Search

Background: Birth plans are written preferences for labor and birth which women prepare in advance. Most studies have examined them as a novel intervention or "outside" formal care provision. This study considered use of a standard birth plan section within a national, woman-held maternity record. Methods: Exploratory qualitative interviews were conducted with women (42) and maternity service staff (24) in northeast Scotland. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Staff and women were generally positive about the provision of the birth plan section within the record. Perceived benefits included the opportunity to highlight preferences, enhance communication, stimulate discussions, and address anxieties. However, not all women experienced these benefits or understood the birth plan's purpose. Some were unaware of the opportunity to complete it or could not access the support they needed from staff to discuss or be confident about their options. Some were reluctant to plan too much. Staff recognized the need to support women with birth plan completion but noted practical challenges to this. Conclusions: A supportive antenatal opportunity to allow discussion of options may be needed to realize the potential benefits of routine inclusion of birth plans in maternity notes.

Purpose – Over the past decade, there has been growing international interest in shaping local organisational cultures in primary healthcare. However, the contextual relevance of extant culture assessment instruments to the primary care context has been questioned. The aim of this paper is to derive a new contextually appropriate understanding of the key dimensions of primary care medical practice organisational culture and their inter-relationship through a synthesis of published qualitative research. Design/methodology/approach – A systematic search of six electronic databases followed by a synthesis using techniques of meta-ethnography involving translation and re-interpretation. Findings – A total of 16 papers were included in the meta-ethnography from the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand that fell into two related groups: those focused on practice organisational characteristics and narratives of practice individuality; and those focused on sub-practice variation across professional, managerial and administrative lines. It was found that primary care organisational culture was characterised by four key dimensions, i.e. responsiveness, team hierarchy, care philosophy and communication. These dimensions are multi-level and inter-professional in nature, spanning both practice and sub-practice levels. Research limitations/implications – The research contributes to organisational culture theory development. The four new cultural dimensions provide a synthesized conceptual framework for researchers to evaluate and understand primary care cultural and sub-cultural levels. Practical implications – The synthesised cultural dimensions present a framework for practitioners to understand and change organisational culture in primary care teams. Originality/value – The research uses an innovative research methodology to synthesise the existing qualitative research and is one of the first to develop systematically a qualitative conceptual framing of primary care organisational culture.

Purpose Communication with health care providers is important to help meet cancer patients' information and support needs. It can significantly affect the extent to which patients feel cared for, respected and involved, and it can influence a range of cancer care processes and outcomes. This paper presents findings from a study which explored urological cancer patients' experiences of care, focussing on insights into what they appeared to value in their interactions with health care providers and why. Method In-depth interviews were undertaken with 20 men and 6 women with different types of urological cancer at a range of times since diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed using an established interpretive approach. Results Patients valued being treated as someone who mattered and was worthy of care; being recognised and responded to as an individual; and experiencing support for autonomy/agency. Reasons for their valuations related to the implications of communicative interactions for the ways patients thought health professionals related to them ‘as persons'. Our findings highlight the value of relational aspects of communication for: indicating to patients what clinicians think of their worth; facilitating individualised care; and enabling patients to contribute to their own care. Conclusions Efforts to improve health care provider-patient communication should attend not only to the transfer of information about the condition and its management but to the range of features of interactions that can signal to people how health care providers relate to them as persons.

Objective To identify modifiable factors that influence patients' information-giving behaviour about their health during consultations with pharmacy staff. Methods A theory of planned behaviour questionnaire was posted to 3000 individuals randomly selected from the Scottish Electoral Register. Results The 927 respondents confirmed a low rate of disclosure of information about their health to pharmacy staff during their last pharmacy visit. Individuals who intended to give information about their health during pharmacy consultations were more likely to do so. Those who intended to give information during consultations had higher subjective norms than those who did not (i.e. intentions were associated with beliefs that people who were important to them, e.g. family members, doctors, thought they should give information during these consultations). Control beliefs, e.g. ‘I am confident that I will give information if I have received good advice in the past’, and behavioural beliefs, e.g. ‘If I give information I will be sold an appropriate medicine’, were not associated with intention or behaviour. Conclusion Future interventions to promote relevant communication between patients and pharmacy staff should target patients' subjective norms rather than control beliefs or behavioural beliefs.

Objectives To examine how general practitioners (GPs) in the UK and GPs in Australia explain their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing practices and to illuminate how these explanations are similar and how they are different. Design A grounded theory study. Setting Primary care practices in Australia and the UK. Participants 69 GPs in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29). We included GPs of varying ages, sex, clinical experience and patient populations. All GPs interested in participating in the study were included. Results GPs' accounts revealed fundamental differences in whether and how prostate cancer screening occurred in their practice and in the broader context within which they operate. The history of prostate screening policy, organisational structures and funding models appeared to drive more prostate screening in Australia and less in the UK. In Australia, screening processes and decisions were mostly at the discretion of individual clinicians, and varied considerably, whereas the accounts of UK GPs clearly reflected a consistent, organisationally embedded approach based on local evidence-based recommendations to discourage screening. Conclusions The GP accounts suggested that healthcare systems, including historical and current organisational and funding structures and rules, collectively contribute to how and why clinicians use the PSA test and play a significant role in creating the mindlines that GPs employ in their clinic. Australia's recently released consensus guidelines may support more streamlined and consistent care. However, if GP mindlines and thus routine practice in Australia are to shift, to ultimately reduce unnecessary or harmful prostate screening, it is likely that other important drivers at all levels of the screening process will need to be addressed. NHMRC grant number 1023197

Midwives usually document women's health and maternal histories during booking appointments. This qualitative study of use of the Scottish Woman Held Maternity Record (SWHMR) found some midwifery teams were asking women to document their own histories before these appointments. Pregnant women and midwives from these teams thought this could save midwives time, improve the accuracy of records and lead to more individually appropriate discussions. However, some women were disappointed that midwives had not fully discussed what they had written. Some midwives from teams that had not asked women to document their own histories were sceptical about the likely accuracy and usefulness of women's entries. If the potential advantages of asking women to document their own histories are to be safely realised, support must be available for women with limited English or reading and writing skills, and midwives must have time to review and discuss what women write.

