IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i23-24p4353-4363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User participation is a family matter: A multiple case study of the experiences of older, hospitalised people and their relatives

Author

Listed:
  • Ingrid Nyborg
  • Lars J Danbolt
  • Marit Kirkevold

Abstract

Aims and objectives The purpose of this multiple case study was to compare and contrast older people's and their relatives’ experiences of participation in decision‐making processes regarding the planning of everyday life after discharge from hospital. Background Internationally, patient involvement in health services is established to benefit patient health and to improve quality of the services. The literature shows that at hospital discharge, older people would benefit from better communication and more active participation of relatives in the discharge planning. Little research has been carried out on the experiences of patients and relatives as a family in this context, and even less has investigated their participation. Design This study used a qualitative design with a comparative multicase approach. Participants were recruited from two hospitals in Norway using a purposive sampling strategy. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with five patients and with six of their relatives. Results Three patterns of experiences were identified: contradicting experiences; consistent experiences of nonpreferred participation; similar, but separate experiences of user participation. Conclusions User participation in the planning of everyday life following discharge appeared to be random and limited for both patients and their relatives, and conflicting for the families as a whole. The decision‐making processes seemed to be limited to the hospital context and did not include the broader context of everyday life following discharge. Relevance to clinical practice The results underscore the importance of taking a family perspective when caring for older people. Family meetings might be a useful tool to ensure systematic assessment and integration of the perspectives of both older people and their family in the planning of follow‐up care.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingrid Nyborg & Lars J Danbolt & Marit Kirkevold, 2017. "User participation is a family matter: A multiple case study of the experiences of older, hospitalised people and their relatives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4353-4363, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:4353-4363
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13765
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13765?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dagrunn N Dyrstad & Kristin A Laugaland & Marianne Storm, 2015. "An observational study of older patients’ participation in hospital admission and discharge – exploring patient and next of kin perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(11-12), pages 1693-1706, June.
    2. Thompson, Andrew G.H., 2007. "The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1297-1310, 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. 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.
    2. Dagrunn N Dyrstad & Kristin A Laugaland & Marianne Storm, 2015. "An observational study of older patients’ participation in hospital admission and discharge – exploring patient and next of kin perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(11-12), pages 1693-1706, June.
    3. Lindy King & Ann Harrington & Ecushla Linedale & Elizabeth Tanner, 2018. "A mixed methods thematic review: Health‐related decision‐making by the older person," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1327-1343, April.
    4. Marit By Rise & Aslak Steinsbekk, 2016. "Long Term Effect on Professionals’ Knowledge, Practice and Attitudes towards User Involvement Four Years after Implementing an Organisational Development Plan: A Controlled Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    6. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    7. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    8. Elizabeth Manias & Fiona Geddes & Bernadette Watson & Dorothy Jones & Phillip Della, 2016. "Perspectives of clinical handover processes: a multi‐site survey across different health professionals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1-2), pages 80-91, January.
    9. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    10. Lauren McCormack & Pamela Williams-Piehota & Carla Bann, 2009. "Behind Closed Doors: What Happens when Patients and Providers Talk about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(3), pages 191-201, September.
    11. Greer, Scott L. & Stewart, Ellen A. & Wilson, Iain & Donnelly, Peter D., 2014. "Victory for volunteerism? Scottish health board elections and participation in the welfare state," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 221-228.
    12. Tone Andersen‐Hollekim & Marit Solbjør & Marit Kvangarsnes & Torstein Hole & Bodil J. Landstad, 2020. "Narratives of patient participation in haemodialysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2293-2305, July.
    13. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Abelson, J., 2012. "The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(12), pages 1843-1850.
    14. Lucas, Henry, 2015. "New technology and illness self-management: Potential relevance for resource-poor populations in Asia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 145-153.
    15. Linda Aimée Hartford Kvæl & Jonas Debesay & Asta Bye & Anne Langaas & Astrid Bergland, 2019. "Choice, Voice, and Coproduction in Intermediate Care: Exploring Geriatric Patients’ and Their Relatives’ Perspectives on Patient Participation," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, September.
    16. Mamdooh Alzyood & Debra Jackson & Joanne Brooke & Helen Aveyard, 2018. "An integrative review exploring the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals towards patient involvement in promoting hand hygiene compliance in the hospital setting," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1329-1345, April.
    17. Jim Broch Skarli, 2021. "Creating or Destructing Value in Use? Handling Cognitive Impairments in Co-Creation with Serious and Chronically Ill Users," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Gill Hubbard & Nicola Illingworth & Neneh Rowa‐Dewar & Liz Forbat & Nora Kearney, 2010. "Treatment decision‐making in cancer care: the role of the carer," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(13‐14), pages 2023-2031, July.
    19. Fumagalli, Lia Paola & Radaelli, Giovanni & Lettieri, Emanuele & Bertele’, Paolo & Masella, Cristina, 2015. "Patient Empowerment and its neighbours: Clarifying the boundaries and their mutual relationships," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 384-394.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:4353-4363. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.