Search

Introduction: The implementation and evaluation of patient participation to obtain high‐quality transitional care for older people is an international priority. Intermediate care (IC) services are regarded as an important part of the patient's pathway from the specialist to the primary care levels, bridging the gap between the hospital and the home. Patients may experience varying capacities and conditions for patient participation. Yet, few tools for evaluating patients' preferences for patient participation within IC services are at hand. Accordingly, further knowledge is needed to understand and scaffold processes for patient participation in IC. Therefore, the aim of this project was to translate, validate and pilot test the Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (the 4Ps) with patients in IC services in Norway. Methods: This project comprised two phases: (1) a careful translation and cultural adaptation process, followed by a content validity trial among 15 patients and staff in Norwegian IC and (2) a cross‐sectional survey of the instrument with 60 patients admitted to IC. Results: The translation between Swedish and Norwegian required no conceptual or contextual adaptations. The subsequent cross‐sectional study, designed as a dialogue between the patients and staff, revealed that only 50% of the participants received a sufficient level of patient participation based on their preferences, mostly indicating that patients were receiving less‐than‐preferred conditions for engaging in their health and healthcare issues. Conclusion: The 4Ps instrument was deemed suitable for measuring patient participation based on patient preferences in the IC context and was feasible for both healthcare professionals and patients to complete in an interview when arriving at and leaving services. This may support person‐centred communication and collaboration, calling for further research on what facilitates patient participation and the implementation of person‐centred services for patients in IC. Patient or Public Contribution: First, the current paper is part of the IPIC study (i.e., the implementation of patient participation in IC). Influenced by a James Lind Alliance process, the study addresses research uncertainties identified by patients, next of kin, staff and researchers in the cocreation process. Second, cognitive interviewing was conducted with 15 representatives of the target population: seven patients receiving IC services, one home‐dwelling previous IC patient (altogether four women and four men, most of them 80 years or older) and seven healthcare staff working in IC services. The interviews determined the relevance, comprehensiveness and clarity of the 4Ps. Finally, 60 patients admitted to IC took part in the cross‐sectional study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aims to explore the forms paternalistic communication can take in doctor–patient interactions and how they should be considered from a normative perspective. In contemporary philosophical debate, the problem with paternalism is often perceived as either undermining autonomy (the autonomy problem) or the paternalist viewing their judgment as superior (the superiority problem). In either case, paternalism is problematized mainly in a general, theoretical sense. In contrast, this paper investigates specific doctor–patient encounters, revealing distinct types of paternalistic communication. For this study, I reviewed videorecorded encounters from a Norwegian hospital to detect paternalism—specifically, doctors overriding patients' expressed preferences, presumably to benefit or protect the patients. I identified variations in paternalistic communication styles—termed paternalist modes—which I categorized into four types: the fighter, the advocate, the sympathizer, and the fisher. Drawing on these findings, I aim to nuance the debate on paternalism. Specifically, I argue that each paternalist mode carries its own normative implications and that the autonomy and the superiority problems manifest differently across the modes. Furthermore, by illustrating paternalism in communication through real‐life cases, I aim to reach a more comprehensive understanding of what we mean by paternalistic doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]