Why patients want to take or refuse to take antibiotics: an inventory of motives.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of antibiotics is a worldwide issue. In order to help public health institutions and each particular physician to change patterns of consumption among patients, it is important to understand better the reasons why people accept to take or refuse to take the antibiotic drugs. This study explored the motives people give for taking or refusing to take antibiotics. METHODS: Four hundred eighteen adults filled out a 60-item questionnaire that consisted of assertions referring to reasons for which the person had taken antibiotics in the past and a 70-item questionnaire that listed reasons for which the person had sometimes refused to take antibiotics. RESULTS: A six-factor structure of motives to take antibiotics was found: Appropriate Prescription, Protective Device, Enjoyment (antibiotics as a quick fix allowing someone to go out), Others' Pressure, Work Imperative, and Personal Autonomy. A four-factor structure of motives not to take antibiotics was found: Secondary Gain (through prolonged illness), Bacterial Resistance, Self-defense (the body is able to defend itself) and Lack of trust. Scores on these factors were related to participants' demographics and previous experience with antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Although people are generally willing to follow their physician's prescription of antibiotics, a notable proportion of them report adopting behaviors that are beneficial to micro-organisms and, as a result, potentially detrimental to humans.

The ethics of postoperative pain management: Mapping nurses' views.

AIM: We explored the positions of nurses working in hospitals regarding the acceptability of refusing to give a repeat dose of painkiller to a postoperative patient who requested it. These positions were compared with that of lay people, physicians, and other health professionals. DESIGN AND METHODS: Factorial design was used to assess the impact of 6 situational factors: the patient's age, the current level of pain as assessed by the nurse, the number of requests, the level of risk associated with the administration of a repeat dose, the outcome of surgery, and the giving of alternative mild analgesics. We implemented a combination of scenario technique and of cluster analysis. Data were collected from April 2013 to December 2015. PARTICIPANTS: 138 registered nurses, 32 nurse's aides, 33 physicians, 23 psychologists, and 169 lay people participated in the study. RESULTS: We found 4 qualitatively different meaningful positions. A plurality of participants (57% of nurses) considered that refusing was not acceptable, irrespective of circumstances. A substantial minority of participants (but 52% of physicians) considered that refusing was acceptable only if the level of pain was low and the risk was high. Other participants (mostly lay people) considered that refusing was always acceptable each time a risk of side effects, either serious or simply mild, was present.

Mapping people's views regarding the acceptability of surrogate motherhood.

The aims of the present study were to map French laypersons' views regarding the acceptability of maternal surrogacy and to delineate the circumstances under which surrogacy is considered, by different groups of people, as especially problematic. Participants (N = 236) were presented with a number of scenarios depicting the circumstances in which a couple has contracted with a surrogate mother and were asked to indicate the extent to which such a contract may present a moral problem. The scenarios were created by varying four factors: the type of surrogacy (traditional or gestational), the surrogate mother's level of autonomy, the family context in which the surrogate mother lives, and whether surrogacy was commercial or altruistic. Three qualitatively different personal positions were found: (a) a majority group for which surrogacy always (30%) or often (34%) presents a moral problem, (b) a minority group (14%) for which maternal surrogacy does not systematically present a moral problem, and

Mapping French people's views regarding posthumous reproduction.

OBJECTIVE: The study mapped French people's views regarding the acceptability of posthumous reproduction. BACKGROUND: Posthumous reproduction - the use of a deceased person's gametes for procreative purposes -is a controversial procedure because it involves a series of ethical issues, namely the surviving partner's rights to procreation, the emotional feelings and financial interests of other family members, and the government's interest in maintaining orderly inheritance rules. METHODS: A convenience sample of participants aged 19-68 (104 lay people, 47 health professionals and 15 lawyers) were presented with 48 realistic stories that were composed according to a four-factor within-subject design: marital status (married for about 10 years with children, married for about three years without children, and cohabiting for three years without children) × attitude of the deceased's parents (favourable vs. unfavourable to posthumous procreation) × time elapsed since the partner's death (three months vs. nine months) × deceased's wishes (written consent, oral consent given in front of credible witnesses, unknown wishes, and unfavourable attitude). RESULTS: Through cluster analysis, four qualitatively different positions were found. They were called Never Acceptable (35% of the sample, mostly health professionals, lawyers and regular attendees to the church or temple), Tolerable in a Few Cases (28%), Depends on Deceased's Wishes (22%, mostly lay people) and Quite Acceptable (16%, mostly lay people). CONCLUSIONS: About half of French lay people view the current legislation regarding posthumous assisted reproduction in a country such as the UK as more appropriate than the French legislation.

