Search

Objective To identify factors acting as barriers or enablers to the process of healthcare consent for people with intellectual disability and to understand how to make this process equitable and accessible. Data sources Databases: Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL. Additional articles were obtained from an ancestral search and hand- searching three journals. Eligibility criteria Peer- reviewed original research about the consent process for healthcare interventions, published after 1990, involving adult participants with intellectual disability. Synthesis of results Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify factors affecting informed consent. The findings were reviewed by co- researchers with intellectual disability to ensure they reflected lived experiences, and an easy read summary was created. Results Twenty- three studies were included (1999 to 2020), with a mix of qualitative (n=14), quantitative (n=6) and mixed- methods (n=3) studies. Participant numbers ranged from 9 to 604 people (median 21) and included people with intellectual disability, health professionals, carers and support people, and others working with people with intellectual disability. Six themes were identified: (1) health professionals' attitudes and lack of education, (2) inadequate accessible health information, (3) involvement of support people, (4) systemic constraints, (5) person- centred informed consent and (6) effective communication between health professionals and patients. Themes were barriers (themes 1, 2 and 4), enablers (themes 5 and 6) or both (theme 3). Conclusions Multiple reasons contribute to poor consent practices for people with intellectual disability in current health systems. Recommendations include addressing health professionals' attitudes and lack of education in informed consent with clinician training, the coproduction of accessible information resources and further inclusive research into informed consent for people with intellectual disability. PROSPERO registration CRD42021290548. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To optimise medication use in older people, it is recommended that clinicians evaluate evidence on potential benefits and harms of medicines in light of the patients' overall health, values and goals. This suggests general practitioners (GPs) should attempt to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making. In practice this is often challenging. In this qualitative study, we explored GPs' perspectives on the importance of discussing patients' goals and preferences, and the role patient preferences play in medicines management and prioritisation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from Australia (n = 32). Participants were purposively sampled to recruit GPs with variation in experience level and geographic location. Transcribed audio-recordings of interviews were coded using Framework Analysis. Results: The results showed that most GPs recognised some value in understanding older patients' goals and preferences regarding their medicines. Most reported some discussions of goals and preferences with patients, but often this was initiated by the patient. Practical barriers were reported such as limited time during busy consultations to discuss issues beyond acute problems. GPs differed on the following main themes: 1) definition and perception of patients' goals, 2) relationship with the patient, 3) approach to medicines management and prioritisation. We observed that GPs preferred one of three different practice patterns in their approach to patients' goals in medicines decisions: 1) goals and preferences considered lower priority – 'Directive'; 2) goals seen as central – 'Goal-oriented'; 3) goals and preferences considered but not explicitly elicited – 'Tacit'. Conclusions: This study explores how GPs differ in their approach to eliciting patients' goals and preferences, and how these differences are operationalised in the context of older adults taking multiple medicines. Although there are challenges in providing care that aligns with patients' goals and preferences, this study shows how complex decisions are made between GPs and their older patients in clinical practice. This work may inform future research that investigates how GPs can best incorporate the priorities of older people in decision-making around medicines. Developing practical support strategies may assist clinicians to involve patients in discussions about their medicines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Somatic mutations in key oncogenes in non-small cell lung cancer ( NSCLC) and melanoma are important determinants of tumour sensitivity to targeted therapies. Molecular screening for these predictive biomarkers is routinely used to inform treatment decisions; however, little is known about how best to communicate testing and results to patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore advanced cancer patients' attitudes and experiences regarding somatic tumour screening to identify their information and support needs. Sixteen NSCLC and eight melanoma patients who had undergone screening participated in a semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interview exploring their understanding, views, preferences and needs regarding screening. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed for thematic patterns. Participants expressed positive views and unequivocal acceptance of screening, and understood its role in guiding treatment selection. They preferred to receive information verbally through simple, non-technical language from their oncologist with additional take-home materials. Patients were interested in learning about their test results, but wanted discussion to be focused on practical matters relevant to treatment. While receiving their screening results was not considered burdensome, information overload and cancer-related distress were identified as barriers to test comprehension. Patients may benefit from information and decision-related tools to better understand genomic information and adequately support psychosocial outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined factors influencing decision-making on complementary and alternative medicine ( CAM) use for back pain and back pain sufferers' communication about CAM use. A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted in 2011/2012 as a sub-study of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health ( ALSWH). The sample contained 1620 women from the 1945-1951 cohort of the ALSWH, aged 60-65 years who were eligible for the sub-study, as they had experienced back pain during 12 months prior to the survey. Of these, 1310 (80.9%) returned completed questionnaires. A significant proportion of women consulted a CAM practitioner (76%, n = 1001) and/or had self-prescribed CAM treatment (75%, n = 985). Of the women who used CAM for their back pain, 20% consulted their general practitioner ( GP) prior to using CAM and 34% always informed their GP following CAM use. Forty-three per cent of the women were influenced by their doctors, 39% by friends/colleagues, 36% by family/relatives, 33% by their partner, 30% by a CAM practitioner, 20% by a pharmacist, 16% by a book/magazine, 11% by mass media, 10% by an allied health worker and 6% by the Internet. Our results show that information sources used by women for their decision-making on CAM use differed according to the symptoms. While non-professional information sources (e.g. family/relatives) positively influenced women in their decision to use CAM for a range of back pain-related symptoms (e.g. headaches/migraines), doctors and allied health workers (e.g. nurses) negatively influenced women in their decision to consult a CAM practitioner for a range of back pain-related symptoms (e.g. headaches/migraines, neck pain). Women seek information from a wide range of professional and non-professional sources with regard to their decision-making around CAM use for back pain. Back pain care providers need to ensure effective communication with their back pain patients regarding safe, effective and co-ordinated back pain care options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses aspects of decision making in neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer. Topics include women's trust in clinicians to avoid the burden of decision-making in NACT for the treatment of breast cancer, women's access to a decision-support tool to help in their decision-making and the reasons behind breast cancer patients consideration of NACT.