Purpose. Trust is important for patients and may be used as an indicator and potential ‘marker’ for how patients evaluate the quality of health care. The review aimed to classify the current evidence base on trust in the patient–provider relationship in order to identify strengths and weaknesses and to point towards areas for future research. Data sources. Nine electronic databases were searched from 2004 onwards using text and subject heading keywords relating to ‘trust’ and ‘health care’ and ‘relationships’. Study selection. Abstracts were identified for empirical studies carried out in health-care settings that explicitly examined trust or reported trust-related findings as a secondary outcome. Data extraction. Two review authors assessed the relevance of abstracts and extracted data relating to year published, country of study, clinical speciality, study design and participants. Results of data synthesis. Five hundred and ninety-six abstracts were included. Most reported on patients’ trust in providers; were carried out in the USA; collected data in family care or oncology/palliative care settings; used questionnaires and interviews and elicited patients’ perspectives. Only one study explicitly set out to examine providers’ trust in patients and

Objectives Randomized controlled trials are important for evaluating health care interventions, but recruitment can be difficult. Studies of potential participants’ perspectives on trial participation are accumulating, but their collective contribution is not obvious. In 2007, we conducted a meta-ethnographic synthesis of people’s reasons for accepting or declining participation. This paper reports a second synthesis, conducted separately on the same topic, using studies published subsequently. It discusses both the substantive findings and the methodological implications for updating meta-ethnographies. Methods Systematic searches identified relevant papers published between 1996 and 2005 (first synthesis), then 2005 and 2010 (second synthesis). We used a meta-ethnographic interpretive process of translation to examine the relationships between study findings. Findings The two syntheses were broadly compatible, but the line of argument developed in the second more clearly highlighted how potential participants’ health states and health care situations at the time of recruitment could interact with other considerations. In particular, they could influence the nature and significance for trial entry decisions of people’s judgements about: their communication and relationship with trial recruiters; the personal implications of trial interventions and processes; and the ‘common good’ (helping others) and what their non/participation might say about their identity. Conclusions Our work highlights the need for trialists to consider potential participants’ health and health care situations when designing recruitment approaches. It also provides the first empirical insights on the process of updating meta-ethnographies that we are currently aware of. Approaches to updating meta-ethnographies need further investigation.

Our suggestion that the aspects of healthcare quality associated with ‘person-centered care’ can be understood as a matter of health services and staff recognizing and cultivating a subset of capab...

Purpose of the research Information is often seen as a crucial tool for the support of cancer patients, facilitating their involvement in care management and in decision-making. The importance of theory in guiding provision of cancer information has been widely accepted, but there is a growing need for critical reflection on the concepts underlying approaches to information provision. This paper presents findings from a critical review of literature related to information in cancer care. Methods Critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) was employed to review and synthesise published literature. 57 publications were selected in a multi-step systematic process. Their content was analysed and synthesised using established methodology consistent with primary qualitative research. Key results The synthesis identified and characterised a concept of cancer information provision as a “support for navigating the knowledge landscape”. This concept recognises the diverse, changing and relational nature of patients’ values, needs and preferences. It promotes a view of information provision as an ongoing and flexible process of navigating different resources, which in turn support the navigation of patients’ broader experiences of their health and care. This process recognises various levels of patient involvement with healthcare services, and ensures timely provision of selected and personally relevant information. Conclusion The concept of “support for navigating the knowledge landscape” offers a useful way of envisaging information services for people with cancer (and possibly also with other chronic illnesses), which would be responsive to patients’ needs and preferences.

Current practices of identifying and treating small indolent thyroid cancers constitute an important but in some ways unusual form of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis refers to diagnoses that generally harm rather than benefit patients, primarily because the diagnosed condition is not a harmful form of disease. Patients who are overdiagnosed with thyroid cancer are harmed by the psycho-social impact of a cancer diagnosis, as well as treatment interventions such partial or total thyroidectomy, lifelong thyroid replacement hormone, monitoring, surgical complications and other side effects. These harms seem to outweigh any putative benefit of knowing about a cancer that would not have caused problems if left undiscovered. In addition to harms to patients, thyroid cancer overdiagnosis leads to significant opportunity costs at a societal level, due to costs of diagnosis and treatment. Unlike many other overdiagnosed cancers, accurate risk stratification is possible with thyroid cancer. At the individual patient level, use of this risk information might support informed choice and/or shared decision-making, as mandated by clinical ethics frameworks. And this approach might, to some extent, help to reduce rates of diagnosis and intervention. In practice, however, it is unlikely to stem the rising incidence and associated harms and costs of overdiagnosed thyroid cancer, especially in situations where health professionals have conflicts of interest. We argue in this article that thyroid cancer overdiagnosis may be usefully understood as a public health problem, and that some public health approaches will be readily justifiable and are more likely to be effective in minimising its harms.

