FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2409935034> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2409935034 endingPage "2" @default.
• W2409935034 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2409935034 abstract "This issue includes a range of articles at the heart of the Journal’s agenda. Articles explore how we should understand communication between health professionals and patients to shape decisions and ensure understanding. This also relates to how we can develop decision aids that incorporate not only the expertise of clinicians but are framed in relation to what patients’ say they need. Articles in this issue go on to discuss the development and validation of a range of measures based on patient experience as part of on-going methodological development to incorporate patients and service users as central to the research process before turning to evidence of people’s experience of urgent and emergency care and the impact of cancer on everyday life. The final article in the issue looks at policy and the ways that patients, members of the public, governmental and non-governmental stakeholders can actively inform policy and implementation. The importance of the community pharmacy as a source of health advice and information is a recurrent theme in health policy. More importantly, do the interactions between patients and those dispensing their prescription ensure that medicines are taken in the right way and that side-effects are understood. Emmerton et al.1 explored the issue of health literacy amongst community pharmacy consumers in south-east Queensland, Australia. They found that on the whole there was a high level of health literacy but that there was less understanding of warning labels commonly used on dispensed medications. Communication between doctors and patients can be a locus for shared decision making (SDM) but can also limit the scope for a patient to be actively involved in their own treatment. Kasper et al.2 explore present an epistemological analysis of the SDM and argue that a different way of understanding not only the nature of what is communicated but also how uncertainty and likelihood can be discussed to enable doctors to become enablers rather than definers of patient’s decisions. In the next article, Mendel et al.3 explore the influence that physicians have on decisions concerning treatments by a group of people in Germany with schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis. Using a scenario about drug choice and comparing patient’s initial choice and that following information about physician’s advice, they find clear evidence that a significant proportion of the subjects changed their decision and that this was related to how certain they had been in the first place and how much they trusted their physician. The use of decision aids to support doctor–patient consultations particularly in relation to uncertainty is a growing area of research. There is little consensus on how decision aids should be developed. Durand et al.4 studied the decision by women to undertake amniocentesis, and working with women in this situation, researchers and health professionals considered a range of different algorithms that are commonly used. They conclude that deliberations can be supported by decision aids and that the translation of theoretical constructs into graphic-based deliberation tools is an excellent approach to the challenges of such development. Quality of Life is notoriously difficult to measure and even more so in ways that are related to specific health-care interventions. Increasingly, direct patient experience is being used as a measure of the quality of interventions and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) replacing standardized quality of life scores. Skevington et al.5 developed WHOQOL-BREF as a generic measure of individual quality of life using a bottom-up approach grounded in the views of patients and potential service users. There article reports the validation of this measure in a diverse sample of more than 4000 UK patients. Another area where PROMs are being used relates to cultural sensitivity. Nápoles et al.6 report the finding from the development of a Clinicians Cultural Sensitivity Survey for Latino patients in California. The experience of emergency and urgent care is particularly difficult to document given the unplanned nature of the use of these services. Knowles et al.7 report the results of survey of a random population samples in the UK exploring the experiences and views of the emergency and urgent care system. The results emphasize that people experience a number of different services as part of their journey, and this has implications for conceptualising and planning provision in terms of systems rather than services. Much research on patient and public involvement has focused on the experience of cancer but much of this focuses on the impact of diagnosis and treatment and far less is about how people manage living with cancer. As part of an attempt to research areas highlighted as important by people with cancer, Okamoto et al.8 undertook a systematic appraisal of the literature relating to the impact of cancer in everyday life. They identify a range of particular areas that have been studied and identify some gaps. In part, their review also reveals the dominance of breast cancer as the condition most studied and the limited dissemination beyond academia of many research findings. Patient and public involvement in the development of policy is rare, and even rarer is academic accounts of processes or events which document the ways that members of the public and service users shape the content and implementation of policy. Thailand has been a leading location for innovation in health reform and policy development and Rasanathan et al.9 in their article document the process and initial outcomes of the first National Health Assembly held in Bangkok in 2008 as an innovative example of health policy making. I particularly welcome the continue internationalization of the contributions and the broad array of arenas where patients, service users and the public are playing an active role in shaping their own treatment, the organization and delivery of services and even influencing prospectively the policy that frames health-care systems." @default.
• W2409935034 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2409935034 creator A5041122932 @default.
• W2409935034 date "2012-02-23" @default.
• W2409935034 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2409935034 title "Editorial" @default.
• W2409935034 cites W1542646501 @default.
• W2409935034 cites W1858901317 @default.
• W2409935034 cites W1890697271 @default.
• W2409935034 cites W1895476059 @default.
• W2409935034 cites W2095709509 @default.
• W2409935034 cites W2097739765 @default.
• W2409935034 cites W2102244104 @default.
• W2409935034 cites W2157229775 @default.
• W2409935034 cites W2170761532 @default.
• W2409935034 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00776.x" @default.
• W2409935034 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5060600" @default.
• W2409935034 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22356302" @default.
• W2409935034 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2409935034 type Work @default.
• W2409935034 sameAs 2409935034 @default.
• W2409935034 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2409935034 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2409935034 hasAuthorship W2409935034A5041122932 @default.
• W2409935034 hasBestOaLocation W24099350341 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C104863432 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C2426938 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C2778605646 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C2778843546 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C547764534 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C104863432 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C15744967 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C159110408 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C160735492 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C17744445 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C19417346 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C199539241 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C2426938 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C2778605646 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C2778843546 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C39549134 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C509550671 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C547764534 @default.
• W2409935034 hasConceptScore W2409935034C71924100 @default.
• W2409935034 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2409935034 hasLocation W24099350341 @default.
• W2409935034 hasLocation W24099350342 @default.
• W2409935034 hasLocation W24099350343 @default.
• W2409935034 hasLocation W24099350344 @default.
• W2409935034 hasOpenAccess W2409935034 @default.
• W2409935034 hasPrimaryLocation W24099350341 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W1644082198 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W1984353126 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W2386509681 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W2560874371 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W2759712009 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W2895819372 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W3037454981 @default.
• W2409935034 hasRelatedWork W4304689155 @default.
• W2409935034 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W2409935034 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2409935034 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2409935034 magId "2409935034" @default.
• W2409935034 workType "editorial" @default.