Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments

Bibliographic Data

ID19508992
AuthorsMirjam M Garvelink (0000-0001-5616-0597, Radboud university medical center Radboud Institute for Health Sciences IQ Healthcare Nijmegen The Netherlands, corresponding author), Marja Jillissen (0000-0001-6897-1928, Radboud university medical center Improvement & Implementation Group Nijmegen The Netherlands), Anouk Knops (Netherlands Patients Federation Utrecht The Netherlands), Anouk M Knops (0000-0003-4092-4163, Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres), Jan A M Kremer (0000-0002-0495-0201, Radboud university medical center Radboud Institute for Health Sciences IQ Healthcare Nijmegen The Netherlands), Rosella Hermens (0000-0001-7624-7120, Radboud university medical center Radboud Institute for Health Sciences IQ Healthcare Nijmegen The Netherlands), Marjan J Meinders (0000-0001-6491-7035, Radboud university medical center Radboud Institute for Health Sciences IQ Healthcare Nijmegen The Netherlands)
Year2019
Volume22
Issue6
Pages1272-1284
Publication date2019-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Expectations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hex.12960
PMID31560835
OpenAlexW2975477051
LanguageEN
References cited28

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision-making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation. METHODS: Convergent mixed-method design: pre-post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post-intervention interviews with patients and health-care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change. RESULTS: 35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used. CONCLUSION: Implementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on-going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care

Medical education · Perception · Psychological intervention · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Nursing · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology · Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

  • Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

    Dawn Stacey, France Légaré et al.•Cochrane Database of Systematic…•2017

  • Knowledge is not power for patients

    Open Access•Natalie Joseph-Williams, Glyn Elwyn et al.•Patient Education and Counseling•2014

  • Decision making during serious illness

    Open Access•Lesley F Degner, Jeffrey A Sloan•Journal of Clinical Epidemiology•1992

  • Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes

    Open Access•L Aubree Shay, Jennifer Elston Lafata•Medical Decision Making•2015

  • Shared decision making

    Open Access•Anne M Stiggelbout, Trudy Van Der Weijden et al.•BMJ•2012

  • Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice

    Open Access•France Légaré, Stéphane Ratté et al.•Patient Education and Counseling•2008

  • Shared Decision Making

    Open Access•Glyn Elwyn, Dominick L Frosch et al.•Journal of General Internal…•2012

  • Can consumers learn to ask three questions to improve shared decision making? A feasibility study of the ASK (AskShareKnow) Patient–Clinician Communication Model ® intervention in a primary health‐care setting

    Open Access•Heather L Shepherd, Andrew Barratt et al.•Health Expectations•2016

  • Evaluation of an Australian health literacy training program for socially disadvantaged adults attending basic education classes

    Open Access•Kirsten J Mccaffery, Suzanne Morony et al.•BMC Public Health•2016

  • Using Theory to Design Effective Health Behavior Interventions

    Open Access•Martin Fishbein, Marco C Yzer•Communication Theory•2003

  • Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research

    John W Creswell, Vicki L Plano Clark•Designing and Conducting Mixed…•2017

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae