Screening, confirmation and quantification of boldenone sulfate in equine urine after administration of boldenone undecylenate (Equipoise).

PubMed

Weidolf, L O; Chichila, T M; Henion, J D

1988-12-09

Methods for screening by thin-layer chromatography, quantification by high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection and confirmation by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry of boldenone sulfate in equine urine after administration of boldenone undecylenate (Equipoise) are presented. Sample work-up was done with C18 liquid-solid extraction followed by solvolytic cleavage of the sulfate ester. Confirmatory evidence of boldenone sulfate in equine urine was obtained from 2 h to 42 days following a therapeutic intramuscular dose of Equipoise. The use of 19-nortestosterone sulfate as the internal standard for quantification of boldenone sulfate is discussed.

Experiences of randomization: interviews with patients and clinicians in the SPCG-IV trial.

PubMed

Bill-Axelson, Anna; Christensson, Anna; Carlsson, Marianne; Norlén, Bo Johan; Holmberg, Lars

2008-01-01

Recruitment of both patients and clinicians to randomized trials is difficult. Low participation carries the risk of terminating studies early and making them invalid owing to insufficient statistical power. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' experiences of randomization with the aim of facilitating trial participation in the future. This was a qualitative study using content analysis. Patients offered to participate in a randomized trial and randomizing clinicians were interviewed. Five participants, four non-participants and five randomizing clinicians were interviewed, 2-8 years from randomization. Clinicians used strategies in interaction with the patients to facilitate decision making. Patients' attitudes differed and experiences of relatives or friends were often stated as reasons for treatment preferences. Patients described that letting chance decide treatment was a difficult barrier to overcome for randomization. The clinicians used a number of different strategies perceived to make randomization more acceptable to their patients. The clinicians' own motivation for randomizing patients for trials depended on the medical relevance of the study question and the clinicians' major obstacle was to maintain equipoise over time. Regular meetings with the study group helped to maintain equipoise and motivation. To establish a good platform for randomization the clinician needs to know about the patient's treatment preferences and the patient's attitude concerning the role of the clinician to facilitate decision making. The strategies used by the clinicians were perceived as helpful and could be tested in an intervention study.

Lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials.

PubMed

Robinson, E J; Kerr, C E P; Stevens, A J; Lilford, R J; Braunholtz, D A; Edwards, S J; Beck, S R; Rowley, M G

2005-03-01

To research the lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to look at why information on this may not be not taken in or remembered, as well as the effects of providing information designed to overcome barriers. Investigations were informed by an update of systematic review on patients' understanding of consent information in clinical trials, and by relevant theory and evidence from experimental psychology. Nine investigations were conducted with nine participants. Access (return to education), leisure and vocational courses at Further Education Colleges in the Midlands, UK. Healthy adults with a wide range of educational backgrounds and ages. Participants read hypothetical scenarios and wrote brief answers to subsequent questions. Sub-samples of participants were interviewed individually to elaborate on their written answers. Participants' background assumptions concerning equipoise and randomisation were examined and ways of helping participants recognise the scientific benefits of randomisation were explored. Judgments on allocation methods; treatment preferences; the acceptability of random allocation; whether or not individual doctors could be completely unsure about the best treatment; whether or not doctors should reveal treatment preferences under conditions of collective equipoise; and how sure experts would be about the best treatment following random allocation vs doctor/patient choice. Assessments of understanding hypothetical trial information. Recent literature continues to report trial participants' failure to understand or remember information about randomisation and equipoise, despite the provision of clear and readable trial information leaflets. In current best practice, written trial information describes what will happen without offering accessible explanations. As a consequence, patients may create their own incorrect interpretations and consent or refusal may be inadequately informed. In six investigations, most participants identified which methods of allocation were random, but judged the random allocation methods to be unacceptable in a trial context; the mere description of a treatment as new was insufficient to engender a preference for it over a standard treatment; around half of the participants denied that a doctor could be completely unsure about the best treatment. A majority of participants judged it unacceptable for a doctor to suggest letting chance decide when uncertain of the best treatment, and, in the absence of a justification for random allocation, participants did not recognise scientific benefits of random allocation over normal treatment allocation methods. The pattern of results across three intervention studies suggests that merely supplementing written trial information with an explanation is unlikely to be helpful. However, when people manage to focus on the trial's aim of increasing knowledge (as opposed to making treatment decisions about individuals), and process an explanation actively, they may be helped to understand the scientific reasons for random allocation. This research was not carried out in real healthcare settings. However, participants who could correctly identify random allocation methods, yet judged random allocation unacceptable, doubted the possibility of individual equipoise and saw no scientific benefits of random allocation over doctor/patient choice, are unlikely to draw upon contrasting views if invited to enter a real clinical trial. This suggests that many potential trial participants may have difficulty understanding and remembering trial information that conforms to current best practice in its descriptions of randomisation and equipoise. Given the extent of the disparity between the assumptions underlying trial design and the assumptions held by the lay public, the solution is unlikely to be simple. Nevertheless, the results suggest that including an accessible explanation of the scientific benefits of randomisation may be beneficial provided potential participants are also enabled to reflect on the trial's aim of advancing knowledge, and to think actively about the information presented. Further areas for consideration include: the identification of effective combinations of written and oral information; helping participants to reflect on the aim of advancing knowledge; and an evidence-based approach to leaflet construction.

Living Donor Uterus Transplant and Surrogacy: Ethical Analysis According to the Principle of Equipoise.

PubMed

Testa, G; Koon, E C; Johannesson, L

2017-04-01

The uterus is the most recent addition to the list of organs that can be successfully transplanted in humans. This article analyzes living donor uterus transplantation according to the ethical principle of equipoise. A comparison is made between living donor uterus transplantation and gestational surrogate motherhood. Both are solutions to absolute uterine infertility that allow the transfer of genetic material from intended parents to a child. The analysis concludes that living donor uterus transplantation does not violate the ethical principle of equipoise and should be considered an ethically acceptable solution to absolute uterine infertility. © 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Overcoming difficulties with equipoise to enable recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy for unilateral localised prostate cancer.

PubMed

Elliott, Daisy; Hamdy, Freddie C; Leslie, Tom A; Rosario, Derek; Dudderidge, Tim; Hindley, Richard; Emberton, Mark; Brewster, Simon; Sooriakumaran, Prasanna; Catto, James W F; Emara, Amr; Ahmed, Hashim; Whybrow, Paul; le Conte, Steffi; Donovan, Jenny L

2018-06-11

To describe how clinicians conceptualised equipoise in the PART (Partial prostate Ablation versus Radical prosTatectomy in intermediate risk, unilateral clinically localised prostate cancer) feasibility study and how this affected recruitment. PART included a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment. Phase I aimed to understand recruitment, and included scrutinising recruitment data, interviewing the Trial Management Group and recruiters (n=13), and audio-recording recruitment consultations (n=64). Data were analysed using qualitative content and thematic analysis methods. In Phase II, strategies to improve recruitment were developed and delivered. Initially many recruiters found it difficult to maintain a position of equipoise and held preconceptions about which treatment was best for particular patients. They did not feel comfortable about approaching all eligible patients, and when the study was discussed, biases were conveyed through the use of terminology, poorly balanced information and direct treatment recommendations. Individual and group feedback led to presentations to patients becoming clearer and enabled recruiters to reconsider their sense of equipoise. Although the precise impact of the QRI alone cannot be determined, recruitment increased (from mean 1.4 (range=0-4) to 4.5 (range=0-12) patients per month) and the feasibility study reached its recruitment target. Although clinicians find it challenging to recruit participants to a trial comparing different contemporary treatments for prostate cancer, training and support can enable recruiters to become more comfortable with conveying equipoise and providing clearer information to patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Ethics of Randomized Controlled Trials in Social Settings: Can Social Trials Be Scientifically Promising and Must There Be Equipoise?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Fives, Allyn; Russell, Daniel W.; Canavan, John; Lyons, Rena; Eaton, Patricia; Devaney, Carmel; Kearns, Norean; O'Brien, Aoife

2015-01-01

In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), treatments are assigned randomly and treatments are withheld from participants. Is it ethically permissible to conduct an RCT in a social setting? This paper addresses two conditions for justifying RCTs: that there should be a state of equipoise and that the trial should be scientifically promising.…

More ethical and more efficient clinical research: multiplex trial design.

PubMed

Keus, Frederik; van der Horst, Iwan C C; Nijsten, Maarten W

2014-08-14

Today's clinical research faces challenges such as a lack of clinical equipoise between treatment arms, reluctance in randomizing for multiple treatments simultaneously, inability to address interactions and increasingly restricted resources. Furthermore, many trials are biased by extensive exclusion criteria, relatively small sample size and less appropriate outcome measures. We propose a 'Multiplex' trial design that preserves clinical equipoise with a continuous and factorial trial design that will also result in more efficient use of resources. This multiplex design accommodates subtrials with appropriate choice of treatment arms within each subtrial. Clinical equipoise should increase consent rates while the factorial design is the best way to identify interactions. The multiplex design may evolve naturally from today's research limitations and challenges, while principal objections seem absent. However this new design poses important infrastructural, organisational and psychological challenges that need in depth consideration.

The Paradox of Equipoise: The Principle That Drives and Limits Therapeutic Discoveries in Clinical Research

PubMed Central

Djulbegovic, Benjamin

2009-01-01

Background Progress in clinical medicine relies on the willingness of patients to take part in experimental clinical trials, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Before agreeing to enroll in clinical trials, patients require guarantees that they will not knowingly be harmed and will have the best possible chances of receiving the most favorable treatments. This guarantee is provided by the acknowledgment of uncertainty (equipoise), which removes ethical dilemmas and makes it easier for patients to enroll in clinical trials. Methods Since the design of clinical trials is mostly affected by clinical equipoise, the “clinical equipoise hypothesis” has been postulated. If the uncertainty requirement holds, this means that investigators cannot predict what they are going to discover in any individual trial that they undertake. In some instances, new treatments will be superior to standard treatments, while in others, standard treatments will be superior to experimental treatments, and in still others, no difference will be detected between new and standard treatments. It is hypothesized that there must be a relationship between the overall pattern of treatment successes and the uncertainties that RCTs are designed to address. Results An analysis of published trials shows that the results cannot be predicted at the level of individual trials. However, the results also indicate that the overall pattern of discovery of treatment success across a series of trials is predictable and is consistent with clinical equipoise hypothesis. The analysis shows that we can discover no more than 25% to 50% of successful treatments when they are tested in RCTs. The analysis also indicates that this discovery rate is optimal in helping to preserve the clinical trial system; a high discovery rate (eg, a 90% to 100% probability of success) is neither feasible nor desirable since under these circumstances, neither the patient nor the researcher has an interest in randomization. This in turn would halt the RCT system as we know it. Conclusions The “principle or law of clinical discovery” described herein predicts the efficiency of the current system of RCTs at generating discoveries of new treatments. The principle is derived from the requirement for uncertainty or equipoise as a precondition for RCTs, the precept that paradoxically drives discoveries of new treatments while limiting the proportion and rate of new therapeutic discoveries. PMID:19910921

Fallibility: a new perspective on the ethics of clinical trial enrollment.

PubMed

Shamy, Michel C F; Stahnisch, Frank W; Hill, Michael D

2015-01-01

The ethical principle of 'equipoise', introduced in 1974, represents the most widely influential justification for the enrollment of patients into randomized clinical trials. However, definitions of equipoise vary, and its terms are not universally accepted. In this paper, we suggest a new way of approaching the ethics of clinical trial enrollment, which we call fallibility. The principle of fallibility argues that all physician opinions are sufficiently uncertain to warrant investigation, and that the ethical justification for any trial becomes a question of its epistemic validity, by which we mean the strength of its hypotheses and methods. The principle of fallibility can be translated into practice through the virtues of humility, skepticism and caring. While we cite recent examples from stroke medicine to demonstrate the limitations of equipoise, we propose that fallibility may offer a more general means of addressing the controversies that arise surrounding randomized controlled trials in many disciplines of medicine. © 2014 World Stroke Organization.

Sham Surgery Trial Controls: Perspectives of Patients and Their Relatives

PubMed Central

Swift, Teresa L.

2012-01-01

THIS STUDY REPORTS ON QUALITATIVE research conducted in the UK with people with Parkinson’s Disease and their relatives on the subject of “sham surgery.” It explores attitudes toward sham surgery and reasoning about hypothetical participation in a sham-controlled trial. Results showed that attitudes toward sham surgery may not necessarily predict trial participation behavior. A small majority of interviewees deemed sham surgery ethically acceptable with certain provisos, but hypothetical participation was driven primarily by disease severity and a lack of standard treatment options, with a preference for receiving the real surgery over sham. Ethical implications for patient equipoise and the autonomy of patients’ research participation decisions are discussed. PMID:22850140

The face of equipoise - delivering a structured education programme within a randomized controlled trial: qualitative study

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background In trials of behavioural interventions, the individuals who deliver the intervention are in a position of key influence on the success of the trial. Their fidelity to the intervention is crucial. Yet little is understood about the experiences of this group of trial personnel. This study aimed to investigate the views and experiences of educators who delivered a structured education intervention to people with type 2 diabetes, which incorporated training in self-monitoring of either blood glucose (SMBG) or urine glucose (SMUG) as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods Educators’ views were explored through focus groups before and after training (N = 18) and approximately 1 year into the trial (N = 14), and semi-structured telephone interviews at approximately 2 years (N = 7). Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results Educators held preferences regarding the intervention variants; thus, they were not in individual equipoise. Training raised awareness of preferences and their potential to impact on delivery. Educators were confident in their unbiased delivery, but acknowledged the challenges involved. Concealing their preferences was helped by a sense of professionalism, the patient-centred nature of the intervention, and concessions in the trial protocol (enabling participants to swap monitoring methods if needed). Commitment to unbiased delivery was explained through a desire for evidence-based knowledge in the contentious area of SMBG. Conclusions The findings provide insight into a previously unexplored group of trial personnel - intervention deliverers in trials of behavioural interventions - which will be useful to those designing and running similar trials. Rather than individual equipoise, it is intervention deliverers’ awareness of personal preferences and their potential impact on the trial outcome that facilitates unbiased delivery. Further, awareness of community equipoise, the need for evidence, and relevance to the individual enhance commitment to the RCT. Trial registration ISRCTN95696668 PMID:24405854

A Republican Argument Against Nudging and Informed Consent.

PubMed

Hamilton, Paul

2017-12-30

I argue that it is impermissible to use nudges as a tool to influence patients in the context of informed consent. The motivation for such nudges is that their use can help reconcile potential conflicts between a physician's duty of beneficence and duty to respect patient autonomy. I argue that their use places physicians in a position of domination over patients. That is, it violates the republican freedom of patients because it grants physicians the power to arbitrarily interfere. I also argue that if one tries to adjust the duty of beneficence to avoid this conclusion, then the republican freedom of patients is still threatened under conditions of clinical equipoise. As ways to avoid the inevitability of nudging, I suggest the alternative of boosting or the pairing of patients with physicians who share their deep values. This latter option achieves the benefits nudging patients is supposed to provide without violating the republican freedom of those patients.

Equipoise among recanalization strategies.

PubMed

Tomsick, T A; Khatri, P; Jovin, T; Demaerschalk, B; Malisch, T; Demchuk, A; Hill, M D; Jauch, E; Spilker, J; Broderick, J P

2010-03-30

Modern acute ischemic stroke therapy is based on the premise that recanalization and subsequent reperfusion are essential for the preservation of brain tissue and favorable clinical outcomes. We outline key issues that we think underlie equipoise regarding the comparative clinical efficacy of IV recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) and intra-arterial (IA) reperfusion therapies for acute ischemic stroke. On the one hand, IV rt-PA therapy has the benefit of speed with presumed lower rates of recanalization of large artery occlusions as compared to IA methods. More recent reports of major arterial occlusions treated with IV rt-PA, as measured by transcranial Doppler and magnetic resonance angiography, demonstrate higher rates of recanalization. Conversely, IA therapies report higher recanalization rates, but are hampered by procedural delays and risks, even failing to be applied at all in occasional patients where time to reperfusion remains a critical factor. Higher rates of recanalization in IA trials using clot-removal devices have not translated into improved patient functional outcome as compared to trials of IV therapy. Combined IV-IA therapy promises to offer advantages of both, but perhaps only when applied in the timeliest of fashions, compared to IV therapy alone. Where equipoise exists, randomizing subjects to either IV rt-PA therapy or IV therapy followed by IA intervention, while incorporating new interventions into the study design, is a rational and appropriate research approach.

Medical device innovation: prospective solutions for an ecosystem in crisis. Adding a professional society perspective.

PubMed

Krucoff, Mitchell W; Brindis, Ralph G; Hodgson, Patricia K; Mack, Michael J; Holmes, David R

2012-07-01

Barriers to medical device innovation compromise timelines and costs from bench to bedside. Fragmented strategies by individual competitors are no longer sustainable. Pragmatically focused pre-competitive collaboration across stakeholders approaches innovation as an ecosystem. Desiloing experience and expertise encourages high-impact infrastructure efficiencies unique to pre-competitive constructs. Alignment of processes and objectives across the regulatory, reimbursement, clinical research, and clinical practice enterprises, with particular attention to the total product life cycle and continuous accrual of safety information, promotes more predictable equipoise for speed of access relative to residual safety concerns. Professional societies are well positioned to convene pre-competitive dialogue, facilitate alignment, and add perspective to equipoise within the innovation ecosystem. Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Types of vicarious learning experienced by pre-dialysis patients.

PubMed

McCarthy, Kate; Sturt, Jackie; Adams, Ann

2015-01-01

Haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis renal replacement treatment options are in clinical equipoise, although the cost of haemodialysis to the National Health Service is £16,411/patient/year greater than peritoneal dialysis. Treatment decision-making takes place during the pre-dialysis year when estimated glomerular filtration rate drops to between 15 and 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Renal disease can be familial, and the majority of patients have considerable health service experience when they approach these treatment decisions. Factors affecting patient treatment decisions are currently unknown. The objective of this article is to explore data from a wider study in specific relation to the types of vicarious learning experiences reported by pre-dialysis patients. A qualitative study utilised unstructured interviews and grounded theory analysis during the participant's pre-dialysis year. The interview cohort comprised 20 pre-dialysis participants between 24 and 80 years of age. Grounded theory design entailed thematic sampling and analysis, scrutinised by secondary coding and checked with participants. Participants were recruited from routine renal clinics at two local hospitals when their estimated glomerular filtration rate was between 15 and 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Vicarious learning that contributed to treatment decision-making fell into three main categories: planned vicarious leaning, unplanned vicarious learning and historical vicarious experiences. Exploration and acknowledgement of service users' prior vicarious learning, by healthcare professionals, is important in understanding its potential influences on individuals' treatment decision-making. This will enable healthcare professionals to challenge heuristic decisions based on limited information and to encourage analytic thought processes.

The importance of preservation of the ethical principle of equipoise in the design of clinical trials: relative impact of the methodological quality domains on the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials.

PubMed

Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Cantor, Alan; Clarke, Mike

2003-01-01

Previous research has identified methodological problems in the design and conduct of randomized trials that could, if left unaddressed, lead to biased results. In this report we discuss one such problem, inadequate control intervention, and argue that it can be by far the most important design characteristic of randomized trials in overestimating the effect of new treatments. Current guidelines for the design and reporting of randomized trials, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, do not address the choice of the comparator intervention. We argue that an adequate control intervention can be selected if people designing a trial explicitly take into consideration the ethical principle of equipoise, also known as "the uncertainty principle."

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a paediatric hospital: A descriptive study.

PubMed

Boland, Laura; McIsaac, Daniel I; Lawson, Margaret L

2016-04-01

To explore multiple stakeholders' perceived barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a tertiary paediatric hospital. An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and interviews to examine senior hospital administrators', clinicians', parents' and youths' perceived barriers to and facilitators of shared decision making and decision support implementation. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Fifty-seven stakeholders participated. Six barrier and facilitator themes emerged. The main barrier was gaps in stakeholders' knowledge of shared decision making and decision support. Facilitators included compatibility between shared decision making and the hospital's culture and ideal practices, perceptions of positive patient and family outcomes associated with shared decision making, and positive attitudes regarding shared decision making and decision support. However, youth attitudes regarding the necessity and usefulness of a decision support program were a barrier. Two themes were both a barrier and a facilitator. First, stakeholder groups were uncertain which clinical situations are suitable for shared decision making (eg, new diagnoses, chronic illnesses, complex decisions or urgent decisions). Second, the clinical process may be hindered if shared decision making and decision support decrease efficiency and workflow; however, shared decision making may reduce repeat visits and save time over the long term. Specific knowledge translation strategies that improve shared decision making knowledge and match specific barriers identified by each stakeholder group may be required to promote successful shared decision making and decision support implementation in the authors' paediatric hospital.

Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review.

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie; Slyer, Jason T

2018-01-01

Shared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice. To understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings. An integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings. Fifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making. A comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a paediatric hospital: A descriptive study

PubMed Central

Boland, Laura; McIsaac, Daniel I; Lawson, Margaret L

2016-01-01

OBJECTIVE: To explore multiple stakeholders’ perceived barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a tertiary paediatric hospital. METHODS: An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and interviews to examine senior hospital administrators’, clinicians’, parents’ and youths’ perceived barriers to and facilitators of shared decision making and decision support implementation. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-seven stakeholders participated. Six barrier and facilitator themes emerged. The main barrier was gaps in stakeholders’ knowledge of shared decision making and decision support. Facilitators included compatibility between shared decision making and the hospital’s culture and ideal practices, perceptions of positive patient and family outcomes associated with shared decision making, and positive attitudes regarding shared decision making and decision support. However, youth attitudes regarding the necessity and usefulness of a decision support program were a barrier. Two themes were both a barrier and a facilitator. First, stakeholder groups were uncertain which clinical situations are suitable for shared decision making (eg, new diagnoses, chronic illnesses, complex decisions or urgent decisions). Second, the clinical process may be hindered if shared decision making and decision support decrease efficiency and workflow; however, shared decision making may reduce repeat visits and save time over the long term. CONCLUSIONS: Specific knowledge translation strategies that improve shared decision making knowledge and match specific barriers identified by each stakeholder group may be required to promote successful shared decision making and decision support implementation in the authors’ paediatric hospital. PMID:27398058

Shared Decision-Making in the Management of Congenital Vascular Malformations.

PubMed

Horbach, Sophie E R; Ubbink, Dirk T; Stubenrouch, Fabienne E; Koelemay, Mark J W; van der Vleuten, Carine J M; Verhoeven, Bas H; Reekers, Jim A; Schultze Kool, Leo J; van der Horst, Chantal M A M

2017-03-01

In shared decision-making, clinicians and patients arrive at a joint treatment decision, by incorporating best available evidence and the patients' personal values and preferences. Little is known about the role of shared decision-making in managing patients with congenital vascular malformations, for which preference-sensitive decision-making seems obvious. The authors investigated preferences regarding decision-making and current shared decision-making behavior during physician-patient encounters. In two Dutch university hospitals, adults and children with congenital vascular malformations facing a treatment-related decision were enrolled. Before the consultation, patients (or parents of children) expressed their preference regarding decision-making (Control Preferences Scale). Afterward, participants completed shared decision-making-specific questionnaires (nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire, CollaboRATE, and satisfaction), and physicians completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician questionnaire. Consultations were audiotaped and patient involvement was scored by two independent researchers using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement instrument. All questionnaire results were expressed on a scale of 0 to 100 (optimum shared decision-making). Fifty-five participants (24 parents and 31 adult patients) were included. Two-thirds preferred the shared decision-making approach (Control Preferences Scale). Objective five-item Observing Patient Involvement scores were low (mean ± SD, 31 ± 15), whereas patient and physician Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire scores were high, with means of 68 ± 18 and 68 ± 19, respectively. The median CollaboRATE score was 93. There was no clear relationship between shared decision-making and satisfaction scores. Although adults and parents of children with vascular malformations express a strong desire for shared decision-making, objective shared decision-making behavior is still lacking, most likely because of poor awareness of the shared decision-making concept among patients, parents, and physicians. To improve shared decision-making practice, targeted interventions (e.g., decision aids, staff training) are essential.

Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review

PubMed Central

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie; Slyer, Jason T.

2018-01-01

Background: Shared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice. Objective: To understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings. Methods: An integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings. Results: Fifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making. Conclusion: A comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions. PMID:29456779

Measuring Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Care

PubMed Central

Salyers, Michelle P.; Matthias, Marianne S.; Fukui, Sadaaki; Holter, Mark C.; Collins, Linda; Rose, Nichole; Thompson, John; Coffman, Melinda; Torrey, William C.

2014-01-01

Objective Shared decision making is widely recognized to facilitate effective health care; tools are needed to measure the level of shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Methods A coding scheme assessing shared decision making in medical settings (1) was adapted, including creation of a manual. Trained raters analyzed 170 audio recordings of psychiatric medication check-up visits. Results Inter-rater reliability among three raters for a subset of 20 recordings ranged from 67% to 100% agreement for the presence of each of nine elements of shared decision making and 100% for the overall agreement between provider and consumer. Just over half of the decisions met minimum criteria for shared decision making. Shared decision making was not related to length of visit after controlling for complexity of decision. Conclusions The shared decision making rating scale appears to reliably assess shared decision making in psychiatric practice and could be helpful for future research, training, and implementation efforts. PMID:22854725

Shared decision-making - Rhetoric and reality: Women's experiences and perceptions of adjuvant treatment decision-making for breast cancer.

PubMed

Mahmoodi, Neda; Sargeant, Sally

2017-01-01

This interview-based study uses phenomenology as a theoretical framework and thematic analysis to challenge existing explanatory frameworks of shared decision-making, in an exploration of women's experiences and perceptions of shared decision-making for adjuvant treatment in breast cancer. Three themes emerged are as follows: (1) women's desire to participate in shared decision-making, (2) the degree to which shared decision-making is perceived to be shared and (3) to what extent are women empowered within shared decision-making. Studying breast cancer patients' subjective experiences of adjuvant treatment decision-making provides a broader perspective on patient participatory role preferences and doctor-patient power dynamics within shared decision-making for breast cancer.

National evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening.

PubMed

Han, Paul K J; Kobrin, Sarah; Breen, Nancy; Joseph, Djenaba A; Li, Jun; Frosch, Dominick L; Klabunde, Carrie N

2013-01-01

Recent clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening) have recommended that clinicians practice shared decision making-a process involving clinician-patient discussion of the pros, cons, and uncertainties of screening. We undertook a study to determine the prevalence of shared decision making in both PSA screening and nonscreening, as well as patient characteristics associated with shared decision making. A nationally representative sample of 3,427 men aged 50 to 74 years participating in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey responded to questions on the extent of shared decision making (past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and scientific uncertainty associated with PSA screening), PSA screening intensity (tests in past 5 years), and sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of men reported no past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, or scientific uncertainty (no shared decision making); 27.8% reported discussion of 1 to 2 elements only (partial shared decision making); 8.0% reported discussion of all 3 elements (full shared decision making). Nearly one-half (44.2%) reported no PSA screening, 27.8% reported low-intensity (less-than-annual) screening, and 25.1% reported high-intensity (nearly annual) screening. Absence of shared decision making was more prevalent in men who were not screened; 88% (95% CI, 86.2%-90.1%) of nonscreened men reported no shared decision making compared with 39% (95% CI, 35.0%-43.3%) of men undergoing high-intensity screening. Extent of shared decision making was associated with black race, Hispanic ethnicity, higher education, health insurance, and physician recommendation. Screening intensity was associated with older age, higher education, usual source of medical care, and physician recommendation, as well as with partial vs no or full shared decision making. Most US men report little shared decision making in PSA screening, and the lack of shared decision making is more prevalent in nonscreened than in screened men. Screening intensity is greatest with partial shared decision making, and different elements of shared decision making are associated with distinct patient characteristics. Shared decision making needs to be improved in decisions for and against PSA screening.

Patients' understanding of shared decision making in a mental health setting.

PubMed

Eliacin, Johanne; Salyers, Michelle P; Kukla, Marina; Matthias, Marianne S

2015-05-01

Shared decision making is a fundamental component of patient-centered care and has been linked to positive health outcomes. Increasingly, researchers are turning their attention to shared decision making in mental health; however, few studies have explored decision making in these settings from patients' perspectives. We examined patients' accounts and understanding of shared decision making. We analyzed interviews from 54 veterans receiving outpatient mental health care at a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the United States. Although patients' understanding of shared decision making was consistent with accounts published in the literature, participants reported that shared decision making goes well beyond these components. They identified the patient-provider relationship as the bedrock of shared decision making and highlighted several factors that interfere with shared decision making. Our findings highlight the importance of the patient-provider relationship as a fundamental element of shared decision making and point to areas for potential improvement. © The Author(s) 2014.

Clinical stakeholders’ opinions on the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients in intensive care units: an international Delphi study

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Introduction Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is a prophylactic antibiotic regimen that is not widely used in practice. We aimed to describe the opinions of key ‘stakeholders’ about the validity of the existing evidence base, likely consequences of implementation, relative importance of their opinions in influencing overall practice, likely barriers to implementation and perceptions of the requirement for further research to inform the decision about whether to embark on a further large randomised controlled trial. Methods This was a Delphi study informed by comprehensive framework of possible determinants of health professionals’ behaviour to study Critical Care practice in four countries. There were four key stakeholder participant groups including ICU physicians, pharmacists, clinical leads, and clinical microbiologists/ infectious disease physicians. Round one comprised participant interviews and Rounds two and three were online questionnaires using Delphi method. Results In this study, 141 participants were recruited of whom 82% were retained. Participants rated themselves as knowledgeable about SDD. Antibiotic resistance was identified as the most important issue. SDD was seen as a low clinical priority but few participants reported strong opposition. There was moderate agreement that research to date has not adequately addressed concerns about antibiotic resistance and lacks generalizability. Participants indicated equipoise with regard to benefits and harms of SDD, and indicated strong support for a further randomised trial. Conclusions Clinicians have clinical equipoise about the effectiveness of SDD. Future research requires longer follow up to assess antibiotic resistance as well as greater validity/generalizability to provide definitive answers on the effectiveness of decontamination and effects on antibiotic resistance. SDD was regarded as not being a high clinical priority, which may limit future trial participation. These results have identified that further large randomised controlled trial of SDD in critical care is both warranted and appropriate. PMID:24207137

Indications for surgical stabilization of rib fractures in patients without flail chest: surveyed opinions of members of the Chest Wall Injury Society.

PubMed

Pieracci, Fredric M; Agarwal, Suresh; Doben, Andrew; Shiroff, Adam; Lottenberg, Larwence; Whitbeck, Sarah Ann; White, Thomas W

2018-02-01

There are currently no evidence-based indications for surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) in patients without flail chest. The purpose of this survey was to identify patients for whom there is relative equipoise (operative vs. non-operative) in order to assist in designing a randomized clinical trial. Members of the Chest Wall Injury Society were sent an online survey, in which 18 patient scenarios were presented. The baseline patient had ≥ three displaced, contiguous fractures and had no other contraindications for surgery. This default scenario was then varied based upon patient age, degree of traumatic brain injury (TBI), fracture series location, and number of abnormal pulmonary physiologic variables (oxygen requirement, respiratory rate, incentive spirometry ability, cough, and numeric pain score). Thirty respondents provided a total of 540 answers. Overall, the majority of responses were in favor of SSRF (n = 413, 84.1%). Furthermore, the vast majority of responses indicated that some degree of pulmonary compromise was necessary to recommend SSRF (n = 44, 90.4%), with ≥ two abnormal parameters being the most common threshold (n = 156, 31.8%). Decision to recommend SSRF varied significantly by number of abnormal clinical variables, age, and degree of TBI, but not by fracture series location. Patients aged 85 years old and those with moderate TBI were the least likely to be recommended for SSRF, regardless of abnormal pulmonary physiologic variables. The most appropriate cutoff for equipoise appeared to be a patient aged 21-79 years old, with no or mild TBI, ≥ two abnormal pulmonary parameters, and regardless of fracture location (44.8% consensus for SSRF). SSRF was recommended for most patients with non-flail, displaced rib fractures. However, this recommendation was contingent upon patient age, degree of TBI, and pulmonary clinical status. Results of this survey may be used to inform inclusion criteria for a future randomized, clinical trial.

National Evidence on the Use of Shared Decision Making in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening

PubMed Central

Han, Paul K. J.; Kobrin, Sarah; Breen, Nancy; Joseph, Djenaba A.; Li, Jun; Frosch, Dominick L.; Klabunde, Carrie N.

2013-01-01

PURPOSE Recent clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening) have recommended that clinicians practice shared decision making—a process involving clinician-patient discussion of the pros, cons, and uncertainties of screening. We undertook a study to determine the prevalence of shared decision making in both PSA screening and nonscreening, as well as patient characteristics associated with shared decision making. METHODS A nationally representative sample of 3,427 men aged 50 to 74 years participating in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey responded to questions on the extent of shared decision making (past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and scientific uncertainty associated with PSA screening), PSA screening intensity (tests in past 5 years), and sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. RESULTS Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of men reported no past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, or scientific uncertainty (no shared decision making); 27.8% reported discussion of 1 to 2 elements only (partial shared decision making); 8.0% reported discussion of all 3 elements (full shared decision making). Nearly one-half (44.2%) reported no PSA screening, 27.8% reported low-intensity (less-than-annual) screening, and 25.1% reported high-intensity (nearly annual) screening. Absence of shared decision making was more prevalent in men who were not screened; 88% (95% CI, 86.2%–90.1%) of nonscreened men reported no shared decision making compared with 39% (95% CI, 35.0%–43.3%) of men undergoing high-intensity screening. Extent of shared decision making was associated with black race, Hispanic ethnicity, higher education, health insurance, and physician recommendation. Screening intensity was associated with older age, higher education, usual source of medical care, and physician recommendation, as well as with partial vs no or full shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS Most US men report little shared decision making in PSA screening, and the lack of shared decision making is more prevalent in nonscreened than in screened men. Screening intensity is greatest with partial shared decision making, and different elements of shared decision making are associated with distinct patient characteristics. Shared decision making needs to be improved in decisions for and against PSA screening. PMID:23835816

Roles, processes, and outcomes of interprofessional shared decision-making in a neonatal intensive care unit: A qualitative study.

PubMed

Dunn, Sandra I; Cragg, Betty; Graham, Ian D; Medves, Jennifer; Gaboury, Isabelle

2018-05-01

Shared decision-making provides an opportunity for the knowledge and skills of care providers to synergistically influence patient care. Little is known about interprofessional shared decision-making processes in critical care settings. The aim of this study was to explore interprofessional team members' perspectives about the nature of interprofessional shared decision-making in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and to determine if there are any differences in perspectives across professional groups. An exploratory qualitative approach was used consisting of semi-structured interviews with 22 members of an interprofessional team working in a tertiary care NICU in Canada. Participants identified four key roles involved in interprofessional shared decision-making: leader, clinical experts, parents, and synthesizer. Participants perceived that interprofessional shared decision-making happens through collaboration, sharing, and weighing the options, the evidence and the credibility of opinions put forward. The process of interprofessional shared decision-making leads to a well-informed decision and participants feeling valued. Findings from this study identified key concepts of interprofessional shared decision-making, increased awareness of differing professional perspectives about this process of shared decision-making, and clarified understanding of the different roles involved in the decision-making process in an NICU.

Ten Years, Forty Decision Aids, And Thousands Of Patient Uses: Shared Decision Making At Massachusetts General Hospital.

PubMed

Sepucha, Karen R; Simmons, Leigh H; Barry, Michael J; Edgman-Levitan, Susan; Licurse, Adam M; Chaguturu, Sreekanth K

2016-04-01

Shared decision making is a core component of population health strategies aimed at improving patient engagement. Massachusetts General Hospital's integration of shared decision making into practice has focused on the following three elements: developing a culture receptive to, and health care providers skilled in, shared decision making conversations; using patient decision aids to help inform and engage patients; and providing infrastructure and resources to support the implementation of shared decision making in practice. In the period 2005-15, more than 900 clinicians and other staff members were trained in shared decision making, and more than 28,000 orders for one of about forty patient decision aids were placed to support informed patient-centered decisions. We profile two different implementation initiatives that increased the use of patient decision aids at the hospital's eighteen adult primary care practices, and we summarize key elements of the shared decision making program. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

Twelve myths about shared decision making.

PubMed

Légaré, France; Thompson-Leduc, Philippe

2014-09-01

As shared decision makes increasing headway in healthcare policy, it is under more scrutiny. We sought to identify and dispel the most prevalent myths about shared decision making. In 20 years in the shared decision making field one of the author has repeatedly heard mention of the same barriers to scaling up shared decision making across the healthcare spectrum. We conducted a selective literature review relating to shared decision making to further investigate these commonly perceived barriers and to seek evidence supporting their existence or not. Beliefs about barriers to scaling up shared decision making represent a wide range of historical, cultural, financial and scientific concerns. We found little evidence to support twelve of the most common beliefs about barriers to scaling up shared decision making, and indeed found evidence to the contrary. Our selective review of the literature suggests that twelve of the most commonly perceived barriers to scaling up shared decision making across the healthcare spectrum should be termed myths as they can be dispelled by evidence. Our review confirms that the current debate about shared decision making must not deter policy makers and clinicians from pursuing its scaling up across the healthcare continuum. Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Shared decision-making during surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital.

PubMed

Mueck, Krislynn M; Leal, Isabel M; Wan, Charlie C; Goldberg, Braden F; Saunders, Tamara E; Millas, Stefanos G; Liang, Mike K; Ko, Tien C; Kao, Lillian S

2018-04-01

Understanding patient perspectives regarding shared decision-making is crucial to providing informed, patient-centered care. Little is known about perceptions of vulnerable patients regarding shared decision-making during surgical consultation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a validated tool reflects perceptions of shared decision-making accurately among patients seeking surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital. A mixed methods study was conducted in a sample of adult patients with gallstones evaluated at a safety-net surgery clinic between May to July 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after their initial surgical consultation and analyzed for emerging themes. Patients were administered the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and Autonomy Preference Scale. Univariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with shared decision-making and to compare the results of the surveys to those of the interviews. The majority of patients (N = 30) were female (90%), Hispanic (80%), Spanish-speaking (70%), and middle-aged (45.7 ± 16 years). The proportion of patients who perceived shared decision-making was greater in the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire versus the interviews (83% vs 27%, P < .01). Age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, diagnosis, Autonomy Preference Scale score, and decision for operation was not associated with shared decision-making. Contributory factors to this discordance include patient unfamiliarity with shared decision-making, deference to surgeon authority, lack of discussion about different treatments, and confusion between aligned versus shared decisions. Available questionnaires may overestimate shared decision-making in vulnerable patients suggesting the need for alternative or modifications to existing methods. Furthermore, such metrics should be assessed for correlation with patient-reported outcomes, such as satisfaction with decisions and health status. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Cancer screening in clinical practice: the value of shared decision-making].

PubMed

Cornuz, Jacques; Junod, Noëlle; Pasche, Olivier; Guessous, Idris

2010-07-14

Shared decision-making approach to uncertain clinical situations such as cancer screening seems more appropriate than ever. Shared decision making can be defined as an interactive process where physician and patient share all the stages of the decision making process. For patients who wish to be implicated in the management of their health conditions, physicians might express difficulty to do so. Use of patient decision aids appears to improve such process of shared decision making.

Shared decision-making, gender and new technologies.

PubMed

Zeiler, Kristin

2007-09-01

Much discussion of decision-making processes in medicine has been patient-centred. It has been assumed that there is, most often, one patient. Less attention has been given to shared decision-making processes where two or more patients are involved. This article aims to contribute to this special area. What conditions need to be met if decision-making can be said to be shared? What is a shared decision-making process and what is a shared autonomous decision-making process? Why make the distinction? Examples are drawn from the area of new reproductive medicine and clinical genetics. Possible gender-differences in shared decision-making are discussed.

The potential for shared decision-making and decision aids in rehabilitation medicine.

PubMed

van Til, Janine A; Drossaert, Constance H C; Punter, R Annemiek; Ijzerman, Maarten J

2010-06-01

Shared decision-making and the use of decision aids are increasingly promoted in various healthcare settings. The extent of their current use and potential in rehabilitation medicine is unknown. The aim of the present study was to explore the barriers to and facilitators of shared decision-making and use of decision aids in daily practice, and to explore the perceptions of physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) physicians toward them. A cross-sectional survey of 408 PRM physicians was performed (response rate 31%). PRM physicians expressed the highest levels of comfort with shared decision-making as opposed to paternalistic and informed decision-making. The majority reported that shared decision-making constituted their usual approach. The most important barriers to shared decision-making were cases in which the patient received conflicting recommendations and when the patient had difficulty accepting the disease. Key facilitators were the patient's trust in the PRM physician and the patient being knowledgeable about the disease and about treatment options. PRM physicians' attitudes towards the use of decision aids to inform patients were moderately positive. Shared decision-making appears to have great potential in the rehabilitation setting. Increasing the use of decision aids may contribute to the further implementation of shared decision-making.

Shared decision-making in home-care from the nurse's perspective: sitting at the kitchen table--a qualitative descriptive study.

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie

2013-10-01

To come to know, understand and describe the experience of shared decision-making in home-care from the nurse's perspective. The literature presents the concept of shared decision-making as a complex process characterised by a partnership between the healthcare provider and the patient, which is participatory and action oriented with education and negotiation leading to agreement. Few studies have been carried out to explore and describe the events that make up the experiences of shared decision-making in home-care from the nurse's perspective. A qualitative descriptive study was implemented. Semi structured interviews were performed with 10 home-care nurses who were asked to reflect on a time in their practice when they were involved in a shared decision-making process with their patient. All data were analysed using Colaizzi's method. The following Themes were uncovered: Begin where the patient is; Education for shared decision-making; The village and shared decision-making; and Whose decision is it? Each of the four Themes contained Subthemes. The findings of this study present shared decision-making as a complex, multidimensional and fluid process. A thorough understanding of shared decision-making is essential within the multiple contexts in which care is delivered. Nurses in clinical practice need to know and understand the events of the experience of shared decision-making. A more comprehensive understanding of these facts can assist home-care nurses in their practice with regard to the application of shared decision-making. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Shared decision making or paternalism in nursing consultations? A qualitative study of primary care asthma nurses’ views on sharing decisions with patients regarding inhaler device selection

PubMed Central

Upton, Jane; Fletcher, Monica; Madoc‐Sutton, Hazel; Sheikh, Aziz; Caress, Ann‐Louise; Walker, Samantha

2011-01-01

Abstract Background  Although patients with asthma would like more involvement in the decision‐making process, and UK government policy concerning chronic conditions supports shared decision making, it is not widely used in practice. Objective  To investigate how nurses approach decision making in relation to inhaler choice and long‐term inhaler use within a routine asthma consultation and to better understand the barriers and facilitators to shared decision making in practice. Setting and participants  Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with post‐registration, qualified nurses who routinely undertook asthma consultations and were registered on a respiratory course. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using the Framework approach. Results  Twenty participants were interviewed. Despite holding positive views about shared decision making, limited shared decision making was reported. Opportunities for patients to share decisions were only offered in relation to inhaler device, which were based on the nurse’s pre‐selected recommendations. Giving patients this ‘choice’ was seen as key to improving adherence. Discussion  There is a discrepancy between nurses’ understanding of shared decision making and the depictions of shared decision making presented in the academic literature and NHS policy. In this study, shared decision making was used as a tool to support the nurses’ agenda, rather than as a natural expression of equality between the nurse and patient. Conclusion  There is a misalignment between the goals of practice nurses and the rhetoric regarding patient empowerment. Shared decision making may therefore only be embraced if it improves patient outcomes. This study indicates attitudinal shifts and improvements in knowledge of ‘shared decision‐making’ are needed if policy dictates are to be realised. PMID:21323822

Multiple perspectives on shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare.

PubMed

Chong, Wei Wen; Aslani, Parisa; Chen, Timothy F

2013-05-01

Shared decision-making is an essential element of patient-centered care in mental health. Since mental health services involve healthcare providers from different professions, a multiple perspective to shared decision-making may be valuable. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of different healthcare professionals on shared decision-making and current interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 healthcare providers from a range of professions, which included medical practitioners (psychiatrists, general practitioners), pharmacists, nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists and social workers. Findings indicated that healthcare providers supported the notion of shared decision-making in mental health, but felt that it should be condition dependent. Medical practitioners advocated a more active participation from consumers in treatment decision-making; whereas other providers (e.g. pharmacists, occupational therapists) focused more toward acknowledging consumers' needs in decisions, perceiving themselves to be in an advisory role in supporting consumers' decision-making. Although healthcare providers acknowledged the importance of interprofessional collaboration, only a minority discussed it within the context of shared decision-making. In conclusion, healthcare providers appeared to have differing perceptions on the level of consumer involvement in shared decision-making. Interprofessional roles to facilitate shared decision-making in mental health need to be acknowledged, understood and strengthened, before an interprofessional approach to shared decision-making in mental health can be effectively implemented.

Recent Patterns in Shared Decision Making for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing in the United States.

PubMed

Fedewa, Stacey A; Gansler, Ted; Smith, Robert; Sauer, Ann Goding; Wender, Richard; Brawley, Otis W; Jemal, Ahmedin

2018-03-01

Previous studies report infrequent use of shared decision making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. It is unknown whether this pattern has changed recently considering increased emphasis on shared decision making in prostate cancer screening recommendations. Thus, the objective of this study is to examine recent changes in shared decision making. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study among men aged 50 years and older in the United States using 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data (n = 9,598). Changes in receipt of shared decision making were expressed as adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analyses were stratified on PSA testing (recent [in the past year] or no testing). Elements of shared decision making assessed included the patient being informed about the advantages only, advantages and disadvantages, and full shared decision making (advantages, disadvantages, and uncertainties). Among men with recent PSA testing, 58.5% and 62.6% reported having received ≥1 element of shared decision making in 2010 and 2015, respectively ( P = .054, aPR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11). Between 2010 and 2015, being told only about the advantages of PSA testing significantly declined (aPR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96) and full shared decision making prevalence significantly increased (aPR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.28-1.79) in recently tested men. Among men without prior PSA testing, 10% reported ≥1 element of shared decision making, which did not change with time. Between 2010 and 2015, there was no increase in shared decision making among men with recent PSA testing though there was a shift away from only being told about the advantages of PSA testing towards full shared decision making. Many men receiving PSA testing did not receive shared decision making. © 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

Consumer and relationship factors associated with shared decision making in mental health consultations.