© 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or related to the patient's condition, and develop a plan for tackling these. In essence it is a conversation, or series of conversations, in which they jointly agree goals and actions for managing the patient's condition. Objectives: To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved). Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to July 2013. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials involving adults with long-term conditions where the intervention included collaborative (between individual patients and clinicians) goal setting and action planning. We excluded studies where there was little or no opportunity for the patient to have meaningful influence on goal selection, choice of treatment or support package, or both. Data collection and analysis: Two of three review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were effects on physical health, psychological health, subjective health status, and capabilities for self management. Secondary outcomes included effects on health-related behaviours, resource use and costs, and type of intervention. A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings. Main results: We included 19 studies involving a total of 10,856 participants. Twelve of these studies focused on diabetes, three on mental health, one on heart failure, one on end-stage renal disease, one on asthma, and one on various chronic conditions. All 19 studies included components that were intended to support behaviour change among patients, involving either face-to-face or telephone support. All but three of the personalised care planning interventions took place in primary care or community settings; the remaining three were located in hospital clinics. There was some concern about risk of bias for each of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, usually due to inadequate or unclear descriptions of research methods. Physical health Nine studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), giving a combined mean difference (MD) between intervention and control of -0.24% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.14), a small positive effect in favour of personalised care planning compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence). Six studies measured systolic blood pressure, a combined mean difference of -2.64 mm/Hg (95% CI -4.47 to -0.82) favouring personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The pooled results from four studies showed no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, MD -0.71 mm/Hg (95% CI -2.26 to 0.84). We found no evidence of an effect on cholesterol (LDL-C), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) (five studies) or body mass index, MD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) (four studies). A single study of people with asthma reported that personalised care planning led to improvements in lung function and asthma control. Psychological health Six studies measured depression. We were able to pool results from five of these, giving an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), a small effect in favour of personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The remaining study found greater improvement in the control group than the intervention group. Four other studies used a variety of psychological measures that were conceptually different so could not be pooled. Of these, three found greater improvement for the personalised care group than the usual care group and one was too small to detect differences in outcomes. Subjective health status Ten studies used various patient-reported measures of health status (or health-related quality of life), including both generic health status measures and condition-specific ones. We were able to pool data from three studies that used the SF-36 or SF-12, but found no effect on the physical component summary score SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) or the mental component summary score SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.28) (moderate quality evidence). Of the three other studies that measured generic health status, two found improvements related to personalised care and one did not. Four studies measured condition-specific health status. The combined results showed no difference between the intervention and control groups, SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10) (moderate quality evidence). Self-management capabilities Nine studies looked at the effect of personalised care on self-management capabilities using a variety of outcome measures, but they focused primarily on self efficacy. We were able to pool results from five studies that measured self efficacy, giving a small positive result in favour of personalised care planning: SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43) (moderate quality evidence). A further five studies measured other attributes that contribute to self-management capabilities. The results from these were mixed: two studies found evidence of an effect on patient activation, one found an effect on empowerment, and one found improvements in perceived interpersonal support. Other outcomes Pooled data from five studies on exercise levels showed no effect due to personalised care planning, but there was a positive effect on people's self-reported ability to carry out self-care activities: SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52). We found no evidence of adverse effects due to personalised care planning. The effects of personalised care planning were greater when more stages of the care planning cycle were completed, when contacts between patients and health professionals were more frequent, and when the patient's usual clinician was involved in the process. Authors' conclusions: Personalised care planning leads to improvements in certain indicators of physical and psychological health status, and people's capability to self-manage their condition when compared to usual care. The effects are not large, but they appear greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care.

Patient or public involvement (PPI) in health research is increasingly expected as a matter of policy. In theory, PPI can contribute both to the epistemic aims intrinsic to research (generating knowledge), and to extrinsically valued features of research such as social inclusion and transparency. In practice, the aims of PPI have not always been clear, although there has been a tendency to encourage the involvement of so-called ordinary people who are regarded as representative of an assumed patient perspective. In this paper we focus on the epistemic potential of PPI, using theoretical work in epistemology to develop a nuanced account of patients' experiential knowledge and how this might contribute directly to conceptual development, hypothesis generation and data interpretation. We also consider how some features of health research pose barriers to this kind of epistemic contribution. Drawing on Miranda Fricker's idea of testimonial injustice, we explore how disciplinary indicators of credibility in clinical and academic health research contexts might be wrongly applied to those involved in PPI, undermining their potential to contribute. Finally we argue for a range of strategies to maximize opportunities for patients to engage with research teams and make epistemologically significant contributions to research.

Background: Health policies internationally advocate 'support for self-management', but it is not clear how the promise of the concept can be fulfilled. Objective: To synthesize research into professional practitioners' perspectives, practices and experiences to help inform a reconceptualization of support for self-management. Design: Critical interpretive synthesis using systematic searches of literature published 2000-2014. Findings: We summarized key insights from 164 relevant papers in an annotated bibliography. The literature illustrates striking variations in approaches to support for self-management and interpretations of associated concepts. We focused particularly on the somewhat neglected question of the purpose of support. We suggest that this can illuminate and explain important differences between narrower and broader approaches. Narrower approaches support people to manage their condition(s) well in terms of disease control. This purpose can underpin more hierarchical practitioner-patient communication and more limited views of patient empowerment. It is often associated with experiences of failure and frustration. Broader approaches support people to manage well with their condition(s). They can keep work on disease control in perspective as attention focuses on what matters to people and how they can be supported to shape their own lives. Broader approaches are currently less evident in practice. Discussion and conclusion: Broader approaches seem necessary to fulfil the promise of support for self-management, especially for patient empowerment. A commitment to enable people to live well with long-term conditions could provide a coherent basis for the forms and outcomes of support that policies aspire to. The implications of such a commitment need further attention.

Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated to enable patients to participate in decisions that affect them, to protect patients from insufficiently individualized supply-driven care, and to reduce health care costs and waste by avoiding the provision of unwanted interventions.1–3 The concept of shared decision-making can be understood in several ways. A number of definitions and descriptive models have been offered, emphasizing different aspects of clinician-patient interaction and decision-making.4 Most definitions and models can be variously interpreted when considered in relation to the complex realities of healthcare provision. Clinicians' understandings of shared decision-making can have important implications for clinical practice.5 They can diverge, for example, over questions of whether, when and how it is appropriate to recommend a particular treatment or challenge a patient's expressed preferences. This paper considers the practical and ethical implications of, ‘narrow’ and ‘broader’ ways of thinking about shared decision-making. It illustrates how narrow understandings of shared decision-making, which focus on informing patients so they can choose between options, can make it hard for many patients to share meaningfully in decision-making that affects them. It then outlines how broader understandings, which allow for more clinician influence and extend the relevance of shared decision-making to diverse situations, can be justified in principle and appraised for appropriateness. Table 1 compares the key features of narrow and broader understandings of shared decision-making. Table 1 Key features and implications of narrow and broader understandings of shared decision-making

