciences, Centre for Psychosocial Research in Cancer (CentRIC) University of Southampton Southampton UK

2. St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust London UK

3. Stanford R. Weiss, MD Center for Hereditary Colorectal Neoplasia Cleveland Clinic Cleveland Ohio USA

4. Patient and Public Collaborators

5. Cancer Genetics Unit and Academic Urology Unit The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust London UK

6. Oncogenetics Team The Institute of Cancer Research London UK

7. Division of Genetics and Epidemiology The Institute of Cancer Research London UK

8. Nuffield Department of Population Health, The Ethox Centre University of Oxford Oxford UK

9. Faculty of Medicine University of Southampton Southampton UK

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionPatient decision aids (PtDA) complement shared decision‐making with healthcare professionals and improve decision quality. However, PtDA often lack theoretical underpinning. We are codesigning a PtDA to help people with increased genetic cancer risks manage choices. The aim of an innovative workshop described here was to engage with the people who will use the PtDA regarding the theoretical underpinning and logic model outlining our hypothesis of how the PtDA would lead to more informed decision‐making.MethodsShort presentations about psychological and behavioural theories by an expert were interspersed with facilitated, small‐group discussions led by patients. Patients were asked what is important to them when they make health decisions, what theoretical constructs are most meaningful and how this should be applied to codesign of a PtDA. An artist created a visual summary. Notes from patient discussions and the artwork were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsThe overarching theme was: It's personal. Contextual factors important for decision‐making were varied and changed over time. There was no one ‘best fit’ theory to target support needs in a PtDA, suggesting an inductive, flexible framework approach to programme theory would be most effective. The PtDA logic model was revised based on patient feedback.ConclusionMeaningful codesign of PtDA including discussions about the theoretical mechanisms through which they support decision‐making has the potential to lead to improved patient care through understanding the intricately personal nature of health decisions, and tailoring content and format for holistic care.Patient ContributionPatients with lived experience were involved in codesign and coproduction of this workshop and analysis as partners and coauthors. Patient discussions were the primary data source. Facilitators provided a semi‐structured guide, but they did not influence the patient discussions or provide clinical advice. The premise of this workshop was to prioritise the importance of patient lived experience: to listen, learn, then reflect together to understand and propose ideas to improve patient care through codesign of a PtDA.

Funder

Cancer Research UK

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference72 articles.

1. NICE. Patient experience in adult NHS services: improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS services. Clinical Guideline [CG138];2021.

2. Shared Decision Making — The Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care

3. UK Public General Acts UPG. Mental Capacity Act.2005.

4. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. SC 11 [2015] 1 AC 1430.

5. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3