IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i13-14p2293-2305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Narratives of patient participation in haemodialysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tone Andersen‐Hollekim
  • Marit Solbjør
  • Marit Kvangarsnes
  • Torstein Hole
  • Bodil J. Landstad

Abstract

Aim and objective To explore how working‐age adults experience patient participation in hospital haemodialysis. Background End‐stage kidney disease is a progressive, chronic condition imposing patients with high treatment burdens and low health‐related quality of life. Patients face multiple medical decisions related to living with kidney failure. Given their frequent interaction with health services, patient participation may be of special value. Design Qualitative design with a narrative approach. Methods In 2018, eleven patients aged 35–64 years undergoing hospital haemodialysis participated in individual interviews. All interviews were analysed using a narrative approach. Reporting followed the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Findings The patients’ narratives of participation comprised three themes following their healthcare trajectory: Informed, but not involved in treatment choices; Duality of care and control; and Frail trust reflecting collaborative deficiencies. The patients received good information about dialysis, but were not involved in choice of treatment modality. Professional work, as well as the nature of treatment, contributed to restricted patient autonomy. Patients’ trust suffered from collaborative deficiency generating delays in their treatment trajectories, and patients extended their responsibility into the coordination of transitions as a way of coping with these issues. Conclusions The study identified challenges related to patient involvement and interdisciplinary collaboration. Involving patients through dialogue and acknowledging their experiences, preferences and lifestyles may strengthen the mutual patient–professional understanding of treatment. Despite increased focus on seamless trajectories, patients face obstacles regarding interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination of health services. Relevance to clinical practice The findings indicate a want of individually customised care for people requiring dialysis. Patients need to be involved in the choice of treatment modality as well as decisions related to the current treatment. Information must include potential consequences of the different treatment modalities. Health services need to strengthen collaboration in order to secure treatment continuity and patient involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:13-14:p:2293-2305
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15238
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15238?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. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chava Kurtz & Ronit Geron & Efrat Shadmi, 2021. "Interest and perceived capability of self‐care in haemodialysis units," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5-6), pages 645-654, March.

    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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:29:y:2020:i:13-14:p:2293-2305. 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.