Search

Objective: The objective of this study is to analyze guidance about medical decision making contained in ethics codes. The primary question we address is which of the main decision-making models - informed decision making (IDM), shared decision making (SDM), or paternalism - is promoted by these codes.Methods: We manually searched codes of medical ethics for guidance on medical decision making. Our analysis focused on the major international code, the World Medical Association International Code of Medical Ethics (ICME), and national codes of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Germany, France and Norway.Results: The ICME does not promote any specific model of medical decision making. 10 of the 11 analyzed national codes contain guidance about IDM, while only four refer to SDM. Some codes contain articles which are imprecise with regard to the question of medical decision making.Conclusions: All of the analyzed national codes should be updated or amended. In particular, given the great importance of SDM in medicine, codes which do not contain relevant guidance should be updated.Practice Implications: Relevant amendments introduced to ethics codes could contribute to promoting of adequate standards of medical decision making (especially those regarding SDM) among doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates laughter by General Practitioners (GPs) in response to patient laughter in lifestyle behaviour consultations. We examined video-recorded consultations involving 44 patients of four GPs in Australia. After identifying 33 cases of patient laughter, we examined whether GPs laughed in response. We used Conversation Analysis to explore the appropriateness of GP laughter and non-laughter by investigating the talk before and after the occurrence of patient laughter. GP reciprocal laughter was found in thirteen occasions when patients unsolicitedly mentioned their behaviours, laughed and displayed their evaluative stances (whether the behaviours were positive or negative). On twenty occasions, patients laughed in response to GP enquiries, which worked to problematise particular behaviours. In this context, patient laughter was not usually reciprocated (19/20 cases) because reciprocal laughter may risk being interpreted as laughing at the patient, as evidenced by one deviant case. GP reciprocal laughter may be problematic when the behaviour issues are raised by GPs and patients' evaluative stances regarding their behaviour have not yet been revealed. To decide when it is appropriate to reciprocate laughter, GPs should consider the contexts that lead to patient laughter and patients' evaluative stances. • Conversation Analysis is a robust empirical research approach for investigating laughter in lifestyle behaviour consultations. • When patients do not indicate whether the behaviours are positive or negative, GPs' reciprocal laughter may have negative effect. • When patients make jokes about their behaviours, GPs' reciprocal laughter may work to build the patient-doctor relationship. • When the behaviour issue is raised by the patient, GP laughter is less likely to be interpreted as laughing at the patient. • When the issue is raised by the GP, GP laughter is more at risk of being interpreted as laughing at. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Is there a relationship between decision-making preferences and psychological distress?Methods: Patients who had received treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) at four institutions within NSW, Australia were invited to complete a single questionnaire.Results: Five hundred and ninety-seven patients completed the questionnaire. The majority of patients (308, 54%) preferred shared decision making. Significant predictors of a preference towards active decision making were education level (OR 2.1 for tertiary, p < 0.001), primary cancer site (OR 1.9 for thyroid compared to salivary gland, p = 0.024) and gender (OR 1.4 for female, p = 0.028). Mean psychological distress score on Kessler 6 (K6) was 9 (Range: 0-28). Significant predictors of psychological distress were age (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001), primary site (p < 0.01), and decision preference (p < 0.01).Conclusion: HNC patients who are either tertiary educated or female are more likely to prefer active involvement in decision-making. Psychological distress is more likely in patients actively involved in decision making, younger patients, and in females.Practice Implications: Patients experienced paternalistic decision-making, but most preferred active or a shared approached. Clinicians need to be aware of potential for psychological distress in active decision-makers and refer patients for psychosocial support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Little is known about how family are involved in cancer treatment decision-making. This study aimed to qualitatively explore Australian oncology clinicians', patients', and family members' attitudes towards, and experiences of, family involvement in decision-making.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 cancer patients, 33 family members, 10 oncology nurses and 11 oncologists. Framework analysis methods were used.Results: Three main themes were uncovered: (i) how family are involved in the decision-making process: specific behaviours of family across 5 (extended) decision-making stages; (ii) attitudes towards family involvement in the decision-making process: balancing patient authority with the rights of the family; and (iii) factors influencing family involvement: patient, family, cultural, relationship, and decision.Conclusion: This study highlighted many specific behaviours of family throughout the decision-making process, the complex participant attitudes toward retaining patient authority whilst including the family, and insight into influencing factors. These findings will inform a conceptual framework describing family involvement in decision-making.Practice Implications: Clinicians could ascertain participant preferences and remain open to the varying forms of family involvement in decision-making. Given the important role of family in the decision-making process, family inclusive consultation strategies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]