PubMed

Matthias, Marianne S; Fukui, Sadaaki; Kukla, Marina; Eliacin, Johanne; Bonfils, Kelsey A; Firmin, Ruth L; Oles, Sylwia K; Adams, Erin L; Collins, Linda A; Salyers, Michelle P

2014-12-01

This study explored the association between shared decision making and consumers' illness management skills and consumer-provider relationships. Medication management appointments for 79 consumers were audio recorded. Independent coders rated overall shared decision making, minimum level of shared decision making, and consumer-provider agreement for 63 clients whose visit included a treatment decision. Mental health diagnoses, medication adherence, patient activation, illness management, working alliance, and length of consumer-provider relationships were also assessed. Correlation analyses were used to determine relationships among measures. Overall shared decision making was not associated with any variables. Minimum levels of shared decision making were associated with higher scores on the bond subscale of the Working Alliance Inventory, indicating a higher degree of liking and trust, and with better medication adherence. Agreement was associated with shorter consumer-provider relationships. Consumer-provider relationships and shared decision making might have a more nuanced association than originally thought.

Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Berger-Höger, Birte; Liethmann, Katrin; Mühlhauser, Ingrid; Haastert, Burkhard; Steckelberg, Anke

2015-10-12

Women with breast cancer want to participate in treatment decision-making. Guidelines have confirmed the right of informed shared decision-making. However, previous research has shown that the implementation of informed shared decision-making is suboptimal for reasons of limited resources of physicians, power imbalances between patients and physicians and missing evidence-based patient information. We developed an informed shared decision-making program for women with primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The program provides decision coaching for women by specialized nurses and aims at supporting involvement in decision-making and informed choices. In this trial, the informed shared decision-making program will be evaluated in breast care centers. A cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare the informed shared decision-making program with standard care. The program comprises an evidence-based patient decision aid and training of physicians (2 hours) and specialized breast care and oncology nurses (4 days) in informed shared decision-making. Sixteen certified breast care centers will be included, with 192 women with primary DCIS being recruited. Primary outcome is the extent of patients' involvement in shared decision-making as assessed by the MAPPIN-Odyad (Multifocal approach to the 'sharing' in shared decision-making: observer instrument dyad). Secondary endpoints include the sub-measures of the MAPPIN-inventory (MAPPIN-Onurse, MAPPIN-Ophysician, MAPPIN-Opatient, MAPPIN-Qnurse, MAPPIN-Qpatient and MAPPIN-Qphysician), informed choice, decisional conflict and the duration of encounters. It is expected that decision coaching and the provision of evidence-based patient decision aids will increase patients' involvement in decision-making with informed choices and reduce decisional conflicts and duration of physician encounters. Furthermore, an accompanying process evaluation will be conducted. To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the implementation of decision coaches in German breast care centers. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46305518 , date of registration: 5 June 2015.

Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC).

PubMed

Lloyd, Amy; Joseph-Williams, Natalie; Edwards, Adrian; Rix, Andrew; Elwyn, Glyn

2013-09-05

Implementing shared decision making into routine practice is proving difficult, despite considerable interest from policy-makers, and is far more complex than merely making decision support interventions available to patients. Few have reported successful implementation beyond research studies. MAking Good Decisions In Collaboration (MAGIC) is a multi-faceted implementation program, commissioned by The Health Foundation (UK), to examine how best to put shared decision making into routine practice. In this paper, we investigate healthcare professionals' perspectives on implementing shared decision making during the MAGIC program, to examine the work required to implement shared decision making and to inform future efforts. The MAGIC program approached implementation of shared decision making by initiating a range of interventions including: providing workshops; facilitating development of brief decision support tools (Option Grids); initiating a patient activation campaign ('Ask 3 Questions'); gathering feedback using Decision Quality Measures; providing clinical leads meetings, learning events, and feedback sessions; and obtaining executive board level support. At 9 and 15 months (May and November 2011), two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in three secondary care teams to explore views on the impact of these interventions. Interview data were coded by two reviewers using a framework derived from the Normalization Process Theory. A total of 54 interviews were completed with 31 healthcare professionals. Partial implementation of shared decision making could be explained using the four components of the Normalization Process Theory: 'coherence,' 'cognitive participation,' 'collective action,' and 'reflexive monitoring.' Shared decision making was integrated into routine practice when clinical teams shared coherent views of role and purpose ('coherence'). Shared decision making was facilitated when teams engaged in developing and delivering interventions ('cognitive participation'), and when those interventions fit with existing skill sets and organizational priorities ('collective action') resulting in demonstrable improvements to practice ('reflexive monitoring'). The implementation process uncovered diverse and conflicting attitudes toward shared decision making; 'coherence' was often missing. The study showed that implementation of shared decision making is more complex than the delivery of patient decision support interventions to patients, a portrayal that often goes unquestioned. Normalizing shared decision making requires intensive work to ensure teams have a shared understanding of the purpose of involving patients in decisions, and undergo the attitudinal shifts that many health professionals feel are required when comprehension goes beyond initial interpretations. Divergent views on the value of engaging patients in decisions remain a significant barrier to implementation.

Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Implementing shared decision making into routine practice is proving difficult, despite considerable interest from policy-makers, and is far more complex than merely making decision support interventions available to patients. Few have reported successful implementation beyond research studies. MAking Good Decisions In Collaboration (MAGIC) is a multi-faceted implementation program, commissioned by The Health Foundation (UK), to examine how best to put shared decision making into routine practice. In this paper, we investigate healthcare professionals’ perspectives on implementing shared decision making during the MAGIC program, to examine the work required to implement shared decision making and to inform future efforts. Methods The MAGIC program approached implementation of shared decision making by initiating a range of interventions including: providing workshops; facilitating development of brief decision support tools (Option Grids); initiating a patient activation campaign (‘Ask 3 Questions’); gathering feedback using Decision Quality Measures; providing clinical leads meetings, learning events, and feedback sessions; and obtaining executive board level support. At 9 and 15 months (May and November 2011), two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in three secondary care teams to explore views on the impact of these interventions. Interview data were coded by two reviewers using a framework derived from the Normalization Process Theory. Results A total of 54 interviews were completed with 31 healthcare professionals. Partial implementation of shared decision making could be explained using the four components of the Normalization Process Theory: ‘coherence,’ ‘cognitive participation,’ ‘collective action,’ and ‘reflexive monitoring.’ Shared decision making was integrated into routine practice when clinical teams shared coherent views of role and purpose (‘coherence’). Shared decision making was facilitated when teams engaged in developing and delivering interventions (‘cognitive participation’), and when those interventions fit with existing skill sets and organizational priorities (‘collective action’) resulting in demonstrable improvements to practice (‘reflexive monitoring’). The implementation process uncovered diverse and conflicting attitudes toward shared decision making; ‘coherence’ was often missing. Conclusions The study showed that implementation of shared decision making is more complex than the delivery of patient decision support interventions to patients, a portrayal that often goes unquestioned. Normalizing shared decision making requires intensive work to ensure teams have a shared understanding of the purpose of involving patients in decisions, and undergo the attitudinal shifts that many health professionals feel are required when comprehension goes beyond initial interpretations. Divergent views on the value of engaging patients in decisions remain a significant barrier to implementation. PMID:24006959

Deciding together? Best interests and shared decision-making in paediatric intensive care.

PubMed

Birchley, Giles

2014-09-01

In the western healthcare, shared decision making has become the orthodox approach to making healthcare choices as a way of promoting patient autonomy. Despite the fact that the autonomy paradigm is poorly suited to paediatric decision making, such an approach is enshrined in English common law. When reaching moral decisions, for instance when it is unclear whether treatment or non-treatment will serve a child's best interests, shared decision making is particularly questionable because agreement does not ensure moral validity. With reference to current common law and focusing on intensive care practice, this paper investigates what claims shared decision making may have to legitimacy in a paediatric intensive care setting. Drawing on key texts, I suggest these identify advantages to parents and clinicians but not to the child who is the subject of the decision. Without evidence that shared decision making increases the quality of the decision that is being made, it appears that a focus on the shared nature of a decision does not cohere with the principle that the best interests of the child should remain paramount. In the face of significant pressures toward the displacement of the child's interests in a shared decision, advantages of a shared decision to decisional quality require elucidation. Although a number of arguments of this nature may have potential, should no such advantages be demonstrable we have cause to revise our commitment to either shared decision making or the paramountcy of the child in these circumstances.

Swarm intelligence: when uncertainty meets conflict.

PubMed

Conradt, Larissa; List, Christian; Roper, Timothy J

2013-11-01

Good decision making is important for the survival and fitness of stakeholders, but decisions usually involve uncertainty and conflict. We know surprisingly little about profitable decision-making strategies in conflict situations. On the one hand, sharing decisions with others can pool information and decrease uncertainty (swarm intelligence). On the other hand, sharing decisions can hand influence to individuals whose goals conflict. Thus, when should an animal share decisions with others? Using a theoretical model, we show that, contrary to intuition, decision sharing by animals with conflicting goals often increases individual gains as well as decision accuracy. Thus, conflict-far from hampering effective decision making-can improve decision outcomes for all stakeholders, as long as they share large-scale goals. In contrast, decisions shared by animals without conflict were often surprisingly poor. The underlying mechanism is that animals with conflicting goals are less correlated in individual choice errors. These results provide a strong argument in the interest of all stakeholders for not excluding other (e.g., minority) factions from collective decisions. The observed benefits of including diverse factions among the decision makers could also be relevant to human collective decision making.

Shared decision making in chronic care in the context of evidence based practice in nursing.

PubMed

Friesen-Storms, Jolanda H H M; Bours, Gerrie J J W; van der Weijden, Trudy; Beurskens, Anna J H M

2015-01-01

In the decision-making environment of evidence-based practice, the following three sources of information must be integrated: research evidence of the intervention, clinical expertise, and the patient's values. In reality, evidence-based practice usually focuses on research evidence (which may be translated into clinical practice guidelines) and clinical expertise without considering the individual patient's values. The shared decision-making model seems to be helpful in the integration of the individual patient's values in evidence-based practice. We aim to discuss the relevance of shared decision making in chronic care and to suggest how it can be integrated with evidence-based practice in nursing. We start by describing the following three possible approaches to guide the decision-making process: the paternalistic approach, the informed approach, and the shared decision-making approach. Implementation of shared decision making has gained considerable interest in cases lacking a strong best-treatment recommendation, and when the available treatment options are equivalent to some extent. We discuss that in chronic care it is important to always invite the patient to participate in the decision-making process. We delineate the following six attributes of health care interventions in chronic care that influence the degree of shared decision making: the level of research evidence, the number of available intervention options, the burden of side effects, the impact on lifestyle, the patient group values, and the impact on resources. Furthermore, the patient's willingness to participate in shared decision making, the clinical expertise of the nurse, and the context in which the decision making takes place affect the shared decision-making process. A knowledgeable and skilled nurse with a positive attitude towards shared decision making—integrated with evidence-based practice—can facilitate the shared decision-making process. We conclude that nurses as well as other health care professionals in chronic care should integrate shared decision making with evidence-based practice to deliver patient-centred care. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Understanding shared decision making in pediatric otolaryngology.

PubMed

Chorney, Jill; Haworth, Rebecca; Graham, M Elise; Ritchie, Krista; Curran, Janet A; Hong, Paul

2015-05-01

The aim of this study was to describe the level of decisional conflict experienced by parents considering surgery for their children and to determine if decisional conflict and perceptions of shared decision making are related. Prospective cohort study. Academic pediatric otolaryngology clinic. Sixty-five consecutive parents of children who underwent surgical consultation for elective otolaryngological procedures were prospectively enrolled. Participants completed the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire and the Decisional Conflict Scale. Surgeons completed the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician version. Eleven participants (16.9%) scored over 25 on the Decisional Conflict Scale, a previously defined clinical cutoff indicating significant decisional conflict. Parent years of education and parent ratings of shared decision making were significantly correlated with decisional conflict (positively and negatively correlated, respectively). A logistic regression indicated that shared decision making but not education predicted the presence of significant decisional conflict. Parent and physician ratings of shared decision making were not related, and there was no correlation between physician ratings of shared decision making and parental decisional conflict. Many parents experienced considerable decisional conflict when making decisions about their child's surgical treatment. Parents who perceived themselves as being more involved in the decision-making process reported less decisional conflict. Parents and physicians had different perceptions of shared decision making. Future research should develop and assess interventions to increase parents' involvement in decision making and explore the impact of significant decisional conflict on health outcomes. © American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2015.

Incentivizing shared decision making in the USA--where are we now?

PubMed

Durand, Marie-Anne; Barr, Paul J; Walsh, Thom; Elwyn, Glyn

2015-06-01

The Affordable Care Act raised significant interest in the process of shared decision making, the role of patient decision aids, and incentivizing their utilization. However, it has not been clear how best to put incentives into practice, and how the implementation of shared decision making and the use of patient decision aids would be measured. Our goal was to review developments and proposals put forward. We performed a qualitative document analysis following a pragmatic search of Medline, Google, Google Scholar, Business Source Complete (Ebscohost), and LexisNexis from 2009-2013 using the following key words: "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", "Decision Making", "Affordable Care Act", "Shared Decision Making", "measurement", "incentives", and "payment." We observed a lack of clarity about how to measure shared decision making, about how best to reward the use of patient decisions aids, and therefore how best to incentivize the process. Many documents clearly imply that providing and disseminating patient decision aids might be equivalent to shared decision making. However, there is little evidence that these tools, when used by patients in advance of clinical encounters, lead to significant change in patient-provider communication. The assessment of shared decision making for performance management remains challenging. Efforts to incentivize shared decision making are at risk of being limited to the promotion of patient decision aids, passing over the opportunity to influence the communication processes between patients and providers. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Development of shared decision-making resources to help inform difficult healthcare decisions: An example focused on dysvascular partial foot and transtibial amputations.

PubMed

Quigley, Matthew; Dillon, Michael P; Fatone, Stefania

2018-02-01

Shared decision making is a consultative process designed to encourage patient participation in decision making by providing accurate information about the treatment options and supporting deliberation with the clinicians about treatment options. The process can be supported by resources such as decision aids and discussion guides designed to inform and facilitate often difficult conversations. As this process increases in use, there is opportunity to raise awareness of shared decision making and the international standards used to guide the development of quality resources for use in areas of prosthetic/orthotic care. To describe the process used to develop shared decision-making resources, using an illustrative example focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Development process: The International Patient Decision Aid Standards were used to guide the development of the decision aid and discussion guide focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Examples from these shared decision-making resources help illuminate the stages of development including scoping and design, research synthesis, iterative development of a prototype, and preliminary testing with patients and clinicians not involved in the development process. Lessons learnt through the process, such as using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards checklist and development guidelines, may help inform others wanting to develop similar shared decision-making resources given the applicability of shared decision making to many areas of prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice. Clinical relevance Shared decision making is a process designed to guide conversations that help patients make an informed decision about their healthcare. Raising awareness of shared decision making and the international standards for development of high-quality decision aids and discussion guides is important as the approach is introduced in prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice.

Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

PubMed Central

Conradt, Larissa; Roper, Timothy J.

2008-01-01

Social animals regularly face consensus decisions whereby they choose, collectively, between mutually exclusive actions. Such decisions often involve conflicts of interest between group members with respect to preferred action. Conflicts could, in principle, be resolved, either by sharing decisions between members (‘shared decisions’) or by one ‘dominant’ member making decisions on behalf of the whole group (‘unshared decisions’). Both, shared and unshared decisions, have been observed. However, it is unclear as to what favours the evolution of either decision type. Here, after a brief literature review, we present a novel method, involving a combination of self-organizing system and game theory modelling, of investigating the evolution of shared and unshared decisions. We apply the method to decisions on movement direction. We find that both, shared and unshared, decisions can evolve without individuals having a global overview of the group's behaviour or any knowledge about other members' preferences or intentions. Selection favours unshared over shared decisions when conflicts are high relative to grouping benefits, and vice versa. These results differ from those of group decision models relating to activity timings. We attribute this to fundamental differences between collective decisions about modalities that are disjunct (here, space) or continuous (here, time) with respect to costs/benefits. PMID:19073479

Shared decision-making in medication management: development of a training intervention

PubMed Central

Stead, Ute; Morant, Nicola; Ramon, Shulamit

2017-01-01

Shared decision-making is a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients make treatment decisions together. Although it is considered essential to patient-centred care, the adoption of shared decision-making into routine clinical practice has been slow, and there is a need to increase implementation. This paper describes the development and delivery of a training intervention to promote shared decision-making in medication management in mental health as part of the Shared Involvement in Medication Management Education (ShIMME) project. Three stakeholder groups (service users, care coordinators and psychiatrists) received training in shared decision-making, and their feedback was evaluated. The programme was mostly well received, with all groups rating interaction with peers as the best aspect of the training. This small-scale pilot shows that it is feasible to deliver training in shared decision-making to several key stakeholders. Larger studies will be required to assess the effectiveness of such training. PMID:28811918

Consideration of Shared Decision Making in Nursing: A Review of Clinicians’ Perceptions and Interventions

PubMed Central

Clark, Noreen M; Nelson, Belinda W; Valerio, Melissa A; Gong, Z. Molly; Taylor-Fishwick, Judith C; Fletcher, Monica

2009-01-01

As the number of individuals with chronic illness increases so has the need for strategies to enable nurses to engage them effectively in daily management of their conditions. Shared decision making between patients and nurses is one approach frequently discussed in the literature. This paper reviews recent studies of shared decision making and the meaning of findings for the nurse-patient relationship. Patients likely to prefer to engage in shared decision making are younger and have higher levels of education. However, there is a lack of evidence for the effect of shared decision making on patient outcomes. Further, studies are needed to examine shared decision making when the patient is a child. Nurses are professionally suited to engage their patients fully in treatment plans. More evidence for how shared decision making affects outcomes and how nurses can successfully achieve such engagement is needed. PMID:19855848

College students, shared decision making, and the appropriate use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: A systematic literature review.

PubMed

Blyer, Kristina; Hulton, Linda

2016-01-01

This systematic review examines shared decision making to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for college students with respiratory tract infections. CINAL, Cochrane, PubMed, EBSCO, and PsycNET were searched in October 2014 using the following criteria: English language, human subjects, peer-reviewed, shared decision making for respiratory tract infections, adult patients or college students, and antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Twelve articles were selected for final review. College students and younger, more educated, adults prefer shared decision making. Shared decision making shows promise for decreasing antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Education, understanding, and provider-patient communication are important to the shared decision-making process. Shared decision making shows promise to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in college students and could be considered for future studies.

Shared decision-making in medication management: development of a training intervention.

PubMed

Stead, Ute; Morant, Nicola; Ramon, Shulamit

2017-08-01

Shared decision-making is a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients make treatment decisions together. Although it is considered essential to patient-centred care, the adoption of shared decision-making into routine clinical practice has been slow, and there is a need to increase implementation. This paper describes the development and delivery of a training intervention to promote shared decision-making in medication management in mental health as part of the Shared Involvement in Medication Management Education (ShIMME) project. Three stakeholder groups (service users, care coordinators and psychiatrists) received training in shared decision-making, and their feedback was evaluated. The programme was mostly well received, with all groups rating interaction with peers as the best aspect of the training. This small-scale pilot shows that it is feasible to deliver training in shared decision-making to several key stakeholders. Larger studies will be required to assess the effectiveness of such training.

Are mobile health applications useful for supporting shared decision making in diagnostic and treatment decisions?

PubMed Central

Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Samira; Menear, Matthew; Robitaille, Hubert; Légaré, France

2017-01-01

ABSTRACT Mobile health (mHealth) applications intended to support shared decision making in diagnostic and treatment decisions are increasingly available. In this paper, we discuss some recent studies on mHealth applications with relevance to shared decision making. We discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of using mHealth in shared decision making in various contexts, and suggest some directions for future research in this quickly expanding field. PMID:28838306

Shared decision-making at the end of life: A focus group study exploring the perceptions and experiences of multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals working in the home setting.

PubMed

Brogan, Paula; Hasson, Felicity; McIlfatrick, Sonja

2018-01-01

Globally recommended in healthcare policy, Shared Decision-Making is also central to international policy promoting community palliative care. Yet realities of implementation by multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals who provide end-of-life care in the home are unclear. To explore multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals' perceptions and experiences of Shared Decision-Making at end of life in the home. Qualitative design using focus groups, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. A total of 43 participants, from multi-disciplinary community-based services in one region of the United Kingdom, were recruited. While the rhetoric of Shared Decision-Making was recognised, its implementation was impacted by several interconnecting factors, including (1) conceptual confusion regarding Shared Decision-Making, (2) uncertainty in the process and (3) organisational factors which impeded Shared Decision-Making. Multiple interacting factors influence implementation of Shared Decision-Making by professionals working in complex community settings at the end of life. Moving from rhetoric to reality requires future work exploring the realities of Shared Decision-Making practice at individual, process and systems levels.

Shared decision-making and patient autonomy.

PubMed

Sandman, Lars; Munthe, Christian

2009-01-01

In patient-centred care, shared decision-making is advocated as the preferred form of medical decision-making. Shared decision-making is supported with reference to patient autonomy without abandoning the patient or giving up the possibility of influencing how the patient is benefited. It is, however, not transparent how shared decision-making is related to autonomy and, in effect, what support autonomy can give shared decision-making. In the article, different forms of shared decision-making are analysed in relation to five different aspects of autonomy: (1) self-realisation; (2) preference satisfaction; (3) self-direction; (4) binary autonomy of the person; (5) gradual autonomy of the person. It is argued that both individually and jointly these aspects will support the models called shared rational deliberative patient choice and joint decision as the preferred versions from an autonomy perspective. Acknowledging that both of these models may fail, the professionally driven best interest compromise model is held out as a satisfactory second-best choice.

Core Competencies for Shared Decision Making Training Programs: Insights From an International, Interdisciplinary Working Group

PubMed Central

Légaré, France; Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, Nora; Drolet, Renée; Stacey, Dawn; Härter, Martin; Bastian, Hilda; Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique; Borduas, Francine; Charles, Cathy; Coulter, Angela; Desroches, Sophie; Friedrich, Gwendolyn; Gafni, Amiram; Graham, Ian D.; Labrecque, Michel; LeBlanc, Annie; Légaré, Jean; Politi, Mary; Sargeant, Joan; Thomson, Richard

2014-01-01

Shared decision making is now making inroads in health care professionals’ continuing education curriculum, but there is no consensus on what core competencies are required by clinicians for effectively involving patients in health-related decisions. Ready-made programs for training clinicians in shared decision making are in high demand, but existing programs vary widely in their theoretical foundations, length, and content. An international, interdisciplinary group of 25 individuals met in 2012 to discuss theoretical approaches to making health-related decisions, compare notes on existing programs, take stock of stakeholders concerns, and deliberate on core competencies. This article summarizes the results of those discussions. Some participants believed that existing models already provide a sufficient conceptual basis for developing and implementing shared decision making competency-based training programs on a wide scale. Others argued that this would be premature as there is still no consensus on the definition of shared decision making or sufficient evidence to recommend specific competencies for implementing shared decision making. However, all participants agreed that there were 2 broad types of competencies that clinicians need for implementing shared decision making: relational competencies and risk communication competencies. Further multidisciplinary research could broaden and deepen our understanding of core competencies for shared decision making training. PMID:24347105

Shared Decision Making Interventions: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence with Implications for Health Literacy.