Reader in Applied Philosophy, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, MMU Cheshire, Crewe, UK Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA Associate Professor, Department of General Practice, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Director, University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Toronto, ON, Canada Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Professor of Values in Health Care, Associate Director, Social Dimensions of Health Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK Research Fellow, King’s College Centre for Humanities and Health/Department of Philosophy; King’s College London, London, UK

Aim To explore whether and how health visitors experience ethical tensions between the public health agenda and the need to be responsive to individual clients. Background Current health policy in England gives health visitors a key role in implementing the government's public health agenda. Health visitors are also required by their Professional Code to respond to the health-related concerns and preferences of their individual clients. This may generate tensions. Methods A total of 17 semi-structured individual interviews covering participants' experiences of implementing public health interventions and perceptions of the ethical tensions involved were conducted. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using a Framework approach. Findings Health visitors raised a number of ethical concerns, which they attributed to organisational resource allocation and the introduction of protocols and targets relating to public health goals. They did not always regard it as appropriate to raise topics that employing organisations had identified as public health priorities with particular clients for whom they were not priorities, or who had other more pressing needs. They noted that resources that were allocated towards reaching public health targets were unavailable for clients who needed support in other areas. Organisational protocols designed to monitor performance put pressure on health visitors to prioritise achieving targets and undermined their ability to exercise professional judgement when supporting individual clients. This had implications for health visitors' sense of professionalism. Health visitors saw trusting relationships as key to effective health visiting practice, but the requirement to implement public health priorities, combined with a lack of resources in health visiting, eroded their ability to form these. Policies need to be evaluated with regard to their impact upon a broader range of processes and outcomes than public health goals. The erosion of health visitors' professional values and ability to develop relationships with clients could have numerous adverse implications.

Objective Patients' experiences are often treated as health care quality indicators. Our aim was to identify the range of experiences of health care delivery that matter to patients and to produce a conceptual map to facilitate consideration of why they matter. Methods Broad-based review and critical interpretive synthesis of research literature on patients' perspectives of health care delivery. We recorded experiences reported by a diverse range of patients on ‘concept cards’, considered why they were important, and explored various ways of organizing them, including internationally recognized health care quality frameworks. We developed a conceptual map that we refined with feedback from stakeholders. Results Patients identify many health care experiences as important. Existing health care quality frameworks do not cover them all. Our conceptual map presents a rich array of experiences, including health care relationships (beyond communication) and their implications for people's valued capabilities (e.g. to feel respected, contribute to their care, experience reciprocity). It is organized to reflect our synthesis argument, which links health care delivery to what people are enabled (or not) to feel, be and do. The map highlights the broad implications of the social dynamics of health care delivery. Experiences are labelled from a patient's perspective, rendering the importance of responsiveness to individuals axiomatic. Conclusions Our conceptual map identifies and helps explain the importance of diverse experiences of health care delivery. It challenges and helps policy-makers, service providers and researchers to attend to the range of experiences that matter, and to take seriously the need for responsiveness to individuals.

Background: market reforms in England have been identified as making a clear distinction between English health policy and health policy in the devolved systems in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Patient choice is a high profile policy in the English National Health Service that constitutes significant changes to the demand side of health care. It is not clear what national differences this has led to regarding implementation of policy. This article presents the findings from a large UK-wide study on the development and implementation of policies related to patient choice of provider. The findings reported here relate specifically to the policy development and organizational implementation of choice in order to examine the impact of devolution on health care policy. Aim: this study examines patient choice of provider across all four countries of the UK to understand the effect of differences in national policies on the organization and service how choice of provider presented to patients. Methods: at the macro-level, we interviewed policymakers and examined policy and guidance documents to analyze the provenance and determinants of national policy in each UK nation. At the Primary Care Trust or Health Board level, we interviewed a range of public and private health service providers to identify the range of referral pathways and where and when choices might be made. Finally, we interviewed ear, nose and throat, and orthopaedics patients to understand how such choices were experienced. Findings: while we found that distinct rhetorical differences were identifiable at a national policy level, these were less visible at the level of service organization and the way choices were provided to patients. Conclusion: historical similarities in both the structure and operation of health care, coupled with common operational objectives around efficient resource use and waiting times, mediate how strategic policy is implemented and experienced in the devolved nations of the UK.

In the U.K., approaches to policy implementation, service improvement and quality assurance treat policy, management and clinical care as separate, hierarchical domains. They are often based on the central knowledge transfer (KT) theory idea that best practice solutions to complex problems can be identified and 'rolled out' across organisations. When the designated 'best practice' is not implemented, this is interpreted as local--particularly management--failure. Remedial actions include reiterating policy aims and tightening performance management of solution implementation, frequently to no avail. We propose activity theory (AT) as an alternative approach to identifying and understanding the challenges of addressing complex healthcare problems across diverse settings. AT challenges the KT conceptual separations between levels of policy, management and clinical care. It does not regard knowledge and practice as separable, and does not understand them in the commodified way that has typified some versions of KT theory. Instead, AT focuses on "objects of activity" which can be contested. It sees new practice as emerging from contradiction and understands knowledge and practice as fundamentally entwined, not separate. From an AT perspective, there can be no single best practice. The contributions of AT are that it enables us to understand the dynamics of knowledge-practice in activities rather than between levels. It shows how efforts to reduce variation from best practice may paradoxically remove a key source of practice improvement. After explaining the principles of AT we illustrate its explanatory potential through an ethnographic study of primary healthcare teams responding to a policy aim of reducing inappropriate hospital admissions of older people by the 'best practice' of rapid response teams.

