METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, 16 healthcare professionals and 5 policymakers from surgical and oncology departments at public healthcare centres in Malaysia. Semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach. Nvivo software was used to manage and analyse the data.
RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from the study: healthcare provider-patient communication, workforce availability, cultural and belief systems, goals of care and paternalism versus autonomy. Other strategies proposed to overcome barriers to implementing shared decision-making were training of healthcare professionals and empowering nurses to manage patients' psychosocial issues.
CONCLUSION: This study found that practising shared decision-making in the public health sector remains challenging when managing patients with metastatic breast cancer. The utilization of decision-making tools, patient empowerment and healthcare provider training may help address the system and healthcare provider-patient barriers identified in this study.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in the study design, recruitment and analysis.
METHODS: Participants (N = 2071) from Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, and the U.S.A. completed an online survey assessing their preferences for exchange of information, autonomy in decision-making, expression and validation of their emotions, focus on them as an individual, and the doctor-patient relationship.
RESULTS: Participants from all four countries had similar preferences for empathy and shared decision-making. For other facets of PCC, participants in the Philippines and Australia expressed somewhat similar preferences, as did those in the U.S.A. and Hong Kong, challenging East-West stereotypes. Participants in the Philippines placed greater value on relationships, whereas Australians valued more autonomy. Participants in Hong Kong more commonly preferred doctor-directed care, with less importance placed on the relationship. Responses from U.S.A. participants were surprising, as they ranked the need for individualized care and two-way flow of information as least important.
CONCLUSIONS: Empathy, information exchange, and shared decision-making are values shared across countries, while preferences for how the information is shared, and the importance of the doctor-patient relationship differ.
METHODS: The purpose of this research was to identify the source of information, travel benefits and perceived risks related to movement of international patients and develop a conceptual model based on well-established theory. Thorough database search (Science Direct, utmj.org, nih.gov, nchu.edu.tw, palgrave-journals, medretreat, Biomedcentral) was performed to fulfill the objectives of the study.
RESULTS: International patients always concern about benefits and risks related to travel. These benefits and risks form images of destination in the minds of international patients. Different sources of information make international patients acquaint about the associated benefits and risks, which later leads to development of intention to visit. This conceptual paper helps in establishing model for decision-making process of international patients in developing visit intention.
CONCLUSION: Ample amount of literature is available detailing different factors involved in travel decision making of international patients; however literature explaining relationship between these factors is scarce.