The Perspectives of Surrogates and Healthcare Providers Regarding SDM (Shared Decision-Making)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the attitudes of surrogacy and medical service providers toward SDM and to identify the barriers and promoters of SDM in this population. To this end, we conducted a qualitative study of surrogacy and medical service providers in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University using semistructured interviews. Thirty participants (11 agents, 12 ICU physicians, and 7 ICU nurses) were interviewed. The three stakeholders showed different attitudes toward SDM. They reported barriers to SDM, including insufficient cognition of decision-makers, high expectations, negative psychological experiences, previous decision-making experiences, excessive workload, heavy financial burden, and lack of decision AIDS. They reported facilitators of SDM, including trust, effective communication, decision support, value clarification, outcome commitment, and continuous service. This study explored the different attitudes of the three stakeholders and identified various barriers and facilitators of SDM. It highlights the need to develop localised decision AIDS and to involve agents and nurses more in the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper identifies barriers and facilitators of SDM in this population. In addition, the study identified various barriers and facilitators to SDM and highlighted the need to develop localised decision AIDS and involve agents and nurses more in the decision-making process. Finally, the barriers and facilitators of SDM are established. The paper also shows that the development of localized decision AIDS and greater involvement of agents and nurses in the decision-making process are integral to good treatment outcomes.

Retracted: The Perspectives of Surrogates and Healthcare Providers Regarding SDM (Shared Decision-Making)

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”