Reader in Applied Philosophy, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, MMU Cheshire, Crewe, UK and Visiting Professor of Philosophy as Applied to Medicine, University of Buckingham, Uk Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA Associate Professor, Department of General Practice, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Director, University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Toronto, ON, Canada Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Professor of Values in Health Care, Associate Director, Social Dimensions of Health Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

Objective To test the effect of three questions (what are my options? what are the benefits and harms? and how likely are these?), on information provided by physicians about treatment options. Methods We used a cross-over trial using two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) simulating a presentation of mild-moderate depression. One SP was assigned the intervention role (asking the questions), the other the control role. An intervention and control SP visited each physician, order allocated randomly. The study was conducted in family practices in Sydney, Australia, during 2008–09. Data were obtained from consultation audio-recordings. Information about treatment options and patient involvement were analyzed using the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool and the OPTION tool. Results Thirty-six SP visits were completed (18 intervention, 18 control). Scores were higher in intervention consultations than controls: ACEPP scores 21.4 vs. 16.6, p p = 0.001, difference 11.5 (95% CI 5.1–17.8), indicating greater information provision and behavior supporting patient involvement. Conclusion Asking these three questions improved information given by family physicians and increased physician facilitation of patient involvement. Practice implications . These questions can drive evidence-based practice, strengthen patient–physician communication, and improve safety and quality.

NICE guidance on medicines adherence puts particular focus on greater involvement of patients in decision making. Here, the authors discuss the reasons why this might not always be fully justified and cannot be solely achieved by good communication skills. Copyright © 2011 Wiley Interface Ltd

A section of this issue of Health Expectations features four applied philosophy papers that consider issues relating broadly to the involvement of individuals in their own healthcare. The section is intended to showcase the potential contribution of philosophy to healthcare policy, practice and research, and the papers cover a diverse set of topics: respect for older persons; 1 the use of financial incentives in health promotion; 2 the allocation of responsibility in multidisciplinary healthcare teams; 3 and the practical and ethical implications of different conceptions of shared decision‐making. 4 In this editorial we draw links between the ideas about individual autonomy that feature in each of the four papers, and highlight some of ways in which applied philosophy can inform policy, practice and research.

Shared decision-making approaches, by recognizing the autonomy and responsibility of both health professionals and patients, aim for an ethical ‘middle way’ between ‘paternalistic’ and ‘consumerist’ models of clinical decision making. Shared decision making has been understood in various ways. In this paper, we distinguish narrow and broader conceptions of shared decision making and explore their relative strengths and weaknesses. In the first part of the paper, we construct a summary characterization of an archetypal narrow conception of shared decision making (a conception that does not coincide with any specific published model but which reflects features of a variety of models). We show the shortcomings of such a conception and highlight the need to broaden out our thinking about shared decision making if the ethical (and instrumental) goals of shared decision making are to be realized. In the second part of the paper, we acknowledge and explore the advantages and disadvantages of operating with broader conceptions of shared decision making by considering the analogies between health professional–patient relationships and familiar examples of ‘open-ended’ relationships (e.g. friendships). We conclude by arguing that the illustrated ‘trade-offs’ between narrow conceptions (which may protect patients from inappropriately paternalistic professionals but preclude important forms of professional support) and broad conceptions (which render more forms of professional support legitimate but may require skills or virtues that not all health professionals possess) suggest the need to find ways, in principle and in practice, of taking seriously both patient autonomy and autonomy-supportive professional intervention.

Objective To elicit informed views from Australian women aged 70–74 regarding the acceptability of ceasing to invite women their age to participate in government-funded mammography screening (BreastScreen). Design Two community juries held in 2017. Setting Greater Sydney, a metropolis of 4.5 million people in New South Wales, Australia. Participants 34 women aged 70–74 with no personal history of breast cancer, recruited by random digit dialling and previously randomly recruited list-based samples. Main outcomes and measures Jury verdict and rationale in response to structured questions. We transcribed audio-recorded jury proceedings and identified central reasons for the jury’s decision. Results The women’s average age was 71.5 years. Participants were of diverse sociocultural backgrounds, with the sample designed to include women of lower levels of educational attainment. Both juries concluded by majority verdict (16–2 and 10–6) that BreastScreen should continue to send invitations and promote screening to their age group. Reasons given for the majority position include: (1) sending the invitations shows that society still cares about older women, empowers them to access preventive health services and recognises increasing and varied life expectancy; (2) screening provides women with information that enables choice and (3) if experts cannot agree, the conservative approach is to maintain the status quo until the evidence is clear. Reasons for the minority position were the potential for harms through overdiagnosis and misallocation of scarce health resources. Conclusions Preventive programmes such as mammography screening are likely to have significant symbolic value once they are socially embedded. Arguments for programme de-implementation emphasising declining benefit because of limited life expectancy and the risks of overdiagnosis seem unlikely to resonate with healthy older women. In situations where there is no consensus among experts on the value of established screening programmes, people may strongly prefer receiving information about their health and having the opportunity make their own choices.

Objectives (1) To characterise variation in general practitioners’ (GPs’) accounts of communicating with men about prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (2) to characterise GPs’ reasons for communicating as they do and (3) to explain why and under what conditions GP communication approaches vary. Study design and setting A grounded theory study. We interviewed 69 GPs consulting in primary care practices in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29). Results GPs explained their communication practices in relation to their primary goals. In Australia, three different communication goals were reported: to encourage asymptomatic men to either have a PSA test, or not test, or alternatively, to support men to make their own decision. As well as having different primary goals, GPs aimed to provide different information (from comprehensive to strongly filtered) and to support men to develop different kinds of understanding, from population-level to ‘gist’ understanding. Taking into account these three dimensions (goals, information, understanding) and building on Entwistle et al’s Consider an Offer framework, we derived four overarching approaches to communication: Be screened, Do not be screened, Analyse and choose, and As you wish. We also describe ways in which situational and relational factors influenced GPs’ preferred communication approach. Conclusion GPs’ reported approach to communicating about prostate cancer screening varies according to three dimensions—their primary goal, information provision preference and understanding sought—and in response to specific practice situations. If GP communication about PSA screening is to become more standardised in Australia, it is likely that each of these dimensions will require attention in policy and practice support interventions.