French laypeople's and health professionals' views on the acceptability of terminal sedation.

AIM: To study the views on the acceptability of terminal sedation (TS) of laypeople and health professionals in France. METHOD: In November 2013-June 2015, 223 laypeople and 53 health professionals (21 physicians and 32) judged the acceptability of TS in 48 realistic scenarios composed of all combinations of four factors: (a) the patients' life expectancy, (b) their request for sedation, (c) the decision-making process and (d) the type of sedation. In all scenarios, the patients were women with a terminal illness suffering from intractable pain and receiving the best possible care. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Five qualitatively different positions were found that were termed TS acceptable if decision taken collectively (15%), TS acceptable if patient explicitly requested it (19%), TS acceptable if patient did not explicitly oppose it (47%), 24-hour sedation not acceptable (6%) and TS always acceptable (13%). The percentage of older participants in the 'always acceptable' cluster was higher than the percentage of younger participants. CONCLUSIONS: Laypeople and health professionals do not appear to be systematically opposed to TS. The most important factors in increasing its acceptability were the patients' request for sedation and the collective character of the decision-making process.

A mapping of people's positions regarding the breaking of bad news to patients.

The objective of this study was to map people's positions regarding the breaking of bad news to patients. One hundred forty adults who had in the past received bad medical news or whose elderly relatives had in the past received bad news, 25 nurses, and 28 nurse's aides indicated the acceptability of physicians' conduct in 72 vignettes of giving bad news to elderly patients. Vignettes were all combinations of five factors: (a) the severity of the disease (severe but not lethal, extremely severe and possibly lethal, or incurable), (b) the patient's wishes (insists on knowing the full truth vs. does not insist), (c) the level of social support during hospitalization, (d) the patient's psychological robustness, and (e) the physician's decision about communicating bad news (tell the patient that the illness is not severe and minimize the severity of the illness when talking to the patient's relatives, tell the full truth to her relatives, or tell the full truth to both the elderly patient and her relatives). Four qualitatively different positions were found. Twenty-eight percent of participants preferred the full truth to be told; 36% preferred the truth to be told but understood that the physician would inform the family first; 13% did not think that telling the full truth is best for patients; and 23% understood that the full truth would be told in some cases and not in others, depending on the physician's perception of the situation. The present mapping could be used to detect the position held by each patient and act accordingly. This would be made easier if breaking bad news was conceived as a communication process involving a range of health care professionals, rather than as a single occurrence in time.

The importance of quality over in quantity in the social sharing of emotions (SSE) in people living with HIV/AIDS.

Research shows that chronic illness patients encounter difficulties in the social sharing of emotions (SSE). Since most SSE studies focus on quantitative aspects, the present study, aimed, among others, to study the associations between the quality of SSE in people living with HIV/AIDS and patients' psychological and physical well-being. A total of 101 HIV/AIDS patients answered a questionnaire (Likert scale items) which assessed: shame, guilt, perceived stigma, reasons for non-disclosure of serostatus, physical health, mental health, SSE and quality of SSE. While no associations were found between quantitative aspects of SSE, physical health and mental health, the quality of SSE was negatively correlated to shame and guilt, and positively correlated to physical and mental health. Furthermore, mediation analyses showed the mediating role of the quality of SSE in the relationship between, on the one hand, shame and guilt; and on the other hand, physical and mental health. Findings suggest the importance of qualitative aspects of SSE in the emergence of positive outcomes linked to emotional expression in people living with HIV/AIDS.

A mapping of the positions of adults in Toulouse, France, regarding induced abortion.

BACKGROUND: Are people's views on abortion as polarised as is suggested by the 'marches for life' that regularly take place in Paris and other capitals? Objective To map French people's positions regarding the acceptability of induced abortion. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-nine participants were presented with stories composed according to a three within-subject design: Reason for abortion (e.g., the woman's life is endangered) × Gestational age × Woman's age. They assessed the extent to which abortion would be, in each case, an acceptable medical/surgical procedure. RESULTS: Five qualitatively different positions were identified: (i) always acceptable, irrespective of circumstances (31% of the sample), (ii) strictly depends on the reason for abortion (27%), (iii) legalist (23%), (iv) depends on the reason and on the gestational age (18%), and (v) always unacceptable (1%). CONCLUSIONS: Only one-fifth of the participants agreed with the part of the French law that permits abortion on request when gestational age does not exceed ten weeks. The others disagreed either because they thought that abortion on demand should never be permitted or because they thought that the age limit should be extended. This divide in people's opinions guarantees that the debate over induced abortions will continue.

