TY - JOUR
T1 - Decision-making dilemmas of paediatricians
T2 - A qualitative study in Japan
AU - Sasazuki, Momoko
AU - Sakai, Yasunari
AU - Kira, Ryutaro
AU - Toda, Naoko
AU - Ichimiya, Yuko
AU - Akamine, Satoshi
AU - Torio, Michiko
AU - Ishizaki, Yoshito
AU - Sanefuji, Masafumi
AU - Narama, Miho
AU - Itai, Koichiro
AU - Hara, Toshiro
AU - Takada, Hidetoshi
AU - Kizawa, Yoshiyuki
AU - Ohga, Shouichi
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding This work was supported by JSPS Kakenhi grant number JP15K08555 (NT), JP15K09624 (YS), 17K16271 (YI), 17K16301 (MT), 18K07821 (YI), a Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant on Evidence-based Early Diagnosis and Treatment Strategies for Neuroimmunological Diseases from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, Life Science Foundation of Japan, Takeda Science Foundation, The Mother and Child Health Foundation, The Japan Epilepsy Research Foundation and Kawano Masanori Memorial Public Interest Incorporated Foundation for Promotion of Pediatrics (YS). This study was conducted in agreement with the procedures in consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).
Funding Information:
This work was supported by JSPS Kakenhi grant number JP15K08555 (NT), JP15K09624 (YS), 17K16271 (YI), 17K16301 (MT), 18K07821 (YI), a Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant on Evidence-based Early Diagnosis and Treatment Strategies for Neuroimmunological Diseases from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, Life Science Foundation of Japan, Takeda Science Foundation, The Mother and Child Health Foundation, The Japan Epilepsy Research Foundation and Kawano Masanori Memorial Public Interest Incorporated Foundation for Promotion of Pediatrics (YS). This study was conducted in agreement with the procedures in consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).
Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2019/8/1
Y1 - 2019/8/1
N2 - Objective To delineate the critical decision-making processes that paediatricians apply when treating children with life-threatening conditions and the psychosocial experience of paediatricians involved in such care. Design We conducted semistructured, individual face-to-face interviews for each participant from 2014 to 2015. The content of each interview was subjected to a comprehensive qualitative analysis. The categories of dilemma were extracted from a second-round content analysis. Participants Participants were board-certified paediatricians with sufficient experience in making decisions in relation to children with severe illnesses or disabilities. We repeated purposive sampling and analyses until we reached saturation of the category data. Results We performed interviews with 15 paediatricians. They each reported both unique and overlapping categories of dilemmas that they encountered when making critical decisions. The dilemmas included five types of causal elements: (1) paediatricians' convictions; (2) the quest for the best interests of patients; (3) the quest for medically appropriate plans; (4) confronting parents and families and (5) socioenvironmental issues. Dilemmas occurred and developed as conflicting interactions among these five elements. We further categorised these five elements into three principal domains: the decision-maker (decider); consensus making among families, colleagues and society (process) and the consequential output of the decision (consequence). Conclusions This is the first qualitative study to demonstrate the framework of paediatricians' decision-making processes and the complex structures of dilemmas they face. Our data indicate the necessity of establishing and implementing an effective support system for paediatricians, such as structured professional education and arguments for creating social consensus that assist them to reach the best plan for the management of severely ill children.
AB - Objective To delineate the critical decision-making processes that paediatricians apply when treating children with life-threatening conditions and the psychosocial experience of paediatricians involved in such care. Design We conducted semistructured, individual face-to-face interviews for each participant from 2014 to 2015. The content of each interview was subjected to a comprehensive qualitative analysis. The categories of dilemma were extracted from a second-round content analysis. Participants Participants were board-certified paediatricians with sufficient experience in making decisions in relation to children with severe illnesses or disabilities. We repeated purposive sampling and analyses until we reached saturation of the category data. Results We performed interviews with 15 paediatricians. They each reported both unique and overlapping categories of dilemmas that they encountered when making critical decisions. The dilemmas included five types of causal elements: (1) paediatricians' convictions; (2) the quest for the best interests of patients; (3) the quest for medically appropriate plans; (4) confronting parents and families and (5) socioenvironmental issues. Dilemmas occurred and developed as conflicting interactions among these five elements. We further categorised these five elements into three principal domains: the decision-maker (decider); consensus making among families, colleagues and society (process) and the consequential output of the decision (consequence). Conclusions This is the first qualitative study to demonstrate the framework of paediatricians' decision-making processes and the complex structures of dilemmas they face. Our data indicate the necessity of establishing and implementing an effective support system for paediatricians, such as structured professional education and arguments for creating social consensus that assist them to reach the best plan for the management of severely ill children.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071261044&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071261044&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026579
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026579
M3 - Article
C2 - 31431444
AN - SCOPUS:85071261044
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 9
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 8
M1 - e026579
ER -