Interest in consumer involvement in health services research started to gain momentum at around the same time that the MRC Health Services Research Collaboration (HSRC) was established. Consumer involvement was not the focus of a formal research programme within the HSRC, but HSRC members took opportunities to conduct three projects relating to consumer involvement in research agenda-setting activities. These were: (1) a comparison of the focus of published research relating to the management of osteoarthritis of the knee with clinicians’ and patients’ ideas about research priorities; (2) a survey that examined the consumer involvement policies of public- and voluntary-sector organizations that fund health services research in the UK; and (3) a citizens’ jury that was convened to develop priorities for research relating to primary health and social care in the Bristol area. This paper reviews the findings of these projects and highlights the continued need for attention to underlying values in the development and evaluation of future efforts to involve consumers in research agenda setting.

Patient involvement in decision-making is widely regarded as an important feature of good-quality healthcare. Policy-makers have been particularly concerned to ensure that patients are informed about and enabled to choose between relevant treatment options, but it is not clear how patients understand and value involvement. We investigated the meaning of involvement in treatment decision-making for people with diabetes. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 people aged between 20 and 79 who had type 1 or type 2 diabetes selected from 4 multi-practitioner outpatient clinics in the Grampian area of Scotland. We used several strategies to probe their understandings of involvement, including a discussion of how they would respond to a question about involvement in treatment decisions that appears on the National Patient Survey used to monitor the quality of healthcare in England. Participants associated involvement in decision-making with a number of features relating to the ethos and feel of healthcare encounters (welcoming; respectful; facilitative of patients' contributions; and non-judgmental); communication about health problems (practitioners attending to patients' views and patients feeling listened to; practitioners giving clear explanations based on their professional knowledge and patients understanding these); and communication about treatments (practitioners explaining treatment rationales in ways that patients understand and enabling patients to feel they have a say). Our findings have implications for practical attempts to involve patients in decisions about their care and for the conceptualisation and assessment of patient involvement. They suggest that practitioners who aspire to facilitate patient involvement should attend to the ethos they foster in consultations and the way they discuss problems as well as to the provision of information about treatment options and the scope patients have to influence decisions. Models and taxonomies of patient involvement in decision-making need to be developed to accommodate both problem-solving phases and the relational and subjective dimensions of involvement.

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to draw together suggestions for future research from the papers and from the discussion that took place at the workshop.Design/methodology/approachThe suggestions are summarised under four broad themes.FindingsAt an international workshop on trust organised by the UK MRC Health Services Research Collaboration there was broad agreement that trust was still a salient issue in diverse health care contexts. The workshop proceedings identified a number of important questions for empirical research and several key conceptual, theoretical and methodological questions relating to trust that need to be addressed in support of or alongside this. The collection of papers in this volume starts to address some of these questions.Originality/valueConsiders trust relations in health care from patient, clinical, organisational and policy perspectives.

This paper considers some implications of recent developments relating to patient safety for understandings of trust in health care contexts.Conceptual analysis focusing on patients' trust in health care providers and health care providers' trust in patients.Growing awareness of the scale of the problem of iatrogenic harm has prompted concerns that patients' trust in health care providers may be threatened and/or become inappropriate or dysfunctional. In principle, however, patients' trust may be both well placed and compatible with current understandings of safety problems and efforts to address these. Contemporary understandings of patient safety suggest that, to be deemed trustworthy, health care providers should make vigorous efforts to improve patient safety, be honest about safety issues, enable patients to contribute effectively to their own safety, and provide appropriate care and support after safety incidents. Patients who trust health care providers need not be ignorant of patient safety problems and may be vigilant in the course of their care. Iatrogenic harms do not necessarily reflect breeches of trust (not all such harms are yet preventable), and patients who are harmed might in some circumstances appropriately forgive and resume trusting. Health care providers may feel vulnerable to patients in several respects. From their perspective, trustworthy patients will act competently to optimise the outcomes of their health care efforts and to preserve health care providers' good reputations where those are justified. Providers' trust in patients may strengthen patients' trust in them and facilitate safety improvement work.Shows how, in principle, trust can be compatible with current understandings of patient safety issues and may enhance efforts to improve patient safety.

Current guidance about informed consent suggests patients ought to know about the procedures involved in any treatments they agree to undergo, and have a right to be involved in decisions about their care. However, it is not clear how this guidance is and should be applied to decisions between variant surgical procedures such as abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy. We sent structured questionnaires about information provision and decision-making to 157 women who were scheduled for hysterectomy in north-east Scotland. A purposive sub-sample of 20 women was interviewed in depth post-operatively. 104 women (66%) responded to the questionnaires. 75% reported being told at outpatient clinics what kind of hysterectomy they would have, but fewer than half had been told about the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds. Between 26% and 65% of women thought they had been given too little information about various issues pertaining to different types of hysterectomy. The interview accounts suggested that gynaecologists offered women little opportunity to influence the selection of a surgical procedure. Women did not express a desire for a greater say in this selection, but appreciated being told, or would have liked to know, why particular procedures were recommended for them. There may be circumstances in which it is important for surgeons to tell patients about options they have ruled out in their particular cases. Decisions between alternative surgical procedures are often highly contingent on the dispositions and skills of individual surgeons. They raise practical and ethical issues that have been neglected in recent discussions about patient involvement in decision-making. As policy makers continue to emphasise the importance of choice and patients become increasingly aware of the existence of variant procedures, these issues need careful consideration.

Over the last few years, there has been growing international concern about the risk of overdiagnosis in breast screening and about how to communicate this to women. There has also been an increasing policy drive to provide people with information to enable them to make an informed choice about screening. In response to this, a novel approach to developing the information about cancer screening has been adopted in England. This approach has integrated the perspectives of people eligible for screening, and experts in public engagement, informed choice, and communicating risk, as well as experts in screening. New information based on this approach has been provided to women invited for breast screening from September 2013. The new information explicitly sets out the choice to be made, and provides much more detail than previous information about overdiagnosis, the balance of benefits and harms, and the scientific uncertainties. The novel approach has also been adopted to develop new information for the bowel and cervical screening programmes in England, and could provide a model for communicating about cancer screening in other countries.