Patients' Positions on the Degree of Trust to be Placed in Physicians.

Patient-physician relationship is ideally based on mutual trust. Trust usually takes times to build but can quite instantaneously be destroyed as a result of a single action or a single misperception. This study examined the way patients conceptualize the relationship between trust in a physician and perceived competency, honesty and openness, and personal involvement in care. One hundred sixty-seven patients aged 18-85 years were presented with a set of 27 three-item realistic vignettes that described situations in which participants could find themselves if hospitalized because of illness or accident. These scenarios resulted from the complete crossing of the three factors mentioned above. Participants were asked to assess the level of trust they would feel in each case. Through cluster analysis, three positions were found. For a minority of participants, trust was either unconditionally high (4%) or always quite low (8%). For a majority (75%), however, trust depended interactively on competency and honesty, on the one hand, and involvement, on the other hand; that is, the impact of competency and honesty on trust always depended on the level of involvement in care. In particular, when involvement had a low level, trust was always quite low, irrespective of the levels of both other factors. These findings are fully consistent with the view that, for a majority of patients, trust is inherently brittle: A breach in any one of participants' expectations regarding physicians' professionalism is enough to result in a more than proportional reduction in trust level.

Chapitre 8. Annoncer ou pas la découverte d'anomalies non sollicitées lors d'un test génétique à séquençage haut débit ?

OBJECTIVE: New genome sequencing techniques allow new approaches in medical genetics, in particular by facilitating the diagnosis of genetic diseases. However, their use also leads to unsolicited genetic findings being uncovered. This type of discovery raises ethical, legal and psychological considerations. The objective of this psychological research was to study the different positions of patients, health professionals and general public regarding the acceptability of the announcement of unsolicited findings revealed during a high-throughput sequencing genetic test. METHOD: the first exploratory study aimed, through non-directive research interviews conducted with 13 patients of a medical genetics service, to understand the psychological repercussions linked to the announcement of a result of a targeted genetic test and to know the patients’ desires regarding the announcement of unsolicited findings if the test had been a high-throughput genetic test. The second study, using a quantitative methodology, aimed to identify the judgment policies of 144 patients, 94 healthcare professionals and 211 people from the general public concerning the acceptability of this type of disclosure. RESULTS: The cluster analyses highlighted six judgment policies as to whether or not to disclose the discovery of unsolicited anomalies: “Tell everything”, “Tell even in part”, “Tell everything unless desperate”, “Undecided”, “Do not tell” and “Do not tell if no prevention”. The participants positioned themselves differently, in particular according to the patient’s consent. CONCLUSION: This research shows the variability of positioning and the importance of consent in the acceptability of the disclosure of unsolicited findings. However, one of the limitations of the study lies in the fact that in medical clinic, acceptability and acceptance may vary over time. A longitudinal study would undoubtedly afford a better understanding of the psychological progress of patients in this type of care pathway..

Under what conditions would people be willing to make a living organ donation?

The aim was to examine the factors involved in people's willingness to make a living organ donation. A convenience sample of 200 people in southern France rated willingness to be a living donor in 48 scenarios consisting of all combinations of five factors: recipient's identity (close family member and city resident); donor's surgical risk (little and some); donor's possible long-term health consequences (none, some lessening over time, and durable); transplant success ("generally durably successful" and "durably successful one time out of two"); and likelihood of other donors (subject is one of the rare compatible donors or one among others). Cluster analyses showed the existence of three distinct organ donation philosophies. For the largest cluster (49% of participants), willingness to donate was very high to a family member, but low to a city resident. For the second cluster (37%), willingness was high to family, but also moderately high to a city resident. For the third cluster (14%), willingness was always low. Thus, most participants judged themselves ready to make a living organ donation to a family member and many even to a stranger.

Positions of French Nurses Regarding the use of Hypnotherapy to Relieve Pain in Postoperative Settings.

