IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i1-2p215-224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth Astbury
  • Ashley Shepherd
  • Helen Cheyne

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore the processes that support shared decision‐making when health visitors and parents are creating plans to improve the well‐being of babies and children. Background Worldwide, there is a focus on promoting children's well‐being to enhance the population health. Within the United Kingdom, health visitors have a key responsibility for working in partnership with parents to support this agenda. Despite evidence that the application of ‘shared decision‐making’ frameworks can increase patient participation, improve patient satisfaction and improve health outcomes, there is limited research linking shared decision‐making with health visitor practice. Design A qualitative, descriptive study. Methods The study was undertaken in two phases: in Phase 1, data were collected by audio recording two health visitor–parent decision‐making conversations, in the absence of the researcher, where decisions around planning for a baby or child were being made as part of usual care, and then the participants’ experiences were sought through individual questionnaires. In Phase 2, semistructured interviews were conducted with nine health visitors and nine parents in relation to their recent experiences of planning care. Results Evidence of supportive processes included having a shared understanding around the issue needing to be addressed; being able to identify interventions that were accessible for the family; engaging in decision‐making through deep, meaningful conversations using sensitive and responsive approaches; and establishing positive relationships between health visitors and parents, significant others within the family and other professionals. Conclusion Despite evidence of strong, trusting relationships between parents and health visitors, there were times when shared decision‐making was unable to take place due to the absence of supportive processes. Relevance to clinical practice Health visitors are aware that planning interventions with parents can be complex. These findings indicate the value of using a shared decision‐making framework to structure planning, as application of a framework identified the processes that support a collaborative approach in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth Astbury & Ashley Shepherd & Helen Cheyne, 2017. "Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 215-224, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:1-2:p:215-224
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13480
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13480
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13480?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. 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.
    2. Gafni, Amiram & Charles, Cathy & Whelan, Tim, 1998. "The physician-patient encounter: The physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 347-354, August.
    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. Ivanka Ezhova & Lynn Sayer & Rita Newland & Nicola Davis & Shelley McLetchie‐Holder & Patricia Burrows & Laura Middleton & Mary Ellen Malone, 2020. "Models and frameworks that enable nurses to develop their public health practice—A scoping study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2150-2160, July.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Nora Moumjid & Amiram Gafni & Alain Brémond & Marie-Odile Carrère, 2007. "Shared Decision Making in the Medical Encounter: Are We All Talking about the Same Thing?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 539-546, September.
    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. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    12. Jeffrey L. Jackson & Derek Storch & Wilkins Jackson & Dorothy Becher & Patrick G. O’Malley, 2020. "Direct-Observation Cohort Study of Shared Decision Making in a Primary Care Clinic," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 756-765, August.
    13. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    14. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    15. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.
    16. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    17. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    18. Våga, Bodil Bø & Moland, Karen Marie & Evjen-Olsen, Bjørg & Blystad, Astrid, 2014. "Reflections on informed choice in resource-poor settings: The case of infant feeding counselling in PMTCT programmes in Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 22-29.
    19. Antonius Schneider & Magdalena Wübken & Klaus Linde & Markus Bühner, 2014. "Communicating and Dealing with Uncertainty in General Practice: The Association with Neuroticism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-7, July.
    20. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.

    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:1-2:p:215-224. 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.