Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36919231›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

An examination of relational dynamics of power in the context of supported (assisted) decision-making with older people and those with disabilities in an acute healthcare setting.

Deirdre O Donnell, Carmel Davies, Lauren Christophers, Éidín Ní Shé, Sarah Donnelly, Thilo Kroll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Deirdre O DonnellUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-7562-5484
Carmel DaviesUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Lauren ChristophersUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Éidín Ní ShéGraduate School of Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Sarah DonnellySchool of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Thilo KrollUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSupported (assisted) healthcare decision-making (ADM) focuses attention on how people with disabilities, including cognitive impairments, can be best supported to make decisions about their health and social care on an equitable basis with others. Meaningful implementation of legal frameworks for ADM challenges long-held presumptions about who has access to valued decision-making resources, influence and power within a particular socio-cultural setting. This study aims to explore the relational power dynamics around ADM with older people in acute care settings.

methodsThis study adopts a critical hermeneutic approach to qualitatively explore the lived experience of ADM from the perspectives of Health and Social Care Professionals (N = 26). This is supported by an exploration of the experiences of older people (N = 4), older people with a diagnosis of dementia (N = 4) and family carers (N = 5).

resultsWe present three themes of data analysis that represent three spaces where the relational aspects of power in ADM are manifested. The first space, centralising decision-making power within multidisciplinary teams identified the privileging of physicians in traditional hierarchical leadership models that may lead to the implicit exclusion of family carers and some Health and Social Care Professionals in the ADM process. Privileging cognitive and communication competence identified a tendency to attribute decision-making autonomy to those with cognitive and communication competency. The final space, balancing the duty of care and individual autonomy, recognises acute care settings as typically risk-averse cultures that limit autonomy for decisions that carry risk, especially for those with cognitive impairment.

conclusionFindings indicate the need to address cultural sources of power operating through social norms premised on ageist and ableist ideologies. It is necessary to challenge institutional barriers to meaningful ADM including positional power that is associated with hierarchies of influence and protectionism. Finally, meaningful ADM requires resistance to the disempowerment created by structural, economic and social circumstances which limit choices for decision-making. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A public and patient involvement panel of older people were consulted in the development of the grant application (HRB: APA-2016-1878). Representatives from Alzheimer's Society Ireland and Family Carers Ireland were steering committee members guiding design and strategy.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesAgedCaregiversDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansIrelandacute healthcarecapacitydementiadisabilityhealth decision-makingolder peoplesupported decision-making

Identifiers

PMID36919231
PMCPMC10154890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.