Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Consensus on a conversation aid for shared decision making with people with intellectual disabilities in the palliative phase.
Noorlandt, Hanna W; Korfage, Ida J; Tuffrey-Wijne, Irene; Festen, Dederieke; Vrijmoeth, Cis; van der Heide, Agnes; Echteld, Michael.
Afiliação
  • Noorlandt HW; Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands.
  • Korfage IJ; Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands.
  • Tuffrey-Wijne I; Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education Cranmer Terrace London, Kingston University & St. George's, University of London, London, UK.
  • Festen D; Department of General Practice, Intellectual Disability Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
  • Vrijmoeth C; Eleos/De Hoop GGZ, Centre for Research and Innovation in Christian Mental Health Care, Amersfoort, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • van der Heide A; Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands.
  • Echteld M; Expertise Centre Caring Society, Avans University of Applied Science, Breda, Noord-Brabant, The Netherlands.
J Appl Res Intellect Disabil ; 34(6): 1538-1548, 2021 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34060161
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Little is known about how to involve people with intellectual disabilities in making decisions about treatment and care in their palliative phase. We aimed to reach a consensus about a shared decision-making (SDM) conversation aid for people with intellectual disabilities, relatives, and healthcare professionals.

METHODS:

In a Delphi process, an expert panel of 11 people with intellectual disabilities, 14 relatives, and 65 healthcare professionals completed online questionnaires about the relevance and feasibility of a draft conversation aid.

RESULTS:

In Round 1, components were rated as (very) relevant by 70-98% of participants (M = 87%). In Round 2, after amending the aid in response to feedback, relevance ratings were 67-97% (M = 90%) and feasibility ratings 66-86% (M = 77%). The final version consists of four themes who are you; illness/end-of-life; making decisions; and evaluating the decision.

CONCLUSION:

The consensus-based conversation aid is considered sufficiently relevant and feasible to be implemented in practice.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Deficiência Intelectual Tipo de estudo: Guideline Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Deficiência Intelectual Tipo de estudo: Guideline Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article