The objective of this study was to carry out a detailed mapping of the different personal positions of French nurses concerning the practice of hypnotherapy. Factorial design was used to assess the impact of 4 situational factors: type of postoperative care and degree of pain associated with it (chemotherapy, wound cleansing and bandaging, or body grooming that leads to pain on mobilization); whether paracetamol (also known as acetaminophen) was administrated along with hypnosis or not; professional credentials of the hypnotherapist; and patient's identity (adult, young person, elderly person, or young person with learning difficulties). A combination of scenario technique and cluster analysis was implemented. Participants were 91 registered nurses and, for comparison, 19 nurse's aides, 9 physicians, 5 psychologists, and 77 laypersons. Seven qualitatively different positions were found. Only a minority of French nurses were convinced that hypnotherapy is an indisputably acceptable practice in postoperative care. Most of them were indifferent to the issue as long as pain medication was used. Nurses' views appeared to be similar to physicians' views.

Breaking bad news: the patient's viewpoint.

The objective of this study was to ascertain how patients judge the acceptability of physicians' communication of bad news. Two hundred forty-five adults, who had in the past received bad medical news, indicated the acceptability of physicians' conduct in 48 vignettes of giving bad news to patients. Vignettes were all combinations of five factors: level of bad news (infection with hepatitis C, cirrhosis of the liver, or liver cancer); request or not to the patient to come with spouse or partner; attempt or not by the physician to find out the patient's expectations about the test results; presence or absence of emotional supportiveness; and provision or not of complete and understandable information. In addition, nine physicians rated the same vignettes. Quality of information and emotional supportiveness explained more than 95% of the variance in patients' acceptability judgments, while the degree of badness of the news had no impact. In addition, for patients, low emotional supportiveness could not be fully compensated by high quality of information, nor the inverse. Physicians, in contrast, responded as if such compensations were possible. Physicians must appreciate that patients expect high levels of both empathy and information quality, no matter how bad the news.

French People's Views on the Allocation of Organs for Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: French laypeople's views on the allocation of organs for transplantation were examined. METHODS: A total of 199 adults make judgments of priority for a liver transplant in 48 realistic scenarios composed of all combinations of 4 factors: 1. probability of success, 2. life expectancy without transplant, 3. level of responsibility for liver failure (eg, substance abuse in the past), and 4. social situation (eg, young mother with 2 young children). In all scenarios, the patients were in need of liver transplant. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Six qualitatively different positions were found that were termed Probability of Success and Life Expectancy (6%), Family Responsibilities (8%), Family Responsibilities and Risky Behavior (28%), Risky Behavior and Family Responsibilities (22%), Risky Behavior (11%), and Always a Priority (25%). Regular church attendees expressed more often the Risky Behavior and Family Responsibilities position and less often the Always a Priority position than atheists. Female participants expressed more often the Risky Behavior position than male participants. CONCLUSIONS: The French laypeople in our sample think that when assessing priority for transplant, criteria additional to medical urgency or the estimated utility in terms of expected life span after transplant should be taken into account. These criteria are the patient's lack of responsibility for the liver failure (ie, not causing it by drinking or using drugs) and the extent of the patient's social responsibilities (with active employment and dependents to care for).

French People's Views Regarding Xenotransplantation.

BACKGROUND: French laypeople's views on xenotransplantation were examined. METHODS: A convenience sample of 224 adults (among them, 37 nurses) judged of the acceptability of xenotransplantation in 50 realistic scenarios composed of various combinations of 4 factors: 1. the type of graft (eg, pig cardiac valve), 2. the level of urgency (eg, critical condition with very high risk of death in the short term), 3. the patient's or the family's level of consent (eg, the members of the family are divided on the issue), and 4. whether the transplantation was temporary or definitive. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Seven qualitatively different positions were found that were termed Never acceptable (12%), Urgency (4%), Family consent (33%), Religious concerns (15%), Family consent and urgency (10%), Depends on all circumstances (4%), and Always acceptable (11%). Vegans and vegetarians expressed the Never acceptable position more often than nonvegetarians. Health professionals expressed the Family consent position more often than the public. Regular church attendees expressed the Religious concerns position more often than atheists did. CONCLUSIONS: Few participants, mostly vegetarians, were opposed to xenotransplantation on principle. About one-third expressed positive views regarding xenotransplantation, either irrespective of circumstances or at least in those cases in which the patient's death is imminent and the family is not opposed for religious reasons. About one-half expressed positive views but deferred to the wishes of the family. The type of xenograft proposed had practically no effect on participants' views.

Attitudes of French populations towards the disclosure of unsolicited findings in medical genetics.