Objective: The aim of the study was to gain insight into people's experiences of being given and using partial dentures. Methods: In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with 23 people of varied age, social background and denture wearing experience in Tayside, Scotland. Participants were encouraged to discuss how they came to have partial dentures, their day-to-day denture use and their interactions with dentists. The interview data were systematically coded using key theme headings, and summary charts were constructed to facilitate analysis. Results: The initial decision that a partial denture was needed was generally difficult to accept. People perceived the main benefits of partial dentures to be improved appearance and confidence, but experienced a variety of difficulties with their dentures and often coped with these by only wearing them on social occasions. Participants had not always told their dentists about the difficulties they experienced. Barriers to seeking help with denture problems included financial constraints, previous experience of rushed appointments or poor communication from dentists and a perceived lack of entitlement to help when partial dentures were issued free. Conclusions: Partial dentures can be difficult to cope with. People experience a range of difficulties in wearing them, not all of which have been discussed with dentists. Informative and supportive communication when partial dentures are first needed, and subsequently, can improve the quality of patients’ experiences and may help promote effective use and appropriate help-seeking by partial denture wearers.

This paper reports findings from a postal questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews with UK funders of health-related research that explored whether, why and how they promote consumer involvement in research projects. Many UK funders of health-related research are adopting a policy of promoting consumer involvement in research projects. Telephone interviews revealed they have several reasons for doing so, and that they vary in the ways they encourage and support researchers to involve consumers. For some, descriptions of consumer involvement in a research proposal are important for project funding decisions. They recognized a need for flexibility when assessing consumer involvement in different contexts. We suggest that funders should continue to work to clarify what they consider to be the parameters of acceptability in terms of consumer involvement and ensure that ‘flexible’ criteria are fairly applied. Researchers should be aware of particular funders’ views when applying for project funding. © 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

This paper draws on contributions to and discussions at a recent MRC HSRC-sponsored workshop 'Researching users' experiences of health care: the case of cancer'. We focus on the methodological and ethical challenges that currently face researchers who use self-report methods to investigate experiences of cancer and cancer care. These challenges relate to: the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of research; participation rates and participant profiles; data collection methods (the retrospective nature of accounts, description and measurement, and data collection as intervention); social desirability considerations; relationship considerations; the experiences of contributing to research; and the synthesis and presentation of findings. We suggest that methodological research to tackle these challenges should be integrated into substantive research projects to promote the development of a strong knowledge base about experiences of cancer and cancer care.

We share an interest in public health and in the capabilities approach developed by Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum, and others (Comim, Qizilbash, and Alkire 2008; Sen 2009; Nussbaum 1999), so were curious to see how Jennifer Prah Ruger would apply her “health capability paradigm” to health governance. The resulting model—shared health governance (SHG)—has real potential to promote justice in health in some contexts. However, based on the description provided in this issue (Ruger 2011), aspects of SHG seem at odds with important features of the capabilities approach. We suggest that SHG will better safeguard the freedoms of individuals—including their health capabilities—if modified in two ways: (1) if the scope of application is reduced, and (2) if a focus on capabilities for health rather than achievements of health is more consistently maintained.

Objective To examine the eAects of providing recordings or summaries of consultations to people with cancer and their families. Design Systematic review. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cancerlit, EMBASE and other electronic bibliographic databases. Bibliographies of relevant papers. Selection criteria Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of the provision of taped recordings or written summaries of consultations to people with cancer and/or their families. Main results Eight randomized controlled trials were found, all involving adult participants. No non-randomized controlled trials were found. The quality of the studies was generally poor. Between 83% and 96% of people who received recordings or summaries found them useful to remind them of what was said and/or to inform family members and friends about their illness and treatment. Of seven studies that assessed recall of information given during the consultation, four reported better recall among the groups that received recordings or summaries than among control groups. Receiving a recording or summary had no significant eAect on anxiety or depression between the groups. None of the included studies assessed survival or health outcomes other than psychological outcomes. Conclusions Wider use of consultation tapes and summary letters could benefit many adults with cancer, without causing additional anxiety or depression, but consideration should be given to individuals’ circumstances and preferences.

Evidence based health care has become the accepted basis of good clinical practice, and many efforts are being made to implement it. Evidence based patient choice, defined as offering patients research based information and the opportunity to influence decisions about their treatment and care, has yet to achieve the same status. We believe, however, that it is fundamental to high quality patient care. In our ideal world difficult or controversial healthcare decisions would routinely involve health professionals deliberating with patients about the harms and benefits of all available options, as well as patients' treatment goals and risk tolerance. For key medical decisions, patients and doctors would expect to work through the evidence and decide on a course of action together. Patients who wished to delegate decision making to a doctor or surrogate decision maker would still be given the information that they wanted. Various strategies may be needed to achieve this widespread implementation of evidence based patient choice. 1 2 In this article we focus on a strategy to improve the accessibility of information resources to support evidence based patient choice. The books, journals, and websites that currently provide evidence based information about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions could provide the infrastructure to support patients' participation in evidence based decision making. These information sources should incorporate consumer focused summaries of relevant research evidence and links or pointers to well designed and tested decision aids for patients. These summaries should be made available to patients before, during, and after consultations. Doctors and health systems could use and distribute them as an adjunct to clinical care. They would also be available to the public generally. The news and information media, patient groups, and others would draw on patient choice summaries to present the benefits and limitations of medical screening and treatment. ### Summary points Evidence …

This paper considers some of the policy implications of issues raised during a conference about treatment decision-making in the clinical encounter held in Hamilton, Ontario in May 1999. Policies promoting patient participation in treatment decision-making need to be flexible enough to ensure that they are appropriate across the range of contexts in which health care decisions are made and acceptable to people with diverse preferences and abilities. They should also be formulated in consideration of other health policies and of available resources. Policies of informing people and involving them in decisions about their care are unlikely to be simple to implement. Various strategies might be needed to support them. These include the development of appropriate skills among health professionals and in the general population, the use of interventions to encourage people to play more active roles in decisions about their health care, the provision of decision aids for people facing specific decisions and the provision and accreditation of more general information resources and services. If information and other facilitators of patient participation in decision-making are seen as integral to good quality health care, then funding should be made available for them. This will, however, have opportunity costs. Policy makers' decisions about how much health care funding should be invested in which strategies should be underpinned by good research evidence about the effects that different types of intervention have on a range of outcomes for individuals, health care systems and populations. The knowledge on which current policies are based is limited. The development of future policies will be enhanced if policy makers invest in critical conceptual thinking, reflective practice, imaginative development work and good quality evaluative research.

