OBJECTIVE: The present study tested the effectiveness of an integrated social cognition model in predicting intention to participate in the self-management behaviors in FH patients from seven countries.
METHOD: Consecutive patients in FH clinics from Australia, Hong Kong, Brazil, Malaysia, Taiwan, China, and UK (total N = 726) completed measures of social cognitive beliefs about illness from the common sense model of self-regulation, beliefs about behaviors from the theory of planned behavior, and past behavior for the three self-management behaviors.
RESULTS: Structural equation models indicated that beliefs about behaviors from the theory of planned behavior, namely, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, were consistent predictors of intention across samples and behaviors. By comparison, effects of beliefs about illness from the common sense model were smaller and trivial in size. Beliefs partially mediated past behavior effects on intention, although indirect effects of past behavior on intention were larger for physical activity relative to taking medication and healthy eating. Model constructs did not fully account for past behavior effects on intentions. Variability in the strength of the beliefs about behaviors was observed across samples and behaviors.
CONCLUSION: Current findings outline the importance of beliefs about behaviors as predictors of FH self-management behaviors. Variability in the relative contribution of the beliefs across samples and behaviors highlights the imperative of identifying sample- and behavior-specific correlates of FH self-management behaviors.
METHODS: The decision aid prototype was developed following a literature review and six focus groups. Alpha testing assessed its comprehensibility, acceptability, usability and desirability through user-centered cognitive interviews. Beta-testing evaluated preliminary evidence on its efficacy using the SDM Scale and PDMS. Feasibility was assessed by timing the consultation.
RESULTS: The alpha testing demonstrated that the decision aid was patient-oriented, comprehensible, comprehensive, concise and objective with an appealing design. Beta-testing indicated that PtDA significantly increased patients satisfaction with SDM from patients' [83.32 (13.92) vs 85.76 (13.80); p patients for decision making from the patients' [PDMS patients: 84.10 (12.69)] and physicians' [PDMS physicians: 83.78 (16.62)] perspectives as well. There was no change in the consultation time between the control and the intervention groups.
CONCLUSIONS: We developed an antidepressant PtDA for Malaysian patients with MDD that increases patients' involvement in shared decision making and enhances their preparedness for decision making.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Using the PtDA can support collaborative decision-making in routine clinical practice without extending the consultation time.
METHODS: This study used mixed methods to develop a PtDA for use in a UK general practice setting. A 10-member expert panel was convened to guide development and patients and clinicians were also interviewed individually using semi-structured interview guides to identify their decisional needs. Current literature was reviewed systematically to determine the best available evidence. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework was used to guide the presentation of the information and value clarification exercise. An iterative draft-review-revise process by the research team and review panel was conducted until the PtDA reached content and format 'saturation'. The PtDA was then pilot-tested by users in actual consultations to assess its acceptability and feasibility. The IPDAS and UKMRC frameworks were used throughout to inform the development process.
RESULTS: The PANDAs PtDA was developed systematically and iteratively. Patients and clinicians highlighted the needs for information, decisional, emotional and social support, which were incorporated into the PtDA. The literature review identified gaps in high quality evidence and variations in patient outcome reporting. The PtDA comprised five components: background of the treatment options; pros and cons of each treatment option; value clarification exercise; support needs; and readiness to decide.
CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated the feasibility of combining the IPDAS and the UKMRC frameworks for the development and evaluation of a PtDA. Future studies should test this model for developing PtDAs across different decisions and healthcare contexts.
METHODS: Researchers developed 6 culturally relevant disease scenarios varying from low to high medical seriousness. Quota samples of approximately 290 middle-aged urban residents in Australia, China, Malaysia, India, South Korea, Thailand, and the USA completed an online survey that examined desired levels of FI and identified individual difference predictors in each country. All reliability coefficients were acceptable. Regression models met standard assumptions.
RESULTS: The strongest finding across all 7 countries was that those who desired higher self-involvement (SI) in medical decision making also wanted lower FI. On the other hand, respondents who valued relational-interdependence tended to want their families involved - a key finding in 5 of 7 countries. In addition, in 4 of 7 countries, respondents who valued social hierarchy desired higher FI. Other antecedents were less consistent.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that it is important for health providers to avoid East-West cultural stereotypes. There are meaningful numbers of patients in all 7 countries who want to be individually involved and those individuals tend to prefer lower FI. On the other hand, more interdependent patients are likely to want families involved in many of the countries studied. Thus, individual differences within culture appear to be important in predicting whether a patient desires FI. For this reason, avoiding culture-based assumptions about desired FI during medical decision making is central to providing more effective patient centered care.
METHODS: A qualitative study with four focus-group discussions was conducted with 20 registered nurses from general wards in a Malaysian public hospital. Semi-structured interviews were used to elicit participants' opinions. NVivo 10 software was used for data management and content analysis was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: Several participants used inconsistent methods to involve patients in bedside handovers and others did not involve the patients at all. The participants' interpretations of the concept of patient-centered care were ambiguous; they claimed that patient involvement during bedside handovers was impractical and, therefore, not reflective of patient-centered care. Some nurses' subjective views of patient involvement as impractical during bedside handovers were manifested in their deliberate exclusion of patients from the handover process.
CONCLUSIONS: Changes in patient involvement and nursing practices congruent with patient-centered care require that nurse educators in hospital settings reform nursing education to focus on fostering of communication skills needed to function in nurse-patient partnerships. Guidelines for patient involvement consistent with patient-centered values should be developed using ward nurses' subjective views and introduced to all registered nurses in practice.
METHOD: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among 450 nurses from 37 wards in Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Nurses on shift duty were recruited by convenience sampling from the Medical, Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Orthopaedic and Paediatric wards. Using a validated questionnaire (Handover Evaluation Scale), nurses self-rated their perceptions using a 7-point scale and provided open-ended responses to the strengths and challenges that they faced. Descriptive and inferential analyses were done while open-ended questions were summarised based on key themes.
RESULTS: A total of 414 nurses completed the survey (92.0% response rate). Nurses had an overall mean (SD) perception score of 5.01 (SD 0.56). They perceived good interaction and support during handover and on the quality of information that they received, with mean scores of 5.54 (SD 0.79) and 5.19 (SD 0.69), respectively. There was an association between the departments where the nurses worked and their overall perceptions on nursing handover (p<0.001). Interruptions being the most common theme emerged from the open-ended section.
CONCLUSION: Despite having substantial interaction and support amongst nurses, opportunities for improvements were noted. Improvements in the quality of handover information and reducing interruptions should be the main emphases as these were perceived to be essential in the current handover practices by nurses.