PubMed

Stacey, Dawn; Hill, Sophie; McCaffery, Kirsten; Boland, Laura; Lewis, Krystina B; Horvat, Lidia

2017-01-01

Basic health literacy is required for making health decisions. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the use of shared decision making interventions for supporting patient involvement in making health decisions. The chapter provides a definition of shared decision making and discusses the link between shared decision making and the three levels of health literacy: functional, communicative/interactive, and critical. The Interprofessional Shared Decision Making Model is used to identify the various players involved: the patient, the family/surrogate/significant others, decision coach, and health care professionals. When patients are involved in shared decision making, they have better health outcomes, better healthcare experiences, and likely lower costs. Yet, their degree of involvement is influenced by their level of health literacy. Interventions to facilitate shared decision making are patient decision aids, decision coaching, and question prompt lists. Patient decision aids have been shown to improve knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and chosen options congruent with patients' values. Decision coaching improves knowledge and patient satisfaction. Question prompts also improve satisfaction. When shared decision making interventions have been evaluated with patients presumed to have lower health literacy, they appeared to be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups compared to those with higher literacy or better socioeconomic status. However, special attention needs to be applied when designing these interventions for populations with lower literacy. Two case exemplars are provided to illustrate the design and choice of interventions to better support patients with varying levels of health literacy. Despite evidence indicating these interventions are effective for involving patients in shared decision making, few are used in routine clinical practice. To increase their uptake, implementation strategies need to overcome barriers interfering with their use. Implementation strategies include training health care professionals, adopting SDM interventions that target patients, such as patient decision aids, and monitor patients' decisional comfort using the SURE test. Integrating health literacy principles is important when developing interventions that facilitate shared decision making and essential to avoid inadvertently producing higher inequalities between patients with varying levels of health literacy.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study.

PubMed

Wiener, Renda Soylemez; Koppelman, Elisa; Bolton, Rendelle; Lasser, Karen E; Borrelli, Belinda; Au, David H; Slatore, Christopher G; Clark, Jack A; Kathuria, Hasmeena

2018-02-21

Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Shared Decision Making for Better Schools.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brost, Paul

2000-01-01

Delegating decision making to those closest to implementation can result in better decisions, more support for improvement initiatives, and increased student performance. Shared decision making depends on capable school leadership, a professional community, instructional guidance mechanisms, knowledge and skills, information sharing, power, and…

Mutual influence in shared decision making: a collaborative study of patients and physicians.

PubMed

Lown, Beth A; Clark, William D; Hanson, Janice L

2009-06-01

To explore how patients and physicians describe attitudes and behaviours that facilitate shared decision making. Background Studies have described physician behaviours in shared decision making, explored decision aids for informing patients and queried whether patients and physicians want to share decisions. Little attention has been paid to patients' behaviors that facilitate shared decision making or to the influence of patients and physicians on each other during this process. Qualitative analysis of data from four research work groups, each composed of patients with chronic conditions and primary care physicians. Eighty-five patients and physicians identified six categories of paired physician/patient themes, including act in a relational way; explore/express patient's feelings and preferences; discuss information and options; seek information, support and advice; share control and negotiate a decision; and patients act on their own behalf and physicians act on behalf of the patient. Similar attitudes and behaviours were described for both patients and physicians. Participants described a dynamic process in which patients and physicians influence each other throughout shared decision making. This study is unique in that clinicians and patients collaboratively defined and described attitudes and behaviours that facilitate shared decision making and expand previous descriptions, particularly of patient attitudes and behaviours that facilitate shared decision making. Study participants described relational, contextual and affective behaviours and attitudes for both patients and physicians, and explicitly discussed sharing control and negotiation. The complementary, interactive behaviours described in the themes for both patients and physicians illustrate mutual influence of patients and physicians on each other.

Shared decision-making in pediatric otolaryngology: Parent, physician and observational perspectives.

PubMed

Hong, Paul; Maguire, Erin; Gorodzinsky, Ayala Y; Curran, Janet A; Ritchie, Krista; Chorney, Jill

2016-08-01

To describe physician and parent behavior during pediatric otolaryngology surgical consultations, and to assess whether perceptions of shared decision-making and observed behavior are related. Parents of 126 children less than 6-years of age who underwent consultation for adeontonsillectomy or tympanostomy tube insertion were prospectively enrolled. Parents completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Patient version (SDM-Q-9), while surgeons completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) after the consultation. Visits were video-recorded and analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System to quantify physician and parent involvement during the consultation. Perceptions of shared decision-making between parents (SDM-Q-9) and physicians (SDM-Q-Doc) were significantly positively correlated (p = 0.03). However, there was no correlation between parents' perceptions of shared decision-making and observations of physician and parent behavior/involvement (proportion of physician socioemotional talk, task-focused talk, or proportion of parent talk). Surgeons' perceptions of shared decision-making were correlated with physician task-focused talk and proportion of parent talk. Parents and physicians had similar perceptions of the degree of shared decision-making to be taking place during pediatric otolaryngology consultations. However, there was variability in the degree to which parents participated, and parent perceptions of shared decision-making were not correlated with actual observed involvement. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Factors influencing women's perceptions of shared decision making during labor and delivery: Results from a large-scale cohort study of first childbirth.

PubMed

Attanasio, Laura B; Kozhimannil, Katy B; Kjerulff, Kristen H

2018-06-01

To examine correlates of shared decision making during labor and delivery. Data were from a cohort of women who gave birth to their first baby in Pennsylvania, 2009-2011 (N = 3006). We used logistic regression models to examine the association between labor induction and mode of delivery in relation to women's perceptions of shared decision making, and to investigate race/ethnicity and SES as potential moderators. Women who were Black and who did not have a college degree or private insurance were less likely to report high shared decision making, as well as women who underwent labor induction, instrumental vaginal or cesarean delivery. Models with interaction terms showed that the reduction in odds of shared decision making associated with cesarean delivery was greater for Black women than for White women. Women in marginalized social groups were less likely to report shared decision making during birth and Black women who delivered by cesarean had particularly low odds of shared decision making. Strategies designed to improve the quality of patient-provider communication, information sharing, and shared decision making must be attentive to the needs of vulnerable groups to ensure that such interventions reduce rather than widen disparities. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[Shared decision-making in medical practice--patient-centred communication skills].

PubMed

van Staveren, Remke

2011-01-01

Most patients (70%) want to participate actively in important healthcare decisions, the rest (30%) prefer the doctor to make the decision for them. Shared decision-making provides more patient satisfaction, a better quality of life and contributes to a better doctor-patient relationship. Patients making their own decision generally make a well considered and medically sensible choice. In shared decision-making the doctor asks many open questions, gives and requests much information, asks if the patient wishes to participate in the decision-making and explicitly takes into account patient circumstances and preferences. Shared decision-making should remain an individual choice and should not become a new dogma.

Effects of an educational programme on shared decision-making among Korean nurses.

PubMed

Jo, Kae-Hwa; An, Gyeong-Ju

2015-12-01

This study was conducted to examine the effects of an educational programme on shared decision-making on end-of-life care performance, moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making among Korean nurses. A quasi-experimental study with a non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design was used. Forty-one clinical nurses were recruited as participants from two different university hospitals located in Daegu, Korea. Twenty nurses in the control group received no intervention, and 21 nurses in the experimental group received the educational programme on shared decision-making. Data were collected with a questionnaire covering end-of-life care performance, moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making. Analysis of the data was done with the chi-square test, t-test and Fisher's exact test using SPSS/Win 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The experimental group showed significantly higher scores in moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making after the intervention compared with the control group. This study suggests that the educational programme on shared decision-making was effective in increasing the moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making among Korean nurses. © 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Attitudes towards poverty, organizations, ethics and morals: Israeli social workers' shared decision making.

PubMed

Levin, Lia; Schwartz-Tayri, Talia

2017-06-01

Partnerships between service users and social workers are complex in nature and can be driven by both personal and contextual circumstances. This study sought to explore the relationship between social workers' involvement in shared decision making with service users, their attitudes towards service users in poverty, moral standards and health and social care organizations' policies towards shared decision making. Based on the responses of 225 licensed social workers from health and social care agencies in the public, private and third sectors in Israel, path analysis was used to test a hypothesized model. Structural attributions for poverty contributed to attitudes towards people who live in poverty, which led to shared decision making. Also, organizational support in shared decision making, and professional moral identity, contributed to ethical behaviour which led to shared decision making. The results of this analysis revealed that shared decision making may be a scion of branched roots planted in the relationship between ethics, organizations and Stigma. © 2016 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.

PubMed

Kon, Alexander A; Davidson, Judy E; Morrison, Wynne; Danis, Marion; White, Douglas B

2016-01-01

Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills. The American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement. Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies. Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate.

Identifying design considerations for a shared decision aid for use at the point of outpatient clinical care: An ethnographic study at an inner city clinic.

PubMed

Hajizadeh, Negin; Perez Figueroa, Rafael E; Uhler, Lauren M; Chiou, Erin; Perchonok, Jennifer E; Montague, Enid

2013-03-06

Computerized decision aids could facilitate shared decision-making at the point of outpatient clinical care. The objective of this study was to investigate whether a computerized shared decision aid would be feasible to implement in an inner-city clinic by evaluating the current practices in shared decision-making, clinicians' use of computers, patient and clinicians' attitudes and beliefs toward computerized decision aids, and the influence of time on shared decision-making. Qualitative data analysis of observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and clinicians at an inner-city outpatient clinic. The findings provided an exploratory look at the prevalence of shared decision-making and attitudes about health information technology and decision aids. A prominent barrier to clinicians engaging in shared decision-making was a lack of perceived patient understanding of medical information. Some patients preferred their clinicians make recommendations for them rather than engage in formal shared decision-making. Health information technology was an integral part of the clinic visit and welcomed by most clinicians and patients. Some patients expressed the desire to engage with health information technology such as viewing their medical information on the computer screen with their clinicians. All participants were receptive to the idea of a decision aid integrated within the clinic visit although some clinicians were concerned about the accuracy of prognostic estimates for complex medical problems. We identified several important considerations for the design and implementation of a computerized decision aid including opportunities to: bridge clinician-patient communication about medical information while taking into account individual patients' decision-making preferences, complement expert clinician judgment with prognostic estimates, take advantage of patient waiting times, and make tasks involved during the clinic visit more efficient. These findings should be incorporated into the design and implementation of a computerized shared decision aid at an inner-city hospital.

A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie; Slyer, Jason T; Singleton, Joanne K; Worral, Priscilla

The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize the best available evidence related to the meaningfulness of internal and external influences on shared-decision making for adult patients and health care providers in all health care settings.The specific questions to be answered are: BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care is emphasized in today's healthcare arena. This emphasis is seen in the works of the International Alliance of Patients' Organizations (IAOP) who describe patient-centered healthcare as care that is aimed at addressing the needs and preferences of patients. The IAOP presents five principles which are foundational to the achievement of patient-centered healthcare: respect, choice, policy, access and support, as well as information. These five principles are further described as:Within the description of these five principles the idea of shared decision-making is clearly evident.The concept of shared decision-making began to appear in the literature in the 1990s. It is defined as a "process jointly shared by patients and their health care provider. It aims at helping patients play an active role in decisions concerning their health, which is the ultimate goal of patient-centered care." The details of the shared decision-making process are complex and consist of a series of steps including:Three overall representative decision-making models are noted in contemporary literature. These three models include: paternalistic, informed decision-making, and shared decision-making. The paternalistic model is an autocratic style of decision-making where the healthcare provider carries out the care from the perspective of knowing what is best for the patient and therefore makes all decisions. The informed decision-making model takes place as the information needed to make decisions is conveyed to the patient and the patient makes the decisions without the healthcare provider involvement. Finally, the shared decision-making model is representative of a sharing and a negotiation towards treatment decisions. Thus, these models represent a range with patient non-participation at one end of the continuum to informed decision making or a high level of patient power at the other end. Several shared decision-making models focus on the process of shared decision-making previously noted. A discussion of several process models follows below.Charles et al. depicts a process model of shared decision-making that identifies key characteristics that must be in evidence. The patient shares in the responsibility with the healthcare provider in this model. The key characteristics included:This model illustrates that there must be at least two individuals participating, however, family and friends may be involved in a variety of roles such as the collector of information, the interpreter of this information, coach, advisor, negotiator, and caretaker. This model also depicts the need to take steps to participate in the shared decision-making process. To take steps means that there is an agreement between and among all involved that shared decision-making is necessary and preferred. Research about patient preferences, however, offers divergent views. The link between patient preferences for shared decision-making and the actuality of shared decision-making in practice is not strong. Research concerning patients and patient preferences on shared decision-making points to variations depending on age, education, socio-economic status, culture, and diagnosis. Healthcare providers may also hold preferences for shared decision-making; however, research in this area is not as comprehensive as is patient focused research. Elwyn et al. explored the views of general practice providers on involving patients in decisions. Both positive and negative views were identified ranging from receptive, noting potential benefits, to concern for the unrealistic nature of participation and sharing in the decision-making process. An example of this potential difficulty, from a healthcare provider perspective, is identifying the potential conflict that may develop when a patient's preference is different from clinical practice guidelines. This is further exemplified in healthcare encounters when a situation may not yield itself to a clear answer but rather lies in a grey area. These situations are challenging for healthcare providers.The notion of information sharing as a prerequisite to shared decision-making offers insight into another process. The healthcare provider must provide the patient the information that they need to know and understand in order to even consider and participate in the shared decision-making process. This information may include the disease, potential treatments, consequences of those treatments, and any alternatives, which may include the decision to do nothing. Without knowing this information the patient will not be able to participate in the shared decision-making process. The complexity of this step is realized if one considers what the healthcare provider needs to know in order to first assess what the patient knows and does not know, the readiness of the patient to participate in this educational process and learn the information, as well as, the individual learning styles of the patient taking into consideration the patient's ideas, values, beliefs, education, culture, literacy, and age. Depending on the results of this assessment the health care provider then must communicate the information to the patient. This is also a complex process that must take into consideration the relationship, comfort level, and trust between the healthcare provider and the patient.Finally, the treatment decision is reached between both the healthcare provider and the patient. Charles et al. portrays shared decision-making as a process with the end product, the shared decision, as the outcome. This outcome may be a decision as to the agreement of a treatment decision, no agreement reached as to a treatment decision, and disagreement as to a treatment decision. Negotiation is a part of the process as the "test of a shared decision (as distinct from the decision-making process) is if both parties agree on the treatment option."Towle and Godolphin developed a process model that further exemplifies the role of the healthcare provider and the patient in the shared decision-making process as mutual partners with mutual responsibilities. The capacity to engage in this shared decision-making rests, therefore, on competencies including knowledge, skills, and abilities for both the healthcare provider and the patient. This mutual partnership and the corresponding competencies are presented for both the healthcare provider and the patient in this model. The competencies noted for the healthcare provider for shared decision making include:Patient competencies include:This model illustrates the shared decision-making process with emphasis on the role of the healthcare provider and the patient very similar to the prior model. This model, however, gives greater emphasis to the process of the co-participation of the healthcare provider and the patient. The co-participation depicts a mutual partnership with mutual responsibilities that can be seen as "reciprocal relationships of dialogue." For this to take place the relationship between and among the participants of the shared decision-making process is important along with other internal and external influences such as communication, trust, mutual respect, honesty, time, continuity, and commitment. Cultural, social, and age group differences; evidence; and team and family are considered within this model.Elwyn et al. presents yet another model that depicts the shared decision-making process; however, this model offers a view where the healthcare provider holds greater responsibility in this process. In this particular model the process focuses on the healthcare provider and the essential skills needed to engage the patient in shard decisions. The competencies outlined in this model include:The healthcare provider must demonstrate knowledge, competencies, and skills as a communicator. The skills for communication competency require the healthcare provider to be able to elicit the patient's thoughts and input regarding treatment management throughout the consultation. The healthcare provider must also demonstrate competencies in assessment skills beyond physical assessment that includes the ability to assess the patient's perceptions and readiness to participate. In addition, the healthcare provider must be able to assess the patient's readiness to learn the information that the patient needs to know in order to fully engage in the shared decision-making process, assess what the patient already knows, what the patient does not know, and whether or not the information that the patient knows is accurate. Once this assessment is completed the healthcare provider then must draw on his/her knowledge, competencies, and skills necessary to teach the patient what the patient needs to know to be informed. This facilitates the notion of the tailor-made information noted previously. The healthcare provider also requires competencies in how to check and evaluate the entire process to ensure that the patient does understand and accept with comfort not only the plan being negotiated but the entire process of sharing in decision-making. In addition to the above, there are further competencies such as competence in working with groups and teams, competencies in terms of cultural knowledge, competencies with regard to negotiation skills, as well as, competencies when faced with ethical challenges.Shared decision-making has been associated with autonomy, empowerment, and effectiveness and efficiency. Both patients and health care providers have noted improvement in relationships and improved interactions when shared decision-making is in evidence. Along with this improved relationship and interaction enhanced compliance is noted. Additional research points to patient satisfaction and enhanced quality of life. There is some evidence to suggest that shared decision-making does facilitate positive health outcomes.In today's healthcare environment there is greater emphasis on patient-centered care that exemplifies patient engagement, participation, partnership, and shared decision-making. Given the shift from the more autocratic delivery of care to the shared approach there is a need to more fully understand the what of shared decision-making as well as how shared decision-making takes place along with what internal and external influences may encourage, support, and facilitate the shared decision-making process. These influences are intervening variables that may be of significance for the successful development of practice-based strategies that may foster shared decision-making in practice. The purpose of this qualitative systematic review is to identify internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.A preliminary search of the Joanna Briggs Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PROSPERO did not identify any previously conducted qualitative systematic reviews on the meaningfulness of internal and external influences on shared decision-making.

How can clinical practice guidelines be adapted to facilitate shared decision making? A qualitative key-informant study.

PubMed

van der Weijden, Trudy; Pieterse, Arwen H; Koelewijn-van Loon, Marije S; Knaapen, Loes; Légaré, France; Boivin, Antoine; Burgers, Jako S; Stiggelbout, Anne M; Faber, Marjan; Elwyn, Glyn

2013-10-01

To explore how clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate shared decision making. This was a qualitative key-informant study with group discussions and semi-structured interviews. First, 75 experts in guideline development or shared decision making participated in group discussions at two international conferences. Next, health professionals known as experts in depression or breast cancer, experts on clinical practice guidelines and/or shared decision making, and patient representatives were interviewed (N=20). Using illustrative treatment decisions on depression or breast cancer, we asked the interviewees to indicate as specifically as they could how guidelines could be used to facilitate shared decision making. Interviewees suggested some generic strategies, namely to include a separate chapter on the importance of shared decision making, to use language that encourages patient involvement, and to develop patient versions of guidelines. Recommendation-specific strategies, related to specific decision points in the guideline, were also suggested: These include structuring the presentation of healthcare options to increase professionals' option awareness; structuring the deliberation process between professionals and patients; and providing relevant patient support tools embedded at important decision points in the guideline. This study resulted in an overview of strategies to adapt clinical practice guidelines to facilitate shared decision making. Some strategies seemed more contentious than others. Future research should assess the feasibility and impact of these strategies to make clinical practice guidelines more conducive to facilitate shared decision making.

Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision

PubMed Central

Edwards, Adrian; Elwyn, Glyn

2006-01-01

Abstract Background  Shared decision making has practical implications for everyday health care. However, it stems from largely theoretical frameworks and is not widely implemented in routine practice. Aims  We undertook an empirical study to inform understanding of shared decision making and how it can be operationalized more widely. Method  The study involved patients visiting UK general practitioners already well experienced in shared decision making. After these consultations, semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted and analysed using the constant comparative method of content analysis. Results  All patients described at least some components of shared decision making but half appeared to perceive the decision as shared and half as ‘patient‐led’. However, patients exhibited some uncertainty about who had made the decision, reflecting different meanings of decision making from those described in the literature. A distinction is indicated between the process of involvement (option portrayal, exchange of information and exploring preferences for who makes the decision) and the actual decisional responsibility (who makes the decision). The process of involvement appeared to deliver benefits for patients, not the action of making the decision. Preferences for decisional responsibility varied during some consultations, generating unsatisfactory interactions when actual decisional responsibility did not align with patient preferences at that stage of a consultation. However, when conducted well, shared decision making enhanced reported satisfaction, understanding and confidence in the decisions. Conclusions  Practitioners can focus more on the process of involving patients in decision making rather than attaching importance to who actually makes the decision. They also need to be aware of the potential for changing patient preferences for decisional responsibility during a consultation and address non‐alignment of patient preferences with the actual model of decision making if this occurs. PMID:17083558

Shared decision-making as an existential journey: Aiming for restored autonomous capacity.

PubMed

Gulbrandsen, Pål; Clayman, Marla L; Beach, Mary Catherine; Han, Paul K; Boss, Emily F; Ofstad, Eirik H; Elwyn, Glyn

2016-09-01

We describe the different ways in which illness represents an existential problem, and its implications for shared decision-making. We explore core concepts of shared decision-making in medical encounters (uncertainty, vulnerability, dependency, autonomy, power, trust, responsibility) to interpret and explain existing results and propose a broader understanding of shared-decision making for future studies. Existential aspects of being are physical, social, psychological, and spiritual. Uncertainty and vulnerability caused by illness expose these aspects and may lead to dependency on the provider, which underscores that autonomy is not just an individual status, but also a varying capacity, relational of nature. In shared decision-making, power and trust are important factors that may increase as well as decrease the patient's dependency, particularly as information overload may increase uncertainty. The fundamental uncertainty, state of vulnerability, and lack of power of the ill patient, imbue shared decision-making with a deeper existential significance and call for greater attention to the emotional and relational dimensions of care. Hence, we propose that the aim of shared decision-making should be restoration of the patient's autonomous capacity. In doing shared decision-making, care is needed to encompass existential aspects; informing and exploring preferences is not enough. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia and its influence on patient satisfaction.

PubMed

Flierler, W J; Nübling, M; Kasper, J; Heidegger, T

2013-07-01

There is a lack of data about the implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia. To assess patients' preference to be involved in medical decision making and its influence on patient satisfaction, we studied 197 matched pairs (patients and anaesthetists) using two previously validated questionnaires. Before surgery, patients had to decide between general vs regional anaesthesia and, where appropriate, between conventional postoperative pain therapy vs catheter techniques. One hundred and eighty-six patients (94%) wished to be involved in shared decision making. One hundred and twenty-two patients (62%) experienced the exact amount of shared decision making that they wanted; 44 (22%) were slightly more involved and 20 (10%) slightly less involved in shared decision making than they desired. Preferences regarding involvement in shared decision making were similar between patients and anaesthetists with mean (SD) points of 54.1 (16.2) vs 56.4 (27.6) (p=0.244), respectively on a 0-100 scale; however, patients were found to have a stronger preference for a totally balanced shared decision-making process (65% vs 32%). Overall patient satisfaction was high: 88% were very satisfied and 12% satisfied with a mean (SD) value of 96.1 (10.6) on a 0-100 scale. Shared decision making is important for providing high levels of patient satisfaction. Anaesthesia © 2013 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Parental decision making in pediatric otoplasty: The role of shared decision making in parental decisional conflict and decisional regret.