Editorial by Richards and Coulter Shared decision making, in which patients and health professionals join in both the process of decision making and ownership of the decision made, is attracting considerable interest as a means by which patients' preferences can be incorporated into clinical decisions.1 When there are several treatment options which may have different effects on the patient's quality of life, there is a strong case for offering patients choice. Their active involvement in decision making may increase the effectiveness of the treatment. Trials are currently under way to test this hypothesis formally, but there are good grounds for optimism. Patients with hypertension benefit if they are allowed to adopt an active rather than a passive role in treatment, 2 3 patients with breast cancer suffer less depression and anxiety if they are treated by doctors who adopt a participative consultation style,4 and patients who are more actively involved in discussions about the management of their diabetes achieve better blood sugar control.5 Patients whose doctors are ignorant of their values and preferences may receive treatment that is inappropriate to their needs.6–8 Patients cannot express informed preferences unless they are given sufficient and appropriate information, including detailed explanations about their condition and the likely outcomes with and without treatment. Yet many report considerable difficulties in obtaining relevant information.9 There are various reasons for this. Health professionals frequently underestimate patients' desire for and ability to cope with information. Consultation times are limited—there is often insufficient time to explain fully the condition and the treatment choices. Health professionals may themselves lack knowledge of treatment options and their effects. A solution to this problem is to ensure that patients have access to written or audiovisual material, to inform themselves and to use in discussion with health …

When women from families with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation test negative for the family mutation, it is assumed that they will transition their personal cancer risk perception from high to average risk. However, there are scant data regarding the experience of mutation-negative women after genetic testing disclosure, particularly related to the shift of risk perception from assumed mutation-positive to actual mutation-negative. This study was designed to explore cancer risk perception and the experience of being a mutation-negative woman within a known BRCA1/2 mutation-positive family.We employed a qualitative descriptive design and convened a sample of 13 women who contributed in-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews (audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim) and performed qualitative content analysis with NVivo 2.0 software.Six major content areas emerged from interview data: (i) rationale for initial involvement in the breast imaging study, (ii) rationale for continued participation, (iii) experience of living in a multiple-case family, (iv) risk perception: the personal meaning of mutation-negative status, (v) opinions regarding cancer aetiology and (vi) communication patterns between mutation-negative and mutation-positive family members.Living in a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer family is a complex experience that affects cognitive, emotional and social functioning. Our findings indicate that mutation-negative women may have unmet psychosocial needs that must be addressed by health-care professionals, particularly in the primary-care setting following genetic disclosure of a potentially reassuring result regarding their lack of the very high cancer risks associated with BRCA1/2 mutations.

This is the second of five articles on ways of managing demand for health care People currently deal with many, if not most, health problems without consulting the health service. Relatively small decreases in these self care behaviours or increases in the accessibility of services could produce large changes in demand for formal care. We believe that scope exists for the health service actively to promote self care and improve the way it responds to people's illnesses so that needs are met efficiently in appropriate and acceptable ways. This may mean both encouraging demand for some forms of care — for example, for problems where early intervention is desirable and promoting self care for other problems. We examine particularly how the NHS should support self care as a way of managing the demand for formal health care. #### Summary points Knowledge, culture, attitudes, experience, and healthcare organisation are the key determinants of when, why, and how people access formal health care. To ensure the most appropriate demand on the health service, the NHS needs to encourage some demand and promote alternative ways of managing other demand. This can be done by building on the ways in which people already take responsibility for managing their health and illness Information that is relevant, accessible, meaningful, and integrated with other formal care is important So is a culture in which risk, responsibility, control, and uncertainties can be discussed and shared between providers, funders and users More graduated access to the system should be offered, through a single point of entry-triage Informal and self care constitute an important but often hidden aspect of the supply of health care. Ordinary people are providers of care. They have experience of caring for themselves and others and regularly provide advice about, and take responsibility for, matters of health and illness. …

Interventions to inform patients about health care options and to involve them in decisions about their care are now widely advocated. The question of which criteria should be used to judge the effectiveness of such interventions has, however, received little attention. The provision of research-based information about health care effectiveness to patients and the promotion of greater patient involvement in health care decision-making are likely to have a complex range of effects on: the information provided to patients; patients' acquisition of skills; patients' knowledge and emotions; how decisions are made; the quality of decisions; professional—patient relationships; the use of health care; the health of patients; satisfaction; and the organisation and cost of health services. Opinions about which effects are most important and how they should be measured and valued will be influenced by a variety of factors, including: the rationales and motives underlying interest in patient involvement in decision-making; the forms of patient involvement envisaged; and the types of interventions being considered. In the context of health care systems which aim primarily to improve health status and well-being, health outcomes should take priority over process variables such as decision-making behaviours and patients' knowledge.

We discuss some of the issues that have arisen during the development and introduction into practice of information materials for health professionals and patients that aim to promote clinical effectiveness and informed patient participation in clinical decision making.

Evidence-informed patient choice involves providing people with research-based information about the effectiveness of health care options and promoting their involvement in decisions about their treatment. Although the concept seems desirable, the processes and outcomes of evidence-informed patient choice are poorly understood, and it should be carefully evaluated.