Next-generation sequencing techniques enable unsolicited findings to be detected. This discovery raises ethical questions concerning the return of these findings. Our study aimed to highlight the views of the general public, patients under supervision and health professionals concerning the acceptability of disclosing unsolicited results to patients. In total, 449 participants assessed scenarios, consisted of all combinations of three factors (patient's information and consent, prevention and treatment of the unsolicited disease and doctor's decision). The response profiles were grouped into six clusters. The participants took ethical aspects into account, but health professionals also considered the medical aspects to a greater extent.

French People's positions on supervised injection facilities for drug users.

BACKGROUND: Supervised injection facilities have been set-up in many countries to curb the health risks associated with unsafe injection practices. These facilities have, however, been met with vocal opposition, notably in France. As harm reduction policies can only succeed to the extent that people agree with them, this study mapped French people's opinions regarding the setting-up of these facilities. METHOD: A sample of 318 adults--among them health professionals--were presented with 48 vignettes depicting plans to create a supervised injection facility in their town. Each vignette contained three pieces of information: (a) the type of substance that would be injected in the facility (amphetamines only, amphetamines and cocaine only, or amphetamines, cocaine and heroin), (b) the type of staff who would be working in the facility (physicians and nurses, specially trained former drug users, specially trained current drug users, or trained volunteers recruited by the municipality), and (c) the staff members' mission (to be present and observe only, technical counselling about safe injection, counselling about safe injection and hygiene, or counselling and encouragement to follow a detoxification program). RESULTS: Through cluster analysis, three qualitatively different positions were found: Not very acceptable (20%), Depends on staff and mission (49%), and Always acceptable (31%). These positions were associated with demographic characteristics--namely gender, age and political orientation. CONCLUSION: French people's positions regarding supervised injection facilities were extremely diverse. One type of facility would, however, be accepted by a large majority of people: supervised injection facilities run by health professionals whose mission would be, in addition to technical and hygienic counselling, to encourage patrons to enter detoxification or rehabilitation programs.

Mapping and comparing French people's positions regarding restrictive control policies: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Public authorities resort to various control policies in order to curb the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors. As these policies can only succeed to the extent that people agree with them, this study mapped French people's positions regarding restrictive control policies in general. METHOD: A sample of 344 adults (among them health professionals and lawyers) were presented with 54 vignettes depicting a control policy. Each vignette contained four pieces of information: the type of addictive behavior targeted (smoking, drinking, or gambling), the nature of preventive measures (e.g., information campaigns), the degree of regulative measures (e.g., prohibition to minors), and the severity of sanctions. RESULTS: Through cluster analysis, eight qualitatively different positions were found: Never acceptable (9%), Weak or moderate regulation (5%), Moderate regulation associated with strong prevention (11%), Strong or moderate regulation (11%), Strong regulation in association with strong prevention (23%), Moderate sanctions in association with strong prevention and moderate regulation (9%), Severe sanctions (9%), and Always acceptable (9%). Some participants (14%) expressed no opinion at all. CONCLUSION: French people's positions regarding control policies were extremely diverse. Regarding tobacco, however, one type of policy would likely be supported by a majority of people: Moderate regulation associated with at least a moderate level of prevention and low-level sanctions. Regarding alcohol, an acceptable position would be: Moderate regulation associated with at least a moderate level of prevention and high-level sanctions. Regarding gambling, an acceptable position would be: Strong regulation associated with at least a moderate level of prevention and low-level sanctions.

Romanian Laypeople's and Health Professionals' Views Regarding Living Organ Donation.

BACKGROUND: Romanian laypeople's and health professionals' views on living organ donation were examined. METHODS: From July 2015 to May 2016, 263 adults (among them 31 physicians and 20 nurses) judged the acceptability of living organ donation in 42 realistic scenarios composed of varying levels of 6 factors: 1. type of organ, 2. whether it could have been obtained from a cadaver, 3. donor-recipient relationship, 4. donor's level of autonomy, 5. financial compensation, and 6. patients' level of responsibility for their illness. In all scenarios, the patients were in need of either a kidney or liver transplantation. RESULTS: The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance. Seven qualitatively different positions were found that were termed never acceptable (12%), free market (44%), compensation (12%), altruism (6%), always acceptable (16%), responsibility (4%), and undetermined (6%). Physicians were more frequently in the free market or in the compensation clusters (81%) than laypeople (51%). CONCLUSION: Only a few participants held the altruism model, even though this model has been promoted as the normative model by the World Health Organization and by most national legislations, including the legislation in Romania. Instead, the free market position and its variant-the compensation position-can be considered the majority positions (66%) in Romania.