PubMed

Hong, Paul; Gorodzinsky, Ayala Y; Taylor, Benjamin A; Chorney, Jill MacLaren

2016-07-01

To date, there has been little research on shared decision making and decisional outcomes in pediatric surgery. The objectives of this study were to describe the level of decisional conflict and decisional regret experienced by parents considering otoplasty for their children, and to determine if they are related to perceptions of shared decision making. Prospective cohort clinical study. Sixty-five consecutive parents of children who underwent surgical consultation for otoplasty were prospectively enrolled. Participants completed the Demographic Form, the Decisional Conflict Scale, and the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire after the consultation visit. The consulting surgeons completed the physician version of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire. Six months after surgery, parents completed the Decisional Regret Scale. The median decisional conflict was 15.63; 21 (32.8%) parents scored 25 or above, a previously defined cutoff indicating clinically significant decisional conflict. Parent ratings of shared decision making and decisional conflict were significantly negatively correlated (P < 0.001); however, there was no significant correlation between physician ratings of shared decision making and parental decisional conflict. Significant decisional regret was reported in two (3.2%) participants. Decisional regret and parent and physician ratings of shared decision making were both significantly negatively correlated (P = 0.044 and P = 0.001, respectively). Decisional regret and decisional conflict scores were significantly positively correlated (P = 0.001). Parent and physician ratings of shared decision making were correlated (intraclass correlation = 0.625, P < 0.001). Many parents experienced significant decisional conflict when making decisions about their child's elective surgical treatment. Fewer parents experienced significant decisional regret after the procedure. Parents who perceived themselves as being more involved in the decision making process reported less decisional conflict and decisional regret. Parents and physicians had varied perceptions of the degree of shared decision making. Future research should develop interventions to increase parents' involvement in decision making and explore the influence of significant decisional conflict and decisional regret on health outcomes. 2b. Laryngoscope, 126:S5-S13, 2016. © 2016 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

The Patient Experience With Shared Decision Making: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie

2015-01-01

Shared decision making is a process characterized by a partnership between a nurse and a patient. The existence of a relationship does not ensure shared decision making. Little is known about what nurses need to know and do for this experience to take place. A qualitative descriptive study was implemented using Coalizzi's method. Semistructured interviews were held with patients, and 3 themes were uncovered. The findings suggest that a nurse's conduct aimed at drawing patients in and inviting them to participate in a conversation leads toward shared decisions. Infusion nurses may find this information useful as they engage their patients in shared decisions.

Core competencies for shared decision making training programs: insights from an international, interdisciplinary working group.

PubMed

Légaré, France; Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, Nora; Drolet, Renée; Stacey, Dawn; Härter, Martin; Bastian, Hilda; Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique; Borduas, Francine; Charles, Cathy; Coulter, Angela; Desroches, Sophie; Friedrich, Gwendolyn; Gafni, Amiram; Graham, Ian D; Labrecque, Michel; LeBlanc, Annie; Légaré, Jean; Politi, Mary; Sargeant, Joan; Thomson, Richard

2013-01-01

Shared decision making is now making inroads in health care professionals' continuing education curriculum, but there is no consensus on what core competencies are required by clinicians for effectively involving patients in health-related decisions. Ready-made programs for training clinicians in shared decision making are in high demand, but existing programs vary widely in their theoretical foundations, length, and content. An international, interdisciplinary group of 25 individuals met in 2012 to discuss theoretical approaches to making health-related decisions, compare notes on existing programs, take stock of stakeholders concerns, and deliberate on core competencies. This article summarizes the results of those discussions. Some participants believed that existing models already provide a sufficient conceptual basis for developing and implementing shared decision making competency-based training programs on a wide scale. Others argued that this would be premature as there is still no consensus on the definition of shared decision making or sufficient evidence to recommend specific competencies for implementing shared decision making. However, all participants agreed that there were 2 broad types of competencies that clinicians need for implementing shared decision making: relational competencies and risk communication competencies. Further multidisciplinary research could broaden and deepen our understanding of core competencies for shared decision making training. Copyright © 2013 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education, and the Council on CME, Association for Hospital Medical Education.

Individual responsibility as ground for priority setting in shared decision-making.

PubMed

Sandman, Lars; Gustavsson, Erik; Munthe, Christian

2016-10-01

Given healthcare resource constraints, voices are being raised to hold patients responsible for their health choices. In parallel, there is a growing trend towards shared decision-making, aiming to empower patients and give them more control over healthcare decisions. More power and control over decisions is usually taken to mean more responsibility for them. The trend of shared decision-making would therefore seem to strengthen the case for invoking individual responsibility in the healthcare priority setting. To analyse whether the implementation of shared decision-making would strengthen the argument for invoking individual responsibility in the healthcare priority setting using normative analysis. Shared decision-making does not constitute an independent argument in favour of employing individual responsibility since these notions rest on different underlying values. However, if a health system employs shared decision-making, individual responsibility may be used to limit resource implications of accommodating patient preferences outside professional standards and goals. If a healthcare system employs individual responsibility, high level dynamic shared decision-making implying a joint deliberation resulting in a decision where both parties are willing to revise initial standpoints may disarm common objections to the applicability of individual responsibility by virtue of making patients more likely to exercise adequate control of their own actions. However, if communication strategies applied in the shared decision-making are misaligned to the patient's initial capacities, arguments against individual responsibility might, on the other hand, gain strength. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Understanding patient perceptions of shared decision making.

PubMed

Shay, L Aubree; Lafata, Jennifer Elston

2014-09-01

This study aims to develop a conceptual model of patient-defined SDM, and understand what leads patients to label a specific, decision-making process as shared. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 primary care patients following a recent appointment. Patients were asked about the meaning of SDM and about specific decisions that they labeled as shared. Interviews were coded using qualitative content analysis. Patients' conceptual definition of SDM included four components of an interactive exchange prior to making the decision: both doctor and patient share information, both are open-minded and respectful, patient self-advocacy, and a personalized physician recommendation. Additionally, a long-term trusting relationship helps foster SDM. In contrast, when asked about a specific decision labeled as shared, patients described a range of interactions with the only commonality being that the two parties came to a mutually agreed-upon decision. There is no one-size-fits all process that leads patients to label a decision as shared. Rather, the outcome of "agreement" may be more important than the actual decision-making process for patients to label a decision as shared. Studies are needed to better understand how longitudinal communication between patient and physicians and patient self-advocacy behaviors affect patient perceptions of SDM. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

A preliminary evaluation of trust and shared decision making among intensive care patients' family members.

PubMed

Epstein, Elizabeth G; Wolfe, Katherine

2016-11-01

The purpose of this study was to preliminarily evaluate ICU family members' trust and shared decision making using modified versions of the Wake Forest Trust Survey and the Shared Decision Making-9 Survey. Using a descriptive approach, the perceptions of family members of ICU patients (n=69) of trust and shared decision making were measured using the Wake Forest Trust Survey and the 9-item Shared Decision Making (SDM-9) Questionnaire. Both surveys were modified slightly to apply to family members of ICU patients and to include perceptions of nurses as well as physicians. Overall, family members reported high levels of trust and inclusion in decision making. Family members who lived with the patient had higher levels of trust than those who did not. Family members who reported strong agreement among other family about treatment decisions had higher levels of trust and higher SDM-9 scores than those who reported less family agreement. The modified surveys may be useful in evaluating family members' trust and shared decision making in ICU settings. Future studies should include development of a comprehensive patient-centered care framework that focuses on its central goal of maintaining provider-patient/family partnerships as an avenue toward effective shared decision making. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Decision-making in Swiss home-like childbirth: A grounded theory study.

PubMed

Meyer, Yvonne; Frank, Franziska; Schläppy Muntwyler, Franziska; Fleming, Valerie; Pehlke-Milde, Jessica

2017-12-01

Decision-making in midwifery, including a claim for shared decision-making between midwives and women, is of major significance for the health of mother and child. Midwives have little information about how to share decision-making responsibilities with women, especially when complications arise during birth. To increase understanding of decision-making in complex home-like birth settings by exploring midwives' and women's perspectives and to develop a dynamic model integrating participatory processes for making shared decisions. The study, based on grounded theory methodology, analysed 20 interviews of midwives and 20 women who had experienced complications in home-like births. The central phenomenon that arose from the data was "defining/redefining decision as a joint commitment to healthy childbirth". The sub-indicators that make up this phenomenon were safety, responsibility, mutual and personal commitments. These sub-indicators were also identified to influence temporal conditions of decision-making and to apply different strategies for shared decision-making. Women adopted strategies such as delegating a decision, making the midwife's decision her own, challenging a decision or taking a decision driven by the dynamics of childbirth. Midwives employed strategies such as remaining indecisive, approving a woman's decision, making an informed decision or taking the necessary decision. To respond to recommendations for shared responsibility for care, midwives need to strengthen their shared decision-making skills. The visual model of decision-making in childbirth derived from the data provides a framework for transferring clinical reasoning into practice. Copyright © 2017 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Genital surgery for disorders of sex development: implementing a shared decision-making approach.

PubMed

Karkazis, Katrina; Tamar-Mattis, Anne; Kon, Alexander A

2010-08-01

Ongoing controversy surrounds early genital surgery for children with disorders of sex development, making decisions about these procedures extraordinarily complex. Professional organizations have encouraged healthcare providers to adopt shared decision-making due to its broad potential to improve the decision-making process, perhaps most so when data are lacking, when there is no clear "best-choice" treatment, when decisions involve more than one choice, where each choice has both advantages and disadvantages, and where the ranking of options depends heavily on the decision-maker's values. We present a 6-step model for shared decision-making in decisions about genital surgery for disorders of sex development: (1) Set the stage and develop an appropriate team; (2) Establish preferences for information and roles in decision-making; (3) Perceive and address emotions; (4) Define concerns and values; (5) Identify options and present evidence; and (6) Share responsibility for making a decision. As long as controversy persists regarding surgery for DSD, an SDM process can facilitate the increased sharing of relevant information essential for making important health care decisions.

[Impact of shared-decision making on patient satisfaction].

PubMed

Suh, Won S; Lee, Chae Kyung

2010-01-01

The purpose of this research is to analyze the impact of shared-decision making on patient satisfaction. The study is significant since it focuses on developing appropriate methodologies and analyzing data to identify patient preferences, with the goals of optimizing treatment selection, and substantiating the relationship between such preferences and their impact on outcomes. A thorough literature review that developed the framework illustrating key dimensions of shared decision making was followed by a quantitative assessment and regression analysis of patient-perceived satisfaction, and the degree of shared-decision making. A positive association was evident between shared-decision making and patient satisfaction. The impact of shared decision making on patient satisfaction was greater than other variable including gender, education, and number of visits. Patients who participate in care-related decisions and who are given an explanation of their health problems are more likely to be satisfied with their care. It would benefit health care organizations to train their medical professionals in this communication method, and to include it in their practice guidelines.

Shared decision making for patients living with inflammatory arthritis.

PubMed

Palmer, Deborah; El Miedany, Yasser

Providing adequate care for people with inflammatory arthritis is an ongoing challenge. In recent years significant progress has been made in the treatment of inflammatory arthritic conditions. The availability of a wide range of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs as well as biologic therapies has not only improved treatment, but also made treatment decisions much more complex. This wider range of improved treatment options happened at the same time as a clear move towards patient-centred care and implementing shared decision making for both medical and surgical conditions. Implementing shared decision making has been reported to be associated with higher satisfaction and better adherence to therapy. Electronic shared decision making has more recently been suggested as a tool for clinical practice. The aim of this article is to look at further integrating shared decision making in standard rheumatology practice in view of the available evidence and the outcomes of a study looking at a recently developed patient shared decision guide.

[A model for shared decision-making with frail older patients: consensus reached using Delphi technique].

PubMed

van de Pol, M H J; Fluit, C R M G; Lagro, J; Lagro-Janssen, A L M; Olde Rikkert, M G M

2017-01-01

To develop a model for shared decision-making with frail older patients. Online Delphi forum. We used a three-round Delphi technique to reach consensus on the structure of a model for shared decision-making with older patients. The expert panel consisted of 16 patients (round 1), and 59 professionals (rounds 1-3). In round 1, the panel of experts was asked about important steps in the process of shared decision-making and the draft model was introduced. Rounds 2 and 3 were used to adapt the model and test it for 'importance' and 'feasibility'. Consensus for the dynamic shared decision-making model as a whole was achieved for both importance (91% panel agreement) and feasibility (76% panel agreement). Shared decision-making with older patients is a dynamic process. It requires a continuous supportive dialogue between health care professional and patient.

How contextual issues can distort shared decision making.

PubMed

Gartlehner, Gerald; Matyas, Nina

2016-12-01

Shared decision making in medicine has become a widely promoted approach. The goal is for patients and physicians to reach a mutual, informed decision by taking into consideration scientific evidence, clinical experience, and the patient's personal values or preferences. Shared decision making, however, is not a straightforward process. In practice, it might fall short of what it promises and might even be misused to whitewash monetary motives. In this article, which summarizes a presentation given at the 17 th Annual Conference of the German Network Evidence-based Medicine on March 4 th , 2016 in Cologne, Germany, we discuss three contextual factors that in our opinion can have a tremendous impact on any informed decision making: 1) opinions and convictions of physicians or other clinicians; 2) uncertainty of the evidence regarding benefits and harms; 3) uncertainty of patients about their own values and preferences. But despite barriers and shortcomings, modern medicine currently does not have an alternative to shared decision making. Shared decision making has become a central theme in good quality health care because it has a strong ethical component. Advocates of shared decision making, however, must realize that not all patients prefer to participate in decision making. For those who do, however, we must ensure that shared decisions can be made in a neutral environment as free of biases and conflicts of interest as possible. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Shared Decision-Making as the Future of Emergency Cardiology.

PubMed

Probst, Marc A; Noseworthy, Peter A; Brito, Juan P; Hess, Erik P

2018-02-01

Shared decision-making is playing an increasingly large role in emergency cardiovascular care. Although there are many challenges to successfully performing shared decision-making in the emergency department, there are numerous clinical scenarios in which it should be used. In this article, we explore new research and emerging decision aids in the following emergency care scenarios: (1) low-risk chest pain; (2) new-onset atrial fibrillation; and (3) moderate-risk syncope. These decision aids are designed to engage patients and facilitate shared decision-making for specific treatment and disposition (admit vs discharge) decisions. We then offer a 3-step, practical approach to performing shared decision-making in the acute care setting, on the basis of broad stakeholder input and previous conceptual work. Step 1 involves simply acknowledging that a clinical decision needs to be made. Step 2 involves a shared discussion about the working diagnosis and the options for care in the context of the patient's values, preferences, and circumstances. The third and final step requires the patient and provider to agree on a plan of action regarding further medical care. The implementation of shared decision-making in emergency cardiology has the potential to shift the paradigm of clinical practice from paternalism toward mutualism and improve the quality and experience of care for our patients. Copyright © 2017 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A Multimethod Analysis of Shared Decision-Making in Hospice Interdisciplinary Team Meetings Including Family Caregivers

PubMed Central

Washington, Karla T.; Oliver, Debra Parker; Gage, L. Ashley; Albright, David L.; Demiris, George

2015-01-01

Background Much of the existing research on shared decision-making in hospice and palliative care focuses on the provider-patient dyad; little is known about shared decision-making that is inclusive of family members of patients with advanced disease. Aim We sought to describe shared decision-making as it occurred in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers as participants using video-conferencing technology. Design We conducted a multimethod study in which we used content and thematic analysis techniques to analyze video-recordings of hospice interdisciplinary team meetings (n = 100), individual interviews of family caregivers (n = 73) and hospice staff members (n = 78), and research field notes. Setting/participants Participants in the original studies from which data for this analysis were drawn were hospice family caregivers and staff members employed by one of five different community-based hospice agencies located in the Midwestern United States. Results Shared decision-making occurred infrequently in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers. Barriers to shared decision-making included time constraints, communication skill deficits, unaddressed emotional needs, staff absences, and unclear role expectations. The hospice philosophy of care, current trends in health care delivery, the interdisciplinary nature of hospice teams, and the designation of a team leader/facilitator supported shared decision-making. Conclusions The involvement of family caregivers in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings using video-conferencing technology creates a useful platform for shared decision-making; however, steps must be taken to transform family caregivers from meeting attendees to shared decision-makers. PMID:26281854

A multimethod analysis of shared decision-making in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings including family caregivers.

PubMed

Washington, Karla T; Oliver, Debra Parker; Gage, L Ashley; Albright, David L; Demiris, George

2016-03-01

Much of the existing research on shared decision-making in hospice and palliative care focuses on the provider-patient dyad; little is known about shared decision-making that is inclusive of family members of patients with advanced disease. We sought to describe shared decision-making as it occurred in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers as participants using video-conferencing technology. We conducted a multimethod study in which we used content and thematic analysis techniques to analyze video-recordings of hospice interdisciplinary team meetings (n = 100), individual interviews of family caregivers (n = 73) and hospice staff members (n = 78), and research field notes. Participants in the original studies from which data for this analysis were drawn were hospice family caregivers and staff members employed by one of five different community-based hospice agencies located in the Midwestern United States. Shared decision-making occurred infrequently in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers. Barriers to shared decision-making included time constraints, communication skill deficits, unaddressed emotional needs, staff absences, and unclear role expectations. The hospice philosophy of care, current trends in healthcare delivery, the interdisciplinary nature of hospice teams, and the designation of a team leader/facilitator supported shared decision-making. The involvement of family caregivers in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings using video-conferencing technology creates a useful platform for shared decision-making; however, steps must be taken to transform family caregivers from meeting attendees to shared decision-makers. © The Author(s) 2015.

Supporting shared decision making beyond consumer-prescriber interactions: Initial development of the CommonGround fidelity scale

PubMed Central

Fukui, Sadaaki; Salyers, Michelle P.; Rapp, Charlie; Goscha, Rick; Young, Leslie; Mabry, Ally

2015-01-01

Shared decision-making has become a central tenet of recovery-oriented, person-centered mental health care, yet the practice is not always transferred to the routine psychiatric visit. Supporting the practice at the system level, beyond the interactions of consumers and medication prescribers, is needed for successful adoption of shared decision-making. CommonGround is a systemic approach, intended to be part of a larger integration of shared decision-making tools and practices at the system level. We discuss the organizational components that CommonGround uses to facilitate shared decision-making, and we present a fidelity scale to assess how well the system is being implemented. PMID:28090194

Creating and sharing clinical decision support content with Web 2.0: Issues and examples.

PubMed

Wright, Adam; Bates, David W; Middleton, Blackford; Hongsermeier, Tonya; Kashyap, Vipul; Thomas, Sean M; Sittig, Dean F

2009-04-01

Clinical decision support is a powerful tool for improving healthcare quality and patient safety. However, developing a comprehensive package of decision support interventions is costly and difficult. If used well, Web 2.0 methods may make it easier and less costly to develop decision support. Web 2.0 is characterized by online communities, open sharing, interactivity and collaboration. Although most previous attempts at sharing clinical decision support content have worked outside of the Web 2.0 framework, several initiatives are beginning to use Web 2.0 to share and collaborate on decision support content. We present case studies of three efforts: the Clinfowiki, a world-accessible wiki for developing decision support content; Partners Healthcare eRooms, web-based tools for developing decision support within a single organization; and Epic Systems Corporation's Community Library, a repository for sharing decision support content for customers of a single clinical system vendor. We evaluate the potential of Web 2.0 technologies to enable collaborative development and sharing of clinical decision support systems through the lens of three case studies; analyzing technical, legal and organizational issues for developers, consumers and organizers of clinical decision support content in Web 2.0. We believe the case for Web 2.0 as a tool for collaborating on clinical decision support content appears strong, particularly for collaborative content development within an organization.

A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial of the New Orleans Intervention for Infant Mental Health: A Study Protocol

PubMed Central

Fitzpatrick, Bridie; Watson, Nicholas; Cotmore, Richard; Wilson, Philip; Donaldson, Julia; Boyd, Kathleen; Zeanah, Charles; Norrie, John; Messow, Martina; Turner, Fiona; Irving, Susan

2013-01-01

Child maltreatment is associated with life-long social, physical, and mental health problems. Intervening early to provide maltreated children with safe, nurturing care can improve outcomes. The need for prompt decisions about permanent placement (i.e., regarding adoption or return home) is internationally recognised. However, a recent Glasgow audit showed that many maltreated children “revolve” between birth families and foster carers. This paper describes the protocol of the first exploratory randomised controlled trial of a mental health intervention aimed at improving placement permanency decisions for maltreated children. This trial compares an infant's mental health intervention with the new enhanced service as usual for maltreated children entering care in Glasgow. As both are new services, the trial is being conducted from a position of equipoise. The outcome assessment covers various fields of a child's neurodevelopment to identify problems in any ESSENCE domain. The feasibility, reliability, and developmental appropriateness of all outcome measures are examined. Additionally, the potential for linkage with routinely collected data on health and social care and, in the future, education is explored. The results will inform a definitive randomised controlled trial that could potentially lead to long lasting benefits for the Scottish population and which may be applicable to other areas of the world. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NC01485510). PMID:24023537

Torts to contract? Moving from informed consent to shared decision-making.

PubMed

Monico, Edward P; Calise, Arthur; Calabro, Joseph

2008-01-01

Many claims of medical malpractice arise from a breakdown in communication between physician and patient. As a result, medical decision-making may change from an informed consent model to a shared decision-making strategy. Shared decision-making, a contract derivative, will trigger contract obligations and change the face of medical malpractice from tort to contract.

Bioethical Issues in Conducting Pediatric Dentistry Clinical Research.

PubMed

Garrocho-Rangel, Arturo; Cerda-Cristerna, Bernardino; Pozos-Guillen, Amaury

Pediatric clinical research on new drugs and biomaterials involves children in order to create valid and generalizable knowledge. Research on vulnerable populations, such as children, is necessary but only admissible when researchers strictly follow methodological and ethical standards, together with the respect to human rights; and very especially when the investigation cannot be conducted with other population or when the potential benefits are specifically for that age group. Clinical research in Pediatric Dentistry is not an exception. The aim of the present article was to provide the bioethical principles (with respect to the child/parents' autonomy, benefit/risk analysis, and distributive justice), and recommendations, including informed consent, research ethics committees, conflict of interest, and the "equipoise" concept. Current and future worldwide oral health research in children and adolescents must be conducted incorporating their perspectives in the decision-making process as completely as possible. This concept must be carefully considered when a dental clinical study research is going to be planned and conducted, especially in the case of randomized controlled trials, in which children will be recruited as participants.

