ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients facing a high-stakes clinical decision are often confronted with an overwhelming array of options. High-quality decisions about treatment should reflect patients' preferences as well as their clinical characteristics. Preference-assessment instruments typically focus on pre-selected clinical outcomes and attributes chosen by the investigator. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a patient-centered approach to elicit and compare the treatment goals of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthcare providers (HCPs). METHODS: We conducted five nominal group technique (NGT) meetings to elicit and prioritize treatment goals from patients and HCPs. Five to nine participants in each group responded silently to one question about their treatment goals. Responses were shared, consolidated, and ranked to develop a prioritized list for each group. The ranked lists were combined. Goals were rated and sorted into categories. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to derive a visual representation, or cognitive map, of the data and to identify conceptual clusters, reflecting how frequently items were sorted into the same category. RESULTS: Five NGT groups yielded 34 unique patient-generated treatment goals and 31 unique HCP-generated goals. There were differences between patients and HCPs in the goals generated and how they were clustered. Patients' goals tended to focus on the impact of specific symptoms on their day-to-day lives, whereas providers' goals focused on slowing down the course of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the treatment goals of patients and HCPs underscore the limitations of using HCP- or investigator-identified goals. This new adaptation of cognitive mapping is a patient-centered approach that can be used to generate and organize the outcomes and attributes for values clarification exercises while minimizing investigator bias and maximizing relevance to patients.
Subject(s)
Decision Making , Health Personnel/psychology , Multiple Sclerosis/psychology , Patient Care Planning , Patient Participation/methods , Adult , Aged , Clinical Decision-Making , Cluster Analysis , Female , Focus Groups , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multiple Sclerosis/therapy , Patient Preference , Patient-Centered Care , Socioeconomic Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
This descriptive and comparative study employed a Q-sort process to describe common factors of therapy in two group therapies for inpatients with chronic mental illness. While pharmacological treatments for chronic mental illness are prominent, there is growing evidence that cognitive therapy is also efficacious. Groups examined were part of a larger study comparing the added benefits of cognitive versus supportive group therapy to the treatment milieu. In general, items described the therapist's attitudes and behaviors, the participants' attitudes and behaviors, or the group interactions. Results present items that were most and least characteristic of each therapy and items that discriminate between the two modalities. Therapists in both groups demonstrated good therapy skills. However, the cognitive group was described as being more motivated and active than the supportive group, indicating that the groups differed in terms of common as well as specific factors of treatment.
Subject(s)
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/methods , Mental Disorders/psychology , Mental Disorders/therapy , Psychotherapeutic Processes , Psychotherapy, Group/methods , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Attitude to Health , Chronic Disease , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/standards , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Physician-Patient Relations , Psychotherapy, Group/standards , Q-Sort/statistics & numerical data , Reproducibility of Results , Tape Recording , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
It has been argued that battered women who kill their abusers represent a special class of defendants being unfairly treated in the legal system. As a result, commentators have argued for reforms to permit the judicial system to respond more fairly. Researchers have investigated the influences of these prescribed legal modifications and the possible influence of various demographic and psychological factors on legal reforms. However, social scientists have not yet asked some fundamental, psychological questions. Is the law consistent with what society believes is right and just? Is there a commonsense notion of justice in these cases? What factors constitute cognitive decision rules and influence judgments in cases of battered women who kill their abusers? This study uses a basic, psychological method to identify psychological factors that are important in judgments regarding battered women who kill and to better understand commonsense notions of justice in these cases.
