Evaluation of the "3 Good Questions" program for shared decision-making in pediatric medicine: a feasibility study

被引:8
作者
Rexwinkel, Robyn [1 ]
Rippen, Hester [2 ]
Blokzijl-Boezeman, Inge J. M. [3 ]
de Klein, Zonja [4 ]
Walhof, Christel M. [5 ]
van der Kraan, Josine [6 ]
Benninga, Marc A. [1 ]
Tabbers, Merit M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Emma Childrens Hosp, Pediat Gastroenterol, Room C2-312,POB 22700, NL-1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Dutch Child & Hosp Fdn, Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Bernhoven, Dept Pediat, Uden, Netherlands
[4] Ommelander Hosp Groningen, Dept Pediat, Groningen, Netherlands
[5] Rijnstate, Dept Pediat, Arnhem, Netherlands
[6] Dutch Patient Federat, Utrecht, Netherlands
关键词
Children; Shared decision-making; 3 Good Questions; Intervention; CANCER; PHYSICIANS; ENCOUNTER; IMPROVE;
D O I
10.1007/s00431-020-03868-1
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
The "3 Good Questions" program was developed to increase shared decision making. The current pilot-study determined the feasibility of these questions to increase shared decision-making in Dutch pediatric medicine. Pre-/postintervention surveys were used to include children (10-18 years) at pediatric outpatient clinics of four hospitals in the Netherlands. After their appointment, two different groups of children completed the questionnaires. Group 1 filled in the survey before the intervention; group 2 completed the survey after active implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program. The primary outcome was to determine the feasibility (reach, applicability). Secondary outcomes were related to patient involvement in healthcare and treatment decisions and decision-making process between child and healthcare professional. In total, 168 and 114 children in groups 1 and 2 (61 vs 63% female, P = 0.68; age 13.3 +/- 2.4 vs 13.8 +/- 2.4 years, P = 0.72), respectively, completed the questionnaire. In group 2, 44% of children were aware of the "3 Good Questions", of whom 18% posed >= 1 of the "3 Good Questions" during their appointment (feasibility). The "3 Good Questions" program led to more shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9: P = < 0.001;95%CI: - 2.43 to - 1.17). The majority of children who have read or heard of the "3 Good Questions" would recommend this program to other children. Conclusion: Implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program seemed feasible, although it is necessary to further explore the implementation of this program at national level as a simple way for children and healthcare professionals to share decisions in practice. What is known center dot Children have the right to be included in decision-making, and inclusion can improve patient satisfaction and quality of care, and reduce costs. center dot The "3 Good Questions" program was successfully implemented in adult healthcare to increase shared decision making, and therefore these "3 Good Questions" have been adapted to a child version. What is new center dot In this pilot study, we found that the implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program to increase shared decision-making in pediatric medicine seemed feasible. Although it is necessary to further explore the implementation of the "3 Good Questions" program at national level as a simple way for children and healthcare professionals to share decisions in practice.
引用
收藏
页码:1235 / 1242
页数:8
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] Advancing Quality Alliance, 2013, EV OUTP REP AQ WORKS
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2013, IMPL SHAR DEC MAK CL
  • [3] Introducing Decision Aids At Group Health Was Linked To Sharply Lower Hip And Knee Surgery Rates And Costs
    Arterburn, David
    Wellman, Robert
    Westbrook, Emily
    Rutter, Carolyn
    Ross, Tyler
    McCulloch, David
    Handley, Matthew
    Jung, Charles
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2012, 31 (09) : 2094 - 2104
  • [4] The Psychometric Properties of CollaboRATE: A Fast and Frugal Patient-Reported Measure of the Shared Decision-Making Process
    Barr, Paul James
    Thompson, Rachel
    Walsh, Thom
    Grande, Stuart W.
    Ozanne, Elissa M.
    Elwyn, Glyn
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2014, 16 (01)
  • [5] Shared Decision Making - The Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care
    Barry, Michael J.
    Edgman-Levitan, Susan
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 366 (09) : 780 - 781
  • [6] Evaluation of question-listing at the Cancer Support Community
    Belkora, Jeff
    Miller, Melissa
    Crawford, Bonnie
    Coyne, Kathleen
    Stauffer, Margaret
    Buzaglo, Joanne
    Blakeney, Natasha
    Michaels, Margo
    Golant, Mitch
    [J]. TRANSLATIONAL BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2013, 3 (02) : 162 - 171
  • [7] Cancer consultation preparation package: Changing patients but not physicians is not enough
    Butow, P
    Devine, R
    Boyer, M
    Pendlebury, S
    Jackson, M
    Tattersall, MHN
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2004, 22 (21) : 4401 - 4409
  • [8] Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango)
    Charles, C
    Gafni, A
    Whelan, T
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1997, 44 (05) : 681 - 692
  • [9] Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model
    Charles, C
    Gafni, A
    Whelan, T
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1999, 49 (05) : 651 - 661
  • [10] Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review
    Chewning, Betty
    Bylund, Carma L.
    Shah, Bupendra
    Arora, Neeraj K.
    Gueguen, Jennifer A.
    Makoul, Gregory
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2012, 86 (01) : 9 - 18