Development of a Model of Interprofessional Shared Clinical Decision Making in the ICU: A Mixed-Methods Study.

PubMed

DeKeyser Ganz, Freda; Engelberg, Ruth; Torres, Nicole; Curtis, Jared Randall

2016-04-01

To develop a model to describe ICU interprofessional shared clinical decision making and the factors associated with its implementation. Ethnographic (observations and interviews) and survey designs. Three ICUs (two in Israel and one in the United States). A convenience sample of nurses and physicians. None. Observations and interviews were analyzed using ethnographic and grounded theory methodologies. Questionnaires included a demographic information sheet and the Jefferson Scale of Attitudes toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration. From observations and interviews, we developed a conceptual model of the process of shared clinical decision making that involves four stepped levels, proceeding from the lowest to the highest levels of collaboration: individual decision, information exchange, deliberation, and shared decision. This process is influenced by individual, dyadic, and system factors. Most decisions were made at the lower two levels. Levels of perceived collaboration were moderate with no statistically significant differences between physicians and nurses or between units. Both qualitative and quantitative data corroborated that physicians and nurses from all units were similarly and moderately satisfied with their level of collaboration and shared decision making. However, most ICU clinical decision making continues to take place independently, where there is some sharing of information but rarely are decisions made collectively. System factors, such as interdisciplinary rounds and unit culture, seem to have a strong impact on this process. This study provides a model for further study and improvement of interprofessional shared decision making.

Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Toupin-April, Karine; Barton, Jennifer; Fraenkel, Liana; Li, Linda; Grandpierre, Viviane; Guillemin, Francis; Rader, Tamara; Stacey, Dawn; Légaré, France; Jull, Janet; Petkovic, Jennifer; Scholte-Voshaar, Marieke; Welch, Vivian; Lyddiatt, Anne; Hofstetter, Cathie; De Wit, Maarten; March, Lyn; Meade, Tanya; Christensen, Robin; Gaujoux-Viala, Cécile; Suarez-Almazor, Maria E; Boonen, Annelies; Pohl, Christoph; Martin, Richard; Tugwell, Peter S

2015-12-01

Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers. We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting. In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested. We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making

PubMed Central

Toupin April, Karine; Barton, Jennifer; Fraenkel, Liana; Li, Linda; Grandpierre, Viviane; Guillemin, Francis; Rader, Tamara; Stacey, Dawn; Légaré, France; Jull, Janet; Petkovic, Jennifer; Scholte Voshaar, Marieke; Welch, Vivian; Lyddiatt, Anne; Hofstetter, Cathie; De Wit, Maarten; March, Lyn; Meade, Tanya; Christensen, Robin; Gaujoux-Viala, Cécile; Suarez-Almazor, Maria E.; Boonen, Annelies; Pohl, Christoph; Martin, Richard; Tugwell, Peter

2015-01-01

Objective Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centred care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this OMERACT working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspective of patients, health professionals and researchers. Methods We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 to develop a draft core domain set, which consisted of: (i) forming an OMERACT working group; (ii) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (iii) obtaining the opinions of stakeholders using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 2014 meeting. Results 26 stakeholders from Europe, North America and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the Draft Core Set: 1) Identifying the decision; 2) Exchanging Information; 3) Clarifying views; 4) Deliberating; 5) Making the decision; 6) Putting the decision into practice; and 7) Assessing the impact of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested. Conclusion We propose a Draft Core Set of shared decision making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 2016 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as detail sub-domains and assess instruments to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set. PMID:25877502

Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions.

PubMed

Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene; Gionfriddo, Michael R; Ospina, Naykky Singh; Maraka, Spyridoula; Tamhane, Shrikant; Montori, Victor M; Brito, Juan P

2016-08-01

In medicine and endocrinology, there are few clinical circumstances in which clinicians can accurately predict what is best for their patients. As a result, patients and clinicians frequently have to make decisions about which there is uncertainty. Uncertainty results from limitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how treatments will fit into patients' daily lives. The work that patients and clinicians do together to address the patient's situation and engage in a deliberative dialogue about reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making. Decision aids are evidence-based tools that facilitate this process. Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians share information about the benefits, harms, and burden of different reasonable diagnostic and treatment options, and patients explain what matters to them in view of their particular values, preferences, and personal context. Beyond the ethical argument in support of this approach, decision aids have been shown to improve patients' knowledge about the available options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort. Decision aids also promote patient participation in the decision-making process. Despite accumulating evidence from clinical trials, policy support, and expert recommendations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemented in endocrine practice. Additional work is needed to enrich the number of available tools and to implement them in practice workflows. Also, although the evidence from randomised controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, and illnesses, the effect of this approach has been studied in a few endocrine disorders. Future pragmatic trials are needed to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endocrinology and primary care practice. With the available evidence, however, endocrinologists can now start to practice shared decision making, partner with their patients, and use their expertise to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the context of patients' lives. In this Personal View, we describe shared decision making, the evidence behind the approach, and why and how both endocrinologists and their patients could benefit from this approach. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare: a qualitative study exploring perceptions of barriers and facilitators.

PubMed

Chong, Wei Wen; Aslani, Parisa; Chen, Timothy F

2013-09-01

Shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration are important approaches to achieving consumer-centered care. The concept of shared decision-making has been expanded recently to include the interprofessional healthcare team. This study explored healthcare providers' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to both shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 healthcare providers, including medical practitioners (psychiatrists, general practitioners), pharmacists, nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists and social workers. Healthcare providers identified several factors as barriers to, and facilitators of shared decision-making that could be categorized into three major themes: factors associated with mental health consumers, factors associated with healthcare providers and factors associated with healthcare service delivery. Consumers' lack of competence to participate was frequently perceived by mental health specialty providers to be a primary barrier to shared decision-making, while information provision on illness and treatment to consumers was cited by healthcare providers from all professions to be an important facilitator of shared decision-making. Whilst healthcare providers perceived interprofessional collaboration to be influenced by healthcare provider, environmental and systemic factors, emphasis of the factors differed among healthcare providers. To facilitate interprofessional collaboration, mental health specialty providers emphasized the importance of improving mental health expertise among general practitioners and community pharmacists, whereas general health providers were of the opinion that information sharing between providers and healthcare settings was the key. The findings of this study suggest that changes may be necessary at several levels (i.e. consumer, provider and environment) to implement effective shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare.

Comparativism and the Grounds for Person-Centered Care and Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Herlitz, Anders

2017-01-01

This article provides a new argument and a new value-theoretical ground for person-centered care and shared decision making that ascribes to it the role of enabling rational choice in situations involving clinical choice. Rather than referring to good health outcomes and/or ethical grounds such as patient autonomy, it argues that a plausible justification and ground for person-centered care and shared decision making is preservation of rationality in the face of comparative non-determinacy in clinical settings. Often, no alternative treatment will be better than or equal to every other alternative. In the face of such comparative non-determinacy, Ruth Chang has argued that we can make rational decisions by invoking reasons that are created through acts of willing. This article transfers this view to clinical decision making and argues that shared decision making provides a solution to non-determinacy problems in clinical settings. This view of the role of shared decision making provides a new understanding of its nature, and it also allows us to better understand when caregivers should engage in shared decision making and when they should not. Copyright 2017 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.

Shared decision making in senior medical students: results from a national survey.

PubMed

Zeballos-Palacios, Claudia; Quispe, Renato; Mongilardi, Nicole; Diaz-Arocutipa, Carlos; Mendez-Davalos, Carlos; Lizarraga, Natalia; Paz, Aldo; Montori, Victor M; Malaga, German

2015-05-01

To explore perceptions and experiences of Peruvian medical students about observed, preferred, and feasible decision-making approaches. We surveyed senior medical students from 19 teaching hospitals in 4 major cities in Peru. The self-administered questionnaire collected demographic information, current approach, exposure to role models for and training in shared decision making, and perceptions of the pertinence and feasibility of the different decision-making approaches in general as well as in challenging scenarios. A total of 327 senior medical students (51% female) were included. The mean age was 25 years. Among all respondents, 2% reported receiving both theoretical and practical training in shared decision making. While 46% of students identified their current decision-making approach as clinician-as-perfect-agent, 50% of students identified their teachers with the paternalistic approach. Remarkably, 53% of students thought shared decision making should be the preferred approach and 50% considered it feasible in Peru. Among the 10 challenging scenarios, shared decision making reached a plurality (40%) in only one scenario (terminally ill patients). Despite limited exposure and training, Peruvian medical students aspire to practice shared decision making but their current attitude reflects the less participatory approaches they see role modeled by their teachers. © The Author(s) 2015.

Shared and Disorder-Specific Neurocomputational Mechanisms of Decision-Making in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

PubMed

Carlisi, Christina O; Norman, Luke; Murphy, Clodagh M; Christakou, Anastasia; Chantiluke, Kaylita; Giampietro, Vincent; Simmons, Andrew; Brammer, Michael; Murphy, Declan G; Mataix-Cols, David; Rubia, Katya

2017-12-01

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) often share phenotypes of repetitive behaviors, possibly underpinned by abnormal decision-making. To compare neural correlates underlying decision-making between these disorders, brain activation of boys with ASD (N = 24), OCD (N = 20) and typically developing controls (N = 20) during gambling was compared, and computational modeling compared performance. Patients were unimpaired on number of risky decisions, but modeling showed that both patient groups had lower choice consistency and relied less on reinforcement learning compared to controls. ASD individuals had disorder-specific choice perseverance abnormalities compared to OCD individuals. Neurofunctionally, ASD and OCD boys shared dorsolateral/inferior frontal underactivation compared to controls during decision-making. During outcome anticipation, patients shared underactivation compared to controls in lateral inferior/orbitofrontal cortex and ventral striatum. During reward receipt, ASD boys had disorder-specific enhanced activation in inferior frontal/insular regions relative to OCD boys and controls. Results showed that ASD and OCD individuals shared decision-making strategies that differed from controls to achieve comparable performance to controls. Patients showed shared abnormalities in lateral-(orbito)fronto-striatal reward circuitry, but ASD boys had disorder-specific lateral inferior frontal/insular overactivation, suggesting that shared and disorder-specific mechanisms underpin decision-making in these disorders. Findings provide evidence for shared neurobiological substrates that could serve as possible future biomarkers. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.

Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition.

PubMed

Lippa, Katherine D; Feufel, Markus A; Robinson, F Eric; Shalin, Valerie L

2017-06-01

Despite increasing prominence, little is known about the cognitive processes underlying shared decision making. To investigate these processes, we conceptualize shared decision making as a form of distributed cognition. We introduce a Decision Space Model to identify physical and social influences on decision making. Using field observations and interviews, we demonstrate that patients and physicians in both acute and chronic care consider these influences when identifying the need for a decision, searching for decision parameters, making actionable decisions Based on the distribution of access to information and actions, we then identify four related patterns: physician dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated decisions. Results suggests that (a) decision making is necessarily distributed between physicians and patients, (b) differential access to information and action over time requires participants to transform a distributed task into a shared decision, and (c) adverse outcomes may result from failures to integrate physician and patient reasoning. Our analysis unifies disparate findings in the medical decision-making literature and has implications for improving care and medical training.

Do Upper Extremity Trauma Patients Have Different Preferences for Shared Decision-making Than Patients With Nontraumatic Conditions?

PubMed

Hageman, Michiel G J S; Reddy, Rajesh; Makarawung, Dennis J S; Briet, Jan Paul; van Dijk, C Niek; Ring, David

2015-11-01

Shared decision-making is a combination of expertise, available scientific evidence, and the preferences of the patient and surgeon. Some surgeons contend that patients are less capable of participating in decisions about traumatic conditions than nontraumatic conditions. (1) Do patients with nontraumatic conditions have different preferences for shared decision-making when compared with those who sustained acute trauma? (2) Do disability, symptoms of depression, and self-efficacy correlate with preference for shared decision-making? In this prospective, comparative trial, we evaluated a total of 133 patients presenting to the outpatient practices of two university-based hand surgeons with traumatic or nontraumatic hand and upper extremity illnesses or conditions. Each patient completed questionnaires measuring their preferred role in healthcare decision-making (Control Preferences Scale [CPS]), symptoms of depression (Patients' Health Questionnaire), and pain self-efficacy (confidence that one can achieve one's goals despite pain; measured using the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire). Patients also completed a short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire and an ordinal rating of pain intensity. There was no difference in decision-making preferences between patients with traumatic (CPS: 3 ± 2) and nontraumatic conditions (CPS: 3 ± 1 mean difference = 0.2 [95% confidence interval, -0.4 to 0.7], p = 0.78) with most patients (95 versus 38) preferring shared decision-making. More educated patients preferred a more active role in decision-making (beta = -0.1, r = 0.08, p = 0.001); however, differences in levels of disability, pain and function, depression, and pain-related self-efficacy were not associated with differences in patients' preferences in terms of shared decision-making. Patients who sustained trauma have on average the same preference for shared decision-making compared with patients who sustained no trauma. Now that we know the findings of this study, clinicians might be motivated to share their expertise about the treatment options, potential outcomes, benefits, and harms with the patient and to discuss their preference as well in a semiacute setting, resulting in a shared decision.

Shared Decisions & Technology-Assisted Learning

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Jacobs, Mary

2005-01-01

In this short article, the author discusses how Henderson Middle School in Jackson, Georgia used shared decision making to improve student achievement through the use of laptop computers. With effective use of technology and shared decision making, administrators at Henderson believe that they can continue to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress under…

Shared Decision Making: Improving Care for Children with Autism

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Golnik, Allison; Maccabee-Ryaboy, Nadia; Scal, Peter; Wey, Andrew; Gaillard, Philippe

2012-01-01

We assessed the extent to which parents of children with autism spectrum disorder report that they are engaged in shared decision making. We measured the association between shared decision making and (a) satisfaction with care, (b) perceived guidance regarding controversial issues in autism spectrum disorder, and (c) perceived assistance…

Shared decision making as part of value based care: New U.S. policies challenge our readiness.

PubMed

Spatz, Erica S; Elwyn, Glyn; Moulton, Benjamin W; Volk, Robert J; Frosch, Dominick L

2017-06-01

Shared decision making in the United States is increasingly being recognized as part of value-based care. During the last decade, several state and federal initiatives have linked shared decision making with reimbursement and increased protection from litigation. Additionally, private and public foundations are increasingly funding studies to identify best practices for moving shared decision making from the research world into clinical practice. These shifts offer opportunities and challenges for ensuring effective implementation. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Measuring shared decision making in the consultation: a comparison of the OPTION and Informed Decision Making instruments.

PubMed

Weiss, Marjorie C; Peters, Tim J

2008-01-01

To investigate the applied and conceptual relationship between two measures of shared decision making using the OPTION instrument developed in Wales and the Informed Decision Making instrument developed in Seattle, USA using audio-taped consultation data from a UK general practice population. Twelve general practitioners were recruited from 6 general practices in the southwest of England. One hundred twenty-three GP-patient consultations were audio-recorded. Audiotapes were sent off to, and rated by, respective experts in the use of the OPTION and the Informed Decision Making instruments. Compared to earlier work using the Informed Decision Making tool, consultations in this sample were shorter, had fewer decisions and tended to have a greater number of elements present. Similar to previous research using the OPTION, values using the OPTION instrument were low with two items, giving the patient opportunities to ask questions and checking patient understanding, exhibiting the most variability. Using a 'key' decision in each consultation as the basis for comparison, the Informed Decision Making score was not related to the overall OPTION score (Spearman's rho=0.14, p=0.13). Both instruments also predicted different 'best' and 'worst' doctors. Using a Bland-Altman plot for assessing agreement, the mean difference between the two measures was 1.11 (CI 0.66-1.56) and the limits of agreement were -3.94 to 6.16. There were several elements between the two instruments that appeared conceptually similar and correlations for these were generally higher. These were: discussing alternatives or options (Spearman's rho=0.35, p=0.0001), discussion of the patient's role in decision making (Spearman's rho=0.23, p=0.012), discussion of the pros/cons of the alternatives (Spearman's rho=0.20, p=0.024) and assessment of the patient's understanding (Spearman's rho=0.19, p=0.03). Measures of shared decision making are helpful in identifying those shared decision making skills which may be problematic or difficult to integrate into practice and provide a tool by which the development of skills can be assessed over time. Research may implicitly place undue value on those aspects of shared decision making which are most easily measured. Shared decision making tools are a useful way of capturing the presence or absence of specific shared decision making skills and changes in skills acquisition over time. However there may be limits in the extent to which the concept of shared decision making can be measured and that more easily measured skills will be emphasised to the detriment of other important shared decision making skills.

Decision-Making Quality in Parents Considering Adenotonsillectomy or Tympanostomy Tube Insertion for Their Children.

PubMed

Hong, Paul; Maguire, Erin; Purcell, Mary; Ritchie, Krista C; Chorney, Jill

2017-03-01

Shared decision making is a process in which clinicians and patients make health care decisions in a collaborative manner using the most up-to-date evidence, while considering patient values and preferences. Shared decision making is thought to have a positive influence on the decision-making process in medicine. To describe the level of decisional conflict and decisional regret experienced by parents considering surgery for their children and to determine relations among decisional conflict, decisional regret, and shared decision making. A prospective cohort study was conducted at an academic pediatric otolaryngology clinic. Participants included 126 parents of children younger than 6 years who underwent consultation for adenotonsillectomy or tympanostomy tube insertion. Parent participants completed the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Parent version, Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and Decisional Regret Scale (DRS). Surgeons completed the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician version. This study included 126 parents; 102 women (mean [SD] age, 33.2 [5.1] years) and 24 men (mean [SD] age, 35.6 [6.3] years). Overall, 34 parents (26%) reported clinically significant decisional conflict. Only 1 parent experienced moderate to strong decisional regret; 28 parents (43.7%) had mild decisional regret. Both parent and physician ratings of shared decision making were significantly negatively correlated with total DCS scores. Parent SDM-Q-9 and total DCS scores were significantly negatively correlated (rs[118] = -0.582; P < .001). Similarly, physician SDM-Q-Doc and total DCS scores were also significantly negatively correlated (rs[118] = -0.221; P = .04). Only parent ratings of shared decision making were significantly negatively correlated with total DRS scores (rs[63] = -0.254; P = .045). Those parents with clinically significant decisional conflict had significantly higher DRS scores (P = .02). Many parents experienced significant decisional conflict when making decisions about their child's elective surgical treatment. Parents who perceived themselves as being more involved in the decision-making process reported less decisional conflict and decisional regret. Future research should explore the influence of decision quality on health outcomes and develop methods to improve shared decision making.

A Review of Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids in Radiation Oncology.

PubMed

Woodhouse, Kristina Demas; Tremont, Katie; Vachani, Anil; Schapira, Marilyn M; Vapiwala, Neha; Simone, Charles B; Berman, Abigail T

2017-06-01

Cancer treatment decisions are complex and may be challenging for patients, as multiple treatment options can often be reasonably considered. As a result, decisional support tools have been developed to assist patients in the decision-making process. A commonly used intervention to facilitate shared decision-making is a decision aid, which provides evidence-based outcomes information and guides patients towards choosing the treatment option that best aligns with their preferences and values. To ensure high quality, systematic frameworks and standards have been proposed for the development of an optimal aid for decision making. Studies have examined the impact of these tools on facilitating treatment decisions and improving decision-related outcomes. In radiation oncology, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that decision aids have the potential to improve patient outcomes, including increased knowledge about treatment options and decreased decisional conflict with decision-making. This article provides an overview of the shared-decision making process and summarizes the development, validation, and implementation of decision aids as patient educational tools in radiation oncology. Finally, this article reviews the findings from decision aid studies in radiation oncology and offers various strategies to effectively implement shared decision-making into clinical practice.

Novel Statistical Approach to Determine Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Patients' Perspectives on Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Siegel, Corey A; Lofland, Jennifer H; Naim, Ahmad; Gollins, Jan; Walls, Danielle M; Rudder, Laura E; Reynolds, Chuck

2016-02-01

Limited information is available on patients' perspectives of shared decision-making practices used in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this study was to examine patient insights regarding shared decision making among patients with IBD using novel statistical technology to analyze qualitative data. Two 10-patient focus groups (10 ulcerative colitis patients and 10 Crohn's disease patients) were conducted in Chicago in January 2012 to explore patients' experiences, concerns, and preferences related to shared decision making. Key audio excerpts of focus group insights were embedded within a 25-min online patient survey and used for moment-to-moment affect trace analysis. A total of 355 IBD patients completed the survey (ulcerative colitis 51 %; Crohn's disease 49 %; female 54 %; 18-50 years of age 50 %). The majority of patients (66 %) reported increased satisfaction when they participated in shared decision making. Three unique patient clusters were identified based on their involvement in shared decision making: satisfied, content, and dissatisfied. Satisfied patients (18 %) had a positive physician relationship and a high level of trust with their physician. Content patients (48 %) had a moderate level of trust with their physician. Dissatisfied patients (34 %) had a life greatly affected by IBD, a low level of trust of their physician, a negative relationship with their physician, were skeptical of decisions, and did not rely on their physician for assistance. This study provides valuable insights regarding patients' perceptions of the shared decision-making process in IBD treatment using a novel moment-to-moment hybrid technology approach. Patient perspectives in this study indicate an increased desire for shared decision making in determining an optimal IBD treatment plan.

[Shared decision-making in mental health care: a role model from youth mental health care].

PubMed

Westermann, G M A; Maurer, J M G

2015-01-01

In the communication and interaction between doctor and patient in Western health care there has been a paradigm shift from the paternalistic approach to shared decision-making. To summarise the background situation, recent developments and the current level of shared decision-making in (youth) mental health care. We conducted a critical review of the literature relating to the methodology development, research and the use of counselling and decision-making in mental health care. The majority of patients, professionals and other stakeholders consider shared decision-making to be desirable and important for improving the quality and efficiency of care. Up till recently most research and studies have concentrated on helping patients to develop decision-making skills and on showing patients how and where to access information. At the moment more attention is being given to the development of skills and circumstances that will increase patients' interaction with care professionals and patients' emotional involvement in shared decision-making. In mental health for children and adolescents, more often than in adult mental health care, it has been customary to give more attention to these aspects of shared decision-making, particularly during counselling sessions that mark the transition from diagnosis to treatment. This emphasis has been apparent for a long time in textbooks, daily practice, methodology development and research in youth mental health care. Currently, a number of similar developments are taking place in adult mental health care. Although most health professionals support the policy of shared decision-making, the implementation of the policy in mental health care is still at an early stage. In practice, a number of obstacles still have to be surmounted. However, the experience gained with counselling and decision-making in (youth) mental health care may serve as an example to other sections of mental health care and play an important role in the further development of shared decision-making.

[Shared decision-making in acute psychiatric medicine : Contraindication or a challenge?

