IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i17p10585-d897049.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Mei-Chun Cheung

    (Department of Social Work, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China)

  • Derry Law

    (Department of Design, Caritas Institute of Higher Education and Caritas Bianchi College of Careers, Tseung Kwan O, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China)

  • Joanne Yip

    (School of Fashion and Textiles, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China)

  • Jason Pui Yin Cheung

    (Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China)

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the subjective experiences of adolescents with scoliosis during brace treatment in order to understand their obstacles and make recommendations to enhance brace compliance. Using purposive sampling, 15 adolescents (2 males and 13 females) with scoliosis aged from 10 to 16 years old during brace treatment were recruited to participate in semi-structured in-depth interviews. The data were recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis with the qualitative software NVivo 10. Significant statements and phrases were organized into categories and themes to understand adolescents’ experiences during brace treatment for scoliosis. In general, the adolescents acknowledged that compliance with brace treatment was essential to reduce or prevent the progression of spinal curvature and tried their best to comply with the treatment. Regarding their subjective experiences during brace treatment, three themes were identified and emerged as obstacles negatively affecting their brace compliance, including physical discomfort due to brace materials and design, reluctance caused by the brace’s visual appearance, and passive patient participation during the treatment process. This study reveals insights into the experiences of adolescents with scoliosis during brace treatment and what they perceive as hindrances to compliance. In order to have better brace compliance, adolescents’ feelings and difficulties during brace treatment should be recognized and addressed. Therefore, active patient participation throughout the treatment process, involving the co-design of a customized brace, psychosocial interventions, and personalized appearance style management should be considered and promoted to facilitate a more acceptable bracing experience to achieve better brace compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10585-:d:897049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10585/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10585/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    2. Yuexi Yang & Tingting Qu & Jinyue Yang & Ben Ma & Anli Leng, 2022. "Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    3. Fizzah B. Abidi & Libby Laing & Sue Cooper & Tim Coleman & Katarzyna A. Campbell, 2020. "Experts’ Views on Behaviour Change Techniques for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-13, October.
    4. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    5. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    6. Budych, Karolina & Helms, Thomas M. & Schultz, Carsten, 2012. "How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 154-164.
    7. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    8. Maura Galletta & Maria Francesca Piazza & Stefania Luisa Meloni & Elsa Chessa & Ilenia Piras & Judith E. Arnetz & Ernesto D’Aloja, 2022. "Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making: Do Patients Rate Physicians and Nurses Differently?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, October.
    9. Huschke, Susann, 2014. "Performing deservingness. Humanitarian health care provision for migrants in Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 352-359.
    10. Karen Scherr & Rebecca K. Delaney & Peter Ubel & Valerie C. Kahn & Daniel Hamstra & John T. Wei & Angela Fagerlin, 2022. "Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 364-374, April.
    11. Simon N. Whitney & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Howard Brody & Carl Schneider & Laurence B. McCullough & Robert J. Volk & Amy L. McGuire, 2008. "Beyond Shared Decision Making: An Expanded Typology of Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 699-705, September.
    12. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    13. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    14. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    15. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.
    16. Sara Sommer Holst & Ebru Sabedin & Esin Sabedin & Charlotte Vermehren, 2023. "A Shift in Asthma Treatment According to New Guidelines: An Evaluation of Asthma Patients’ Attitudes towards Treatment Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-14, February.
    17. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    18. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    19. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    20. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10585-:d:897049. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.