PubMed

Heres, S; Hamann, J

2017-09-01

The concept of shared decision-making (SDM) has existed since the 1990s in multiple fields of somatic medicine but has only been poorly applied in psychiatric clinical routine despite broad acceptance and promising outcomes in clinical studies on its positive effects. The concept itself and its practicability in mental health are carefully assessed and strategies for its future implementation in psychiatric medicine are presented in this article. Ongoing clinical studies probing some of those strategies are further outlined. On top of the ubiquitous shortage of time in clinical routine, psychiatrists report their concern about patients' limited abilities in sharing decisions and their own fear of potentially harmful decisions resulting from a shared process. Misinterpretation of shared decision-making restricting the health care professional to rather an informed choice scenario and their own adhesion to the traditional paternalistic decision-making approach further add to SDM's underutilization. Those hurdles could be overcome by communication skill workshops for all mental health care professionals, including nursing personnels, psychologists, social workers and physicians, as well as the use of decision aids and training courses for patients to motivate and empower them in sharing decisions with the medical staff. By this, the patient-centered treatment approach demanded by guidelines, carers and users could be further facilitated in psychiatric clinical routine.

Patients' perceptions of sharing in decisions: a systematic review of interventions to enhance shared decision making in routine clinical practice.

PubMed

Légaré, France; Turcotte, Stéphane; Stacey, Dawn; Ratté, Stéphane; Kryworuchko, Jennifer; Graham, Ian D

2012-01-01

Shared decision making is the process in which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the health professional and the patient. Little is known about what patients view as effective or ineffective strategies to implement shared decision making in routine clinical practice. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice, as seen by patients. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from their inception to mid-March 2009. We found additional material by reviewing the reference lists of the studies found in the databases; systematic reviews of studies on shared decision making; the proceedings of various editions of the International Shared Decision Making Conference; and the transcripts of the Society for Medical Decision Making's meetings. In our study selection, we included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses in which patients evaluated interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making. The interventions in question consisted of the distribution of printed educational material; educational meetings; audit and feedback; reminders; and patient-mediated initiatives (e.g. patient decision aids). Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses considered categorical and continuous process measures. We computed the standardized effect size for each outcome at the 95% confidence interval. The primary outcome of interest was health professionals' adoption of shared decision making as reported by patients in a self-administered questionnaire. Of the 6764 search results, 21 studies reported 35 relevant comparisons. Overall, the quality of the studies ranged from 0% to 83%. Only three of the 21 studies reported a clinically significant effect for the primary outcome that favored the intervention. The first study compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with another patient-mediated intervention (median improvement of 74%). The second compared an educational meeting, a patient-mediated intervention, and audit and feedback with an educational meeting on an alternative topic (improvement of 227%). The third compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with usual care (p = 0.003). All three studies were limited to the patient-physician dyad. To reduce bias, future studies should improve methods and reporting, and should analyze costs and benefits, including those associated with training of health professionals. Multifaceted interventions that include educating health professionals about sharing decisions with patients and patient-mediated interventions, such as patient decision aids, appear promising for improving health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice as seen by patients.

Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?

PubMed

Hoffmann, Tammy C; Légaré, France; Simmons, Magenta B; McNamara, Kevin; McCaffery, Kirsten; Trevena, Lyndal J; Hudson, Ben; Glasziou, Paul P; Del Mar, Christopher B

2014-07-07

Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently.

How Do Children Share Information in Groups?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gummerum, Michaela; Leman, Patrick J.; Hollins, Tara S.

2014-01-01

Group decision making should be particularly beneficial when group members share unique information, because then a group can make a better decision than each group member alone. This study examined how elementary-school children share unique information during group decision making. Seventy-nine groups of 3 same-sex and same-age 7- and 9-year-old…

Consultant psychiatrists’ experiences of and attitudes towards shared decision making in antipsychotic prescribing, a qualitative study

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Shared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications. Methods A qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes. Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought. Results A total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician’s beliefs regarding the service users’ insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors, financial constraints as well as societal perceptions of mental disorder in general and antipsychotic medication in particular. Conclusions This project has allowed identification of potential barriers to shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Further work is necessary to observe the decision making process in clinical practice and also to identify means in which the identified barriers, in particular ‘lack of insight’, may be more effectively managed. PMID:24886121

Consultant psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes towards shared decision making in antipsychotic prescribing, a qualitative study.

PubMed

Shepherd, Andrew; Shorthouse, Oliver; Gask, Linda

2014-05-01

Shared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications. A qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes.Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought. A total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician's beliefs regarding the service users' insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors, financial constraints as well as societal perceptions of mental disorder in general and antipsychotic medication in particular. This project has allowed identification of potential barriers to shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Further work is necessary to observe the decision making process in clinical practice and also to identify means in which the identified barriers, in particular 'lack of insight', may be more effectively managed.

Shared decision-making – transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

PubMed Central

Dolan, James G.

2008-01-01

Objective To illustrate how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to promote shared decision-making and enhance clinician-patient communication. Methods Tutorial review. Results The AHP promotes shared decision making by creating a framework that is used to define the decision, summarize the information available, prioritize information needs, elicit preferences and values, and foster meaningful communication among decision stakeholders. Conclusions The AHP and related multi-criteria methods have the potential for improving the quality of clinical decisions and overcoming current barriers to implementing shared decision making in busy clinical settings. Further research is needed to determine the best way to implement these tools and to determine their effectiveness. Practice Implications Many clinical decisions involve preference-based trade-offs between competing risks and benefits. The AHP is a well-developed method that provides a practical approach for improving patient-provider communication, clinical decision-making, and the quality of patient care in these situations. PMID:18760559

Factors influencing the surgical decision for the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis in a preference-based shared decision-making process.

PubMed

Kim, Ho-Joong; Park, Jae-Young; Kang, Kyoung-Tak; Chang, Bong-Soon; Lee, Choon-Ki; Yeom, Jin S

2015-02-01

In a preference-based shared decision-making system, several subjective and/or objective factors such as pain severity, degree of disability, and the radiological severity of canal stenosis may influence the final surgical decision for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, our understanding of the shared decision-making process and the significance of each factor remain primitive. In the present study, we aimed to investigate which factors influence the surgical decision for the treatment of LSS when using a preference-based, shared decision-making process. We included 555 patients, aged 45-80 years, who used a preference-based shared decision-making process and were treated conservatively or surgically for chronic leg and/or back pain caused by LSS from April 2012 to December 2012. Univariate and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association of surgical decision making with age, sex, body mass index, symptom duration, radiologic stenotic grade, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Short Form-36 (SF-36) subscales, and motor weakness. In univariate analysis, the following variables were associated with a higher odds of a surgical decision for LSS: male sex; the VAS score for leg pain; ODI; morphological stenotic grades B, C, and D; motor weakness; and the physical function, physical role, bodily pain, social function, and emotional role of the SF-36 subscales. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex, ODI, morphological stenotic grades C and D, and motor weakness were significantly associated with a higher possibility of a surgical decision. Motor weakness, male sex, morphological stenotic grade, and the amount of disability are critical factors leading to a surgical decision for LSS when using a preference-based shared decision-making process.

Shared decision making in mental health: the importance for current clinical practice.

PubMed

Alguera-Lara, Victoria; Dowsey, Michelle M; Ride, Jemimah; Kinder, Skye; Castle, David

2017-12-01

We reviewed the literature on shared decision making (regarding treatments in psychiatry), with a view to informing our understanding of the decision making process and the barriers that exist in clinical practice. Narrative review of published English-language articles. After culling, 18 relevant articles were included. Themes identified included models of psychiatric care, benefits for patients, and barriers. There is a paucity of published studies specifically related to antipsychotic medications. Shared decision making is a central part of the recovery paradigm and is of increasing importance in mental health service delivery. The field needs to better understand the basis on which decisions are reached regarding psychiatric treatments. Discrete choice experiments might be useful to inform the development of tools to assist shared decision making in psychiatry.

Moving towards shared decision making in the physician-patient encounter in France: State of the art and future prospects.

PubMed

Moumjid, Nora; Carretier, Julien; Marsico, Giovanna; Blot, François; Durif-Bruckert, Christine; Chauvin, Franck

2017-06-01

In this paper we present the evolution of shared decision making since the mid-nineties in terms of legislation, official statements and guidelines. We outline the goals and declarations of the French Ministry of Health and the French National Authority for Health, for whom informing patients and shared decision-making are central concerns. Finally, we discuss research projects and clinical initiatives in shared decision-making in France and provide a general overview of progress and barriers to progress. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Interventions to support shared decision-making for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review.

PubMed

Zandstra, D; Busser, J A S; Aarts, J W M; Nieboer, T E

2017-04-01

This review studies women's preferences for shared decision-making about heavy menstrual bleeding treatment and evaluates interventions that support shared decision-making and their effectiveness. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Three research questions were predefined: 1) What is the range of perspectives gathered in studies that examine women facing a decision related to heavy menstrual bleeding management?; 2) What types of interventions have been developed to support shared decision-making for women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding?; and 3) In what way might women benefit from interventions that support shared decision-making? All original studies were included if the study population consisted of women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding. We used the TIDieR (Template for Intervention: Description and Replication) checklist to assess the quality of description and the reproducibility of interventions. Interventions were categorized using Grande et al. guidelines and collated and summarized outcomes measures into three categories: 1) patient-reported outcomes; 2) observer-reported outcomes; and 3) doctor-reported outcomes. Fifteen studies were included. Overall, patients preferred to decide together with their doctor (74%). Women's previsit preference was the strongest predictor for treatment choice in two studies. Information packages did not have a statistically significant effect on treatment choice or satisfaction. However, adding a structured interview or decision aid to increase patient involvement did show a positive effect on treatment choice and results, patient satisfaction and shared decision-making related outcomes. In conclusion shared decision-making is becoming more important in the care of women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Structured interviews or well-designed (computerized) tools such as decision aids seem to facilitate this process, but there is room for improvement. A shared treatment choice is only possible after careful provision of information, elicitation of patients' preferences and integrating those preferences. Interventions should be designed accordingly. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Shared Decision Making in Local School Planning: An Urban School System's Experience.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Elenbogen, Janet C.; Hiestand, Nancy I.

The practices and perceptions of a shared planning team decision-making model and the effects on student achievement and attendance are examined in this study. Survey results, test scores, and background data on schools were utilized to analyze the relationships among the degree of shared decision-making and planning effectiveness ratings, student…

Improving shared decision-making in adolescents through antibiotic education.

PubMed

Ngadimon, I W; Islahudin, F; Mohamed Shah, N; Md Hatah, E; Makmor-Bakry, M

2017-02-01

Background Shared decision-making is vital in achieving desired drug therapy goals, especially with antibiotics, in view of the potential long-term reduction in drug resistance. However, shared decision-making is rarely practiced with adolescent patients. Objectives The aim of the study was to identify the effect antibiotic education has on willingness to engage in shared decision-making among adolescents in Malaysia. Setting Participants from secondary schools in Malaysia were enrolled with ethical approval. Method The adolescents answered a validated questionnaire, which included demographics, antibiotic knowledge, attitude towards antibiotic use, and the Control Preference Scale, which measures willingness to engage in shared decision-making. Afterwards, antibiotic education was delivered to participating students. Main outcome measure Knowledge about and attitude toward antibiotics were investigated. Results A total of 510 adolescents participated in the study. Knowledge of antibiotics significantly increased post education (pre 3.2 ± 1.8 vs. post 6.8 ± 2.1, p < 0.001), as did attitude score (pre 3.3 ± 1.7 vs. post 5.4 ± 1.9, p = 0.003). Interestingly, adolescents were less likely to be passively involved in shared decision-making post education (χ = 36.9, df = 2, p < 0.001). Adolescents who were more collaborative in shared decision-making had a significantly higher total antibiotics knowledge and attitude scores compared to those who were not collaborative (p = 0.003). Conclusion The present work demonstrates that antibiotic education improves knowledge, attitude, and willingness to engage in shared decision-making among adolescents. Antibiotic education can therefore be introduced as a strategy to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use.

'My kidneys, my choice, decision aid': supporting shared decision making.

PubMed

Fortnum, Debbie; Smolonogov, Tatiana; Walker, Rachael; Kairaitis, Luke; Pugh, Debbie

2015-06-01

For patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are progressing to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) a decision of whether to undertake dialysis or conservative care is a critical component of the patient journey. Shared decision making for complex decisions such as this could be enhanced by a decision aid, a practice which is well utilised in other disciplines but limited for nephrology. A multidisciplinary team in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) utilised current decision-making theory and best practice to develop the 'My Kidneys, My Choice', a decision aid for the treatment of kidney disease. A patient-centred, five-sectioned tool is now complete and freely available to all ANZ units to support the ESKD education and shared decision-making process. Distribution and education have occurred across ANZ and evaluation of the decision aid in practice is in the first phase. Development of a new tool such as an ESKD decision aid requires vision, multidisciplinary input and ongoing implementation resources. This tool is being integrated into ANZ, ESKD education practice and is promoting the philosophy of shared decision making. © 2014 European Dialysis and Transplant Nurses Association/European Renal Care Association.

Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making.

PubMed

Epstein, Ronald Mark

2013-02-01

To review the theory, research evidence and ethical implications regarding "whole mind" and "shared mind" in clinical practice in the context of chronic and serious illnesses. Selective critical review of the intersection of classical and naturalistic decision-making theories, cognitive neuroscience, communication research and ethics as they apply to decision-making and autonomy. Decision-making involves analytic thinking as well as affect and intuition ("whole mind") and sharing cognitive and affective schemas of two or more individuals ("shared mind"). Social relationships can help processing of complex information that otherwise would overwhelm individuals' cognitive capacities. Medical decision-making research, teaching and practice should consider both analytic and non-analytic cognitive processes. Further, research should consider that decisions emerge not only from the individual perspectives of patients, their families and clinicians, but also the perspectives that emerge from the interactions among them. Social interactions have the potential to enhance individual autonomy, as well as to promote relational autonomy based on shared frames of reference. Shared mind has the potential to result in wiser decisions, greater autonomy and self-determination; yet, clinicians and patients should be vigilant for the potential of hierarchical relationships to foster coercion or silencing of the patient's voice. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Shared decision-making in medical encounters regarding breast cancer treatment: the contribution of methodological triangulation.

PubMed

Durif-Bruckert, C; Roux, P; Morelle, M; Mignotte, H; Faure, C; Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, N

2015-07-01

The aim of this study on shared decision-making in the doctor-patient encounter about surgical treatment for early-stage breast cancer, conducted in a regional cancer centre in France, was to further the understanding of patient perceptions on shared decision-making. The study used methodological triangulation to collect data (both quantitative and qualitative) about patient preferences in the context of a clinical consultation in which surgeons followed a shared decision-making protocol. Data were analysed from a multi-disciplinary research perspective (social psychology and health economics). The triangulated data collection methods were questionnaires (n = 132), longitudinal interviews (n = 47) and observations of consultations (n = 26). Methodological triangulation revealed levels of divergence and complementarity between qualitative and quantitative results that suggest new perspectives on the three inter-related notions of decision-making, participation and information. Patients' responses revealed important differences between shared decision-making and participation per se. The authors note that subjecting patients to a normative behavioural model of shared decision-making in an era when paradigms of medical authority are shifting may undermine the patient's quest for what he or she believes is a more important right: a guarantee of the best care available. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

How is shared decision-making defined among African-Americans with diabetes?

PubMed

Peek, Monica E; Quinn, Michael T; Gorawara-Bhat, Rita; Odoms-Young, Angela; Wilson, Shannon C; Chin, Marshall H

2008-09-01

This study investigates how shared decision-making (SDM) is defined by African-American patients with diabetes, and compares patients' conceptualization of SDM with the Charles model. We utilized race-concordant interviewers/moderators to conduct in-depth interviews and focus groups among a purposeful sample of African-American patients with diabetes. Each interview/focus group was audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and imported into Atlas.ti software. Coding was done using an iterative process and each transcription was independently coded by two members of the research team. Although the conceptual domains were similar, patient definitions of what it means to "share" in the decision-making process differed significantly from the Charles model of SDM. Patients stressed the value of being able to "tell their story and be heard" by physicians, emphasized the importance of information sharing rather than decision-making sharing, and included an acceptable role for non-adherence as a mechanism to express control and act on treatment preferences. Current instruments may not accurately measure decision-making preferences of African-American patients with diabetes. Future research should develop instruments to effectively measure decision-making preferences within this population. Emphasizing information-sharing that validates patients' experiences may be particularly meaningful to African-Americans with diabetes.

Shared Decision Making--The First Year.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rothstein, Richard

This report summarizes an evaluation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in Los Angeles (California) schools and also includes some comments about School Based Management (SBM). SDM is a democratization of local school decision making that delegates decisions formerly made by principals to local school leadership councils composed of teachers,…

Finding shared decisions in stakeholder networks: An agent-based approach

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Le Pira, Michela; Inturri, Giuseppe; Ignaccolo, Matteo; Pluchino, Alessandro; Rapisarda, Andrea

2017-01-01

We address the problem of a participatory decision-making process where a shared priority list of alternatives has to be obtained while avoiding inconsistent decisions. An agent-based model (ABM) is proposed to mimic this process in different social networks of stakeholders who interact according to an opinion dynamics model. Simulations' results show the efficacy of interaction in finding a transitive and, above all, shared decision. These findings are in agreement with real participation experiences regarding transport planning decisions and can give useful suggestions on how to plan an effective participation process for sustainable policy-making based on opinion consensus.

Shared Decision-Making and Patient Empowerment in Preventive Cardiology.

PubMed

Kambhampati, Swetha; Ashvetiya, Tamara; Stone, Neil J; Blumenthal, Roger S; Martin, Seth S

2016-05-01

Shared decision-making, central to evidence-based medicine and good patient care, begins and ends with the patient. It is the process by which a clinician and a patient jointly make a health decision after discussing options, potential benefits and harms, and considering the patient's values and preferences. Patient empowerment is crucial to shared decision-making and occurs when a patient accepts responsibility for his or her health. They can then learn to solve their own problems with information and support from professionals. Patient empowerment begins with the provider acknowledging that patients are ultimately in control of their care and aims to increase a patient's capacity to think critically and make autonomous, informed decisions about their health. This article explores the various components of shared decision-making in scenarios such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, heart failure, and diabetes. It explores barriers and the potential for improving medication adherence, disease awareness, and self-management of chronic disease.

Shared Mind: Communication, Decision Making, and Autonomy in Serious Illness

PubMed Central

Epstein, Ronald M.; Street, Richard L.

2011-01-01

In the context of serious illness, individuals usually rely on others to help them think and feel their way through difficult decisions. To help us to understand why, when, and how individuals involve trusted others in sharing information, deliberation, and decision making, we offer the concept of shared mind—ways in which new ideas and perspectives can emerge through the sharing of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, meanings, and intentions among 2 or more people. We consider how shared mind manifests in relationships and organizations in general, building on studies of collaborative cognition, attunement, and sensemaking. Then, we explore how shared mind might be promoted through communication, when appropriate, and the implications of shared mind for decision making and patient autonomy. Next, we consider a continuum of patient-centered approaches to patient-clinician interactions. At one end of the continuum, an interactional approach promotes knowing the patient as a person, tailoring information, constructing preferences, achieving consensus, and promoting relational autonomy. At the other end, a transactional approach focuses on knowledge about the patient, information-as-commodity, negotiation, consent, and individual autonomy. Finally, we propose that autonomy and decision making should consider not only the individual perspectives of patients, their families, and members of the health care team, but also the perspectives that emerge from the interactions among them. By drawing attention to shared mind, clinicians can observe in what ways they can promote it through bidirectional sharing of information and engaging in shared deliberation. PMID:21911765

Shared mind: communication, decision making, and autonomy in serious illness.

PubMed

Epstein, Ronald M; Street, Richard L

2011-01-01

In the context of serious illness, individuals usually rely on others to help them think and feel their way through difficult decisions. To help us to understand why, when, and how individuals involve trusted others in sharing information, deliberation, and decision making, we offer the concept of shared mind-ways in which new ideas and perspectives can emerge through the sharing of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, meanings, and intentions among 2 or more people. We consider how shared mind manifests in relationships and organizations in general, building on studies of collaborative cognition, attunement, and sensemaking. Then, we explore how shared mind might be promoted through communication, when appropriate, and the implications of shared mind for decision making and patient autonomy. Next, we consider a continuum of patient-centered approaches to patient-clinician interactions. At one end of the continuum, an interactional approach promotes knowing the patient as a person, tailoring information, constructing preferences, achieving consensus, and promoting relational autonomy. At the other end, a transactional approach focuses on knowledge about the patient, information-as-commodity, negotiation, consent, and individual autonomy. Finally, we propose that autonomy and decision making should consider not only the individual perspectives of patients, their families, and members of the health care team, but also the perspectives that emerge from the interactions among them. By drawing attention to shared mind, clinicians can observe in what ways they can promote it through bidirectional sharing of information and engaging in shared deliberation.

Cultural Challenges to Engaging Patients in Shared Decision Making

PubMed Central

Hawley, Sarah T.; Morris, Arden M.

2016-01-01

Objective Engaging patients in their health care through shared decision-making is a priority embraced by several national and international groups. Missing from these initiatives is an understanding of the challenges involved in engaging patients from diverse backgrounds in shared decision-making. In this commentary, we summarize some of the challenges and pose points for consideration regarding how to move toward more culturally appropriate shared decision-making. Discussion The past decade has seen repeated calls for health policies, research projects and interventions that more actively include patients in decision making. Yet research has shown that patients from different racial/ethnic and cultural backgrounds appraise their decision making process less positively than do white, U.S.-born patients who are the current demographic majority. Conclusion While preliminary conceptual frameworks have been proposed for considering the role of race/ethnicity and culture in healthcare utilization, we maintain that more foundational and empirical work is necessary. We offer recommendations for how to best involve patients early in treatment and how to maximize decision making in the way most meaningful to patients. Innovative and sustained efforts are needed to educate and train providers to communicate effectively in engaging patients in informed, shared decision-making and to provide culturally competent health care. PMID:27461943

Cultural challenges to engaging patients in shared decision making.

PubMed

Hawley, Sarah T; Morris, Arden M

2017-01-01

Engaging patients in their health care through shared decision-making is a priority embraced by several national and international groups. Missing from these initiatives is an understanding of the challenges involved in engaging patients from diverse backgrounds in shared decision-making. In this commentary, we summarize some of the challenges and pose points for consideration regarding how to move toward more culturally appropriate shared decision-making. The past decade has seen repeated calls for health policies, research projects and interventions that more actively include patients in decision making. Yet research has shown that patients from different racial/ethnic and cultural backgrounds appraise their decision making process less positively than do white, U.S.-born patients who are the current demographic majority. While preliminary conceptual frameworks have been proposed for considering the role of race/ethnicity and culture in healthcare utilization, we maintain that more foundational and empirical work is necessary. We offer recommendations for how to best involve patients early in treatment and how to maximize decision making in the way most meaningful to patients. Innovative and sustained efforts are needed to educate and train providers to communicate effectively in engaging patients in informed, shared decision-making and to provide culturally competent health care. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Development of a Shared Decision Making coding system for analysis of patient-healthcare provider encounters

PubMed Central

Clayman, Marla L.; Makoul, Gregory; Harper, Maya M.; Koby, Danielle G.; Williams, Adam R.

2012-01-01

Objectives Describe the development and refinement of a scheme, Detail of Essential Elements and Participants in Shared Decision Making (DEEP-SDM), for coding Shared Decision Making (SDM) while reporting on the characteristics of decisions in a sample of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods The Evidence-Based Patient Choice instrument was modified to reflect Makoul and Clayman’s Integrative Model of SDM. Coding was conducted on video recordings of 20 women at the first visit with their medical oncologists after suspicion of disease progression. Noldus Observer XT v.8, a video coding software platform, was used for coding. Results The sample contained 80 decisions (range: 1-11), divided into 150 decision making segments. Most decisions were physician-led, although patients and physicians initiated similar numbers of decision-making conversations. Conclusion DEEP-SDM facilitates content analysis of encounters between women with metastatic breast cancer and their medical oncologists. Despite the fractured nature of decision making, it is possible to identify decision points and to code each of the Essential Elements of Shared Decision Making. Further work should include application of DEEP-SDM to non-cancer encounters. Practice Implications: A better understanding of how decisions unfold in the medical encounter can help inform the relationship of SDM to patient-reported outcomes. PMID:22784391

Consumer satisfaction with psychiatric services: The role of shared decision making and the therapeutic relationship.

PubMed

Klingaman, Elizabeth A; Medoff, Deborah R; Park, Stephanie G; Brown, Clayton H; Fang, Lijuan; Dixon, Lisa B; Hack, Samantha M; Tapscott, Stephanie L; Walsh, Mary Brighid; Kreyenbuhl, Julie A

2015-09-01

Although dissatisfaction is a primary reason for disengagement from outpatient psychiatric care among consumers with serious mental illnesses, little is known about predictors of their satisfaction with medication management visits. The primary purpose of this study was to explore how dimensions of consumer preferences for shared decision making (i.e., preferences for obtaining knowledge about one's mental illness, being offered and asked one's opinion about treatment options, and involvement in treatment decisions) and the therapeutic relationship (i.e., positive collaboration and type of clinician input) were related to visit satisfaction. Participants were 228 Veterans with serious mental illnesses who completed a 19-item self-report questionnaire assessing satisfaction with visits to prescribers (524 assessments) immediately after visits. In this correlational design, a 3-level mixed model with the restricted maximum likelihood estimation procedure was used to examine shared decision-making preferences and therapeutic alliance as predictors of visit satisfaction. Preferences for involvement in treatment decisions was the unique component of shared decision making associated with satisfaction, such that the more consumers desired involvement, the less satisfied they were. Positive collaboration and prescriber input were associated with greater visit satisfaction. When consumers with serious mental illnesses express preferences to be involved in shared decision making, it may not be sufficient to only provide information and treatment options; prescribers should attend to consumers' interest in involvement in actual treatment decisions. Assessment and tailoring of treatment approaches to consumer preferences for shared decision making should occur within the context of a strong therapeutic relationship. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Association of a traditional vs shared meal decision-making and preparation style with eating behavior of Hispanic women in San Diego County.

PubMed

Arredondo, Elva M; Elder, John P; Ayala, Guadalupe X; Slymen, Donald; Campbell, Nadia R

2006-01-01

To examine the influence of meal decision-making and preparation on Hispanic women's dietary practices. One-on-one structured interviews were conducted, assessing meal decision-making and preparation practices, barriers, and behavioral strategies to eating low-fat and high-fiber diets, fat and fiber intake, demographic, and other psychosocial factors. The study population included 357 Hispanic women living in the southern or central regions of San Diego County. Participants were recruited via random-digit dialing to a tailored nutrition communication intervention. Household decision-making style (alone vs with family) by household activity (decides meals, prepares meals, and decides snacks). Multiple logistic regressions were used to evaluate associations between the predictors and dependent variable. All models included adjustments for potential confounders, such as marital status, education, employment, age, and acculturation. A positive statistical association between Hispanic women's acculturation level and shared decision-making style was found. Also, Hispanic women in shared decision-making households faced greater psychosocial barriers to healthful eating and reported less healthful eating compared with Hispanic women in traditional households. Women in shared decision-making households were more likely to eat at fast-food restaurants, less likely to engage in behavioral strategies promoting fiber consumption, eat more saturated fat, and encounter more barriers to reduce dietary fat as compared with Hispanic women in traditional households. Acculturation did not attenuate differences in psychosocial and dietary practices between shared decision-making and traditional households. Study findings suggest intervention efforts should focus on different aspects of healthful eating among Hispanic women in shared-decision, compared with traditional, households.

Developing and pilot testing a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice.

PubMed

Finderup, Jeanette; Jensen, Jens K D; Lomborg, Kirsten

2018-04-17

Evidence is inconclusive on how best to guide the patient in decision-making around haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis choice. International guidelines recommend involvement of the patient in the decision to choose the dialysis modality most suitable for the individual patient. Nevertheless, studies have shown lack of involvement of the patient in decision-making. To develop and pilot test an intervention for shared decision-making targeting the choice of dialysis modality. This study reflects the first two phases of a complex intervention design: phase 1, the development process and phase 2, feasibility and piloting. Because decision aids were a part of the intervention, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards were considered. The pilot test included both the intervention and the feasibility of the validated shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM Q9) and the Decision Quality Measure (DQM) applied to evaluate the intervention. A total of 137 patients tested the intervention. After the intervention, 80% of the patients chose dialysis at home reflecting an increase of 23% in starting dialysis at home prior to the study. The SDM Q9 showed the majority of the patients experienced this intervention as shared decision-making. An intervention based on shared decision-making supported by decision aids seemed to increase the number of patients choosing home dialysis. The SDM Q9 and DQM were feasible evaluation tools. Further research is needed to gain insight into the patients' experiences of involvement and the implications for their choice of dialysis modality. © 2018 European Dialysis and Transplant Nurses Association/European Renal Care Association.

Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice.

PubMed

Sandman, Lars; Munthe, Christian

2010-03-01

In patient centred care, shared decision making is a central feature and widely referred to as a norm for patient centred medical consultation. However, it is far from clear how to distinguish SDM from standard models and ideals for medical decision making, such as paternalism and patient choice, and e.g., whether paternalism and patient choice can involve a greater degree of the sort of sharing involved in SDM and still retain their essential features. In the article, different versions of SDM are explored, versions compatible with paternalism and patient choice as well as versions that go beyond these traditional decision making models. Whenever SDM is discussed or introduced it is of importance to be clear over which of these different versions are being pursued, since they connect to basic values and ideals of health care in different ways. It is further argued that we have reason to pursue versions of SDM involving, what is called, a high level dynamics in medical decision-making. This leaves four alternative models to choose between depending on how we balance between the values of patient best interest, patient autonomy, and an effective decision in terms of patient compliance or adherence: Shared Rational Deliberative Patient Choice, Shared Rational Deliberative Paternalism, Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision, and Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise. In relation to these models it is argued that we ideally should use the Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision model. However, when the patient and professional fail to reach consensus we will have reason to pursue the Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise model since this will best harmonise between the different values at stake: patient best interest, patient autonomy, patient adherence and a continued care relationship.

Enhancing Group Decision Making: An Exercise to Reduce Shared Information Bias

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Baker, Diane F.

2010-01-01

Research on shared information bias has shown that group members involved in a decision-making task tend to undervalue information that a single member shares with the group, especially when that information conflicts with their prior conclusions. The group activity in this article is intended to heighten awareness of this shared information bias…

Stroke: advances in medical therapy and acute stroke intervention.

PubMed

Barrett, Kevin M; Lal, Brajesh K; Meschia, James F

2015-10-01

Evidence-based therapeutic options for stroke continue to emerge based on results from well-designed clinical studies. Ischemic stroke far exceeds hemorrhagic stroke in terms of prevalence and incidence, both in the USA and worldwide. The public health effect of reducing death and disability related to ischemic stroke justifies the resources that have been invested in identifying safe and effective treatments. The emergence of novel oral anticoagulants for ischemic stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has introduced complexity to clinical decision making for patients with this common cardiac arrhythmia. Some accepted ischemic stroke preventative strategies, such as carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, require reassessment, given advances in risk factor management, antithrombotic therapy, and surgical techniques. Intra-arterial therapy, particularly with stent retrievers after intravenous tissue plasminogen activator, has recently been demonstrated to improve functional outcomes and will require investment in system-based care models to ensure that effective treatments are received by patients in a timely fashion. The purpose of this review is to describe recent advances in medical and surgical approaches to ischemic stroke prevention and acute treatment. Results from recently published clinical trials will be highlighted along with ongoing clinical trials addressing key questions in ischemic stroke management and prevention where equipoise remains.

The effect of simulated narratives that leverage EMR data on shared decision-making: a pilot study.

PubMed

Zeng-Treitler, Qing; Gibson, Bryan; Hill, Brent; Butler, Jorie; Christensen, Carrie; Redd, Douglas; Shao, Yijun; Bray, Bruce

2016-07-22

Shared decision-making can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. To participate in shared decision-making, patients need information about the potential risks and benefits of treatment options. Our team has developed a novel prototype tool for shared decision-making called hearts like mine (HLM) that leverages EHR data to provide personalized information to patients regarding potential outcomes of different treatments. These potential outcomes are presented through an Icon array and/or simulated narratives for each "person" in the display. In this pilot project we sought to determine whether the inclusion of simulated narratives in the display affects individuals' decision-making. Thirty subjects participated in this block-randomized study in which they used a version of HLM with simulated narratives and a version without (or in the opposite order) to make a hypothetical therapeutic decision. After each decision, participants completed a questionnaire that measured decisional confidence. We used Chi square tests to compare decisions across conditions and Mann-Whitney U tests to examine the effects of narratives on decisional confidence. Finally, we calculated the mean of subjects' post-experiment rating of whether narratives were helpful in their decision-making. In this study, there was no effect of simulated narratives on treatment decisions (decision 1: Chi squared = 0, p = 1.0; decision 2: Chi squared = 0.574, p = 0.44) or Decisional confidence (decision 1, w = 105.5, p = 0.78; decision 2, w = 86.5, p = 0.28). Post-experiment, participants reported that narratives helped them to make decisions (mean = 3.3/4). We found that simulated narratives had no measurable effect on decisional confidence or decisions and most participants felt that the narratives were helpful to them in making therapeutic decisions. The use of simulated stories holds promise for promoting shared decision-making while minimizing their potential biasing effect.

Antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of imminent preterm birth in low-resource countries: the case for equipoise and the need for efficacy trials.

PubMed

Vogel, Joshua P; Oladapo, Olufemi T; Pileggi-Castro, Cynthia; Adejuyigbe, Ebunoluwa A; Althabe, Fernando; Ariff, Shabina; Ayede, Adejumoke Idowu; Baqui, Abdullah H; Costello, Anthony; Chikamata, Davy M; Crowther, Caroline; Fawole, Bukola; Gibbons, Luz; Jobe, Alan H; Kapasa, Monica Lulu; Kinuthia, John; Kriplani, Alka; Kuti, Oluwafemi; Neilson, James; Patterson, Janna; Piaggio, Gilda; Qureshi, Rahat; Qureshi, Zahida; Sankar, Mari Jeeva; Stringer, Jeffrey S A; Temmerman, Marleen; Yunis, Khalid; Bahl, Rajiv; Metin Gülmezoglu, A

2017-01-01

The scientific basis for antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) for women at risk of preterm birth has rapidly changed in recent years. Two landmark trials-the Antenatal Corticosteroid Trial and the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids Trial-have challenged the long-held assumptions on the comparative health benefits and harms regarding the use of ACS for preterm birth across all levels of care and contexts, including resource-limited settings. Researchers, clinicians, programme managers, policymakers and donors working in low-income and middle-income countries now face challenging questions of whether, where and how ACS can be used to optimise outcomes for both women and preterm newborns. In this article, we briefly present an appraisal of the current evidence around ACS, how these findings informed WHO's current recommendations on ACS use, and the knowledge gaps that have emerged in the light of new trial evidence. Critical considerations in the generalisability of the available evidence demonstrate that a true state of clinical equipoise exists for this treatment option in low-resource settings. An expert group convened by WHO concluded that there is a clear need for more efficacy trials of ACS in these settings to inform clinical practice.

The Evolution of an Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Research Program: Reflective Case Study of an Emerging Paradigm

PubMed Central

Menear, Matthew; Stacey, Dawn; Brière, Nathalie; Légaré, France

2016-01-01

Introduction: Healthcare research increasingly focuses on interprofessional collaboration and on shared decision making, but knowledge gaps remain about effective strategies for implementing interprofessional collaboration and shared decision-making together in clinical practice. We used Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions to reflect on how an integrated interprofessional shared decision-making approach was developed and implemented over time. Methods: In 2007, an interdisciplinary team initiated a new research program to promote the implementation of an interprofessional shared decision-making approach in clinical settings. For this reflective case study, two new team members analyzed the team’s four projects, six research publications, one unpublished and two published protocols and organized them into recognizable phases according to Kuhn’s theory. Results: The merging of two young disciplines led to challenges characteristic of emerging paradigms. Implementation of interprofessional shared-decision making was hindered by a lack of conceptual clarity, a dearth of theories and models, little methodological guidance, and insufficient evaluation instruments. The team developed a new model, identified new tools, and engaged knowledge users in a theory-based approach to implementation. However, several unresolved challenges remain. Discussion: This reflective case study sheds light on the evolution of interdisciplinary team science. It offers new approaches to implementing emerging knowledge in the clinical context. PMID:28435417

The Evolution of an Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Research Program: Reflective Case Study of an Emerging Paradigm.

PubMed

Dogba, Maman Joyce; Menear, Matthew; Stacey, Dawn; Brière, Nathalie; Légaré, France

2016-07-19

Healthcare research increasingly focuses on interprofessional collaboration and on shared decision making, but knowledge gaps remain about effective strategies for implementing interprofessional collaboration and shared decision-making together in clinical practice. We used Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions to reflect on how an integrated interprofessional shared decision-making approach was developed and implemented over time. In 2007, an interdisciplinary team initiated a new research program to promote the implementation of an interprofessional shared decision-making approach in clinical settings. For this reflective case study, two new team members analyzed the team's four projects, six research publications, one unpublished and two published protocols and organized them into recognizable phases according to Kuhn's theory. The merging of two young disciplines led to challenges characteristic of emerging paradigms. Implementation of interprofessional shared-decision making was hindered by a lack of conceptual clarity, a dearth of theories and models, little methodological guidance, and insufficient evaluation instruments. The team developed a new model, identified new tools, and engaged knowledge users in a theory-based approach to implementation. However, several unresolved challenges remain. This reflective case study sheds light on the evolution of interdisciplinary team science. It offers new approaches to implementing emerging knowledge in the clinical context.

Medication decision making and patient outcomes in GP, nurse and pharmacist prescriber consultations.

PubMed

Weiss, Marjorie C; Platt, Jo; Riley, Ruth; Chewning, Betty; Taylor, Gordon; Horrocks, Susan; Taylor, Andrea

2015-09-01

Aim The aims of this study were twofold: (a) to explore whether specific components of shared decision making were present in consultations involving nurse prescribers (NPs), pharmacist prescribers (PPs) and general practitioners (GPs) and (b) to relate these to self-reported patient outcomes including satisfaction, adherence and patient perceptions of practitioner empathy. There are a range of ways for defining and measuring the process of concordance, or shared decision making as it relates to decisions about medicines. As a result, demonstrating a convincing link between shared decision making and patient benefit is challenging. In the United Kingdom, nurses and pharmacists can now take on a prescribing role, engaging in shared decision making. Given the different professional backgrounds of GPs, NPs and PPs, this study sought to explore the process of shared decision making across these three prescriber groups. Analysis of audio-recordings of consultations in primary care in South England between patients and GPs, NPs and PPs. Analysis of patient questionnaires completed post consultation. Findings A total of 532 consultations were audio-recorded with 20 GPs, 19 NPs and 12 PPs. Prescribing decisions occurred in 421 (79%). Patients were given treatment options in 21% (102/482) of decisions, the prescriber elicited the patient's treatment preference in 18% (88/482) and the patient expressed a treatment preference in 24% (118/482) of decisions. PPs were more likely to ask for the patient's preference about their treatment regimen (χ 2=6.6, P=0.036, Cramer's V=0.12) than either NPs or GPs. Of the 275 patient questionnaires, 192(70%) could be matched with a prescribing decision. NP patients had higher satisfaction levels than patients of GPs or PPs. More time describing treatment options was associated with increased satisfaction, adherence and greater perceived practitioner empathy. While defining, measuring and enabling the process of shared decision making remains challenging, it may have patient benefit.

Perspectives of adolescents on decision making about participation in a biobank study: a pilot study.

PubMed

Grootens-Wiegers, Petronella; Visser, Eline G; van Rossum, Annemarie M C; van Waardhuizen, Claudia N; de Wildt, Saskia N; Sweep, Boudewijn; van den Broek, Jos M; de Vries, Martine C

2017-01-01

To be able to truly involve adolescents in decision making about clinical research participation, we need more insight in the perspective of adolescents themselves. To this end, adolescents in an ongoing biobank study were consulted to test a tentative decision assessment tool. The perspectives of adolescents (n=8) concerning participation in decision making for research participation were explored in interviews with a tentative tool, which covered six topics: information material usage, understanding, disease perceptions, anxiety, decision-making process and role sharing. All adolescents unequivocally expressed the desire to be involved in decision making, but also wanted advice from their parents. The extent of the preferred role of adolescent versus parents varied between individuals. In decision making, adolescents relied on parents for information. More than half hardly used the information material. Adolescents in our study preferred a shared decision-making process. The extent of sharing varied between individuals. The decision assessment tool was a fruitful starting point to discuss adolescents' perspectives and may aid in tailoring the situation to the individual to achieve optimal participation practices. Consulting adolescents about their preferences concerning decision making using the tool will facilitate tailoring of the shared decision-making process and optimising the developing autonomy of minors.

The Choice Project: Peer Workers Promoting Shared Decision Making at a Youth Mental Health Service.

PubMed

Simmons, Magenta Bender; Batchelor, Samantha; Dimopoulos-Bick, Tara; Howe, Deb

2017-08-01

In youth mental health services, consumer participation is essential, but few implementation strategies exist to engage young consumers. This project evaluated an intervention implemented in an Australian youth mental health service that utilized peer workers to promote shared decision making via an online tool. All new clients ages 16-25 were invited to participate in this nonrandomized comparative study, which used a historical comparison group (N=80). Intervention participants (N=149) engaged with a peer worker and used the online tool before and during their intake assessment. Pre- and postintake data were collected for both groups; measures included decisional conflict, perceived shared decision making, and satisfaction. A series of paired t tests, analyses of variance, and multiple regressions were conducted to assess differences in scores across intervention and comparison groups and pre- and postintake assessments. Ratings of perceived shared decision making with intake workers were higher in the intervention group than in the comparison group (p=.015). In both groups, decisional conflict scores were significantly lower after the intake assessment (p<.001 for both groups). Both perceived shared decision making and lower decisional conflict were associated with satisfaction (p<.015). Young people who participated in an intervention that combined peer work and shared decision making reported feeling more involved in their assessment. Feeling involved and having lower decisional conflict after seeing an intake worker were important for client satisfaction. These findings demonstrate the importance of both peer work and shared decision making for promoting optimal outcomes in youth mental health services.

Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared decision making (DATES): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Clinicians face challenges in promoting colorectal cancer screening due to multiple competing demands. A decision aid that clarifies patient preferences and improves decision quality can aid shared decision making and be effective at increasing colorectal cancer screening rates. However, exactly how such an intervention improves shared decision making is unclear. This study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, seeks to provide detailed understanding of how an interactive decision aid that elicits patient’s risks and preferences impacts patient-clinician communication and shared decision making, and ultimately colorectal cancer screening adherence. Methods/Design This is a two-armed single-blinded randomized controlled trial with the target of 300 patients per arm. The setting is eleven community and three academic primary care practices in Metro Detroit. Patients are men and women aged between 50 and 75 years who are not up to date on colorectal cancer screening. ColoDATES Web (intervention arm), a decision aid that incorporates interactive personal risk assessment and preference clarification tools, is compared to a non-interactive website that matches ColoDATES Web in content but does not contain interactive tools (control arm). Primary outcomes are patient uptake of colorectal cancer screening; patient decision quality (knowledge, preference clarification, intent); clinician’s degree of shared decision making; and patient-clinician concordance in the screening test chosen. Secondary outcome incorporates a Structural Equation Modeling approach to understand the mechanism of the causal pathway and test the validity of the proposed conceptual model based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Clinicians and those performing the analysis are blinded to arms. Discussion The central hypothesis is that ColoDATES Web will improve colorectal cancer screening adherence through improvement in patient behavioral factors, shared decision making between the patient and the clinician, and concordance between the patient’s and clinician’s preferred colorectal cancer screening test. The results of this study will be among the first to examine the effect of a real-time preference assessment exercise on colorectal cancer screening and mediators, and, in doing so, will shed light on the patient-clinician communication and shared decision making ‘black box’ that currently exists between the delivery of decision aids to patients and subsequent patient behavior. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01514786 PMID:24216139

Shared decision-making in an intercultural context. Barriers in the interaction between physicians and immigrant patients.

PubMed

Suurmond, Jeanine; Seeleman, Conny

2006-02-01

The objective of this exploratory paper is to describe several barriers in shared decision-making in an intercultural context. Based on the prevailing literature on intercultural communication in medical settings, four conceptual barriers were described. When the conceptual barriers were described, they were compared with the results from semi-structured interviews with purposively selected physicians (n = 18) and immigrant patients (n = 13). Physicians differed in medical discipline (GPs, company doctors, an internist, a cardiologist, a gynaecologist, and an intern) and patients had different ethnic and immigration backgrounds. The following barriers were found: (1) physician and patient may not share the same linguistic background; (2) physician and patient may not share similar values about health and illness; (3) physician and patient may not have similar role expectations; and (4) physician and patient may have prejudices and do not speak to each other in an unbiased manner. We conclude that due to these barriers, the transfer of information, the formulation of the diagnosis, and the discussion of treatment options are at stake and the shared decision-making process is impeded. Improving physician's skills to recognize the communication limitations during shared decision-making as well as improving the skills to deal with the barriers may help to ameliorate shared decision-making in an intercultural setting.

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences.

PubMed

Elwyn, Glyn; Frosch, Dominick L; Kobrin, Sarah

2016-08-08

The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences. To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence. We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.

Consumer Satisfaction with Psychiatric Services: The Role of Shared Decision-Making and the Therapeutic Relationship

PubMed Central

Klingaman, Elizabeth A.; Medoff, Deborah R.; Park, Stephanie G.; Brown, Clayton H.; Fang, Lijuan; Dixon, Lisa B.; Hack, Samantha M.; Tapscott, Stephanie L.; Walsh, Mary Brighid; Kreyenbuhl, Julie A.

2017-01-01

Objective Although dissatisfaction is a primary reason for disengagement from outpatient psychiatric care among consumers with serious mental illnesses, little is known about predictors of their satisfaction with medication management visits. The primary purpose of the present study was to explore how dimensions of consumer preferences for shared decision-making (i.e., preferences for obtaining knowledge about one’s mental illness, being offered and asked one’s opinion about treatment options, and involvement in treatment decisions) and the therapeutic relationship (i.e., positive collaboration and type of clinician input) were related to visit satisfaction. Methods Participants were 228 Veterans with serious mental illnesses who completed a 19-item self-report questionnaire assessing satisfaction with visits to prescribers (n=524 assessments) immediately after visits. In this correlational design, a 3-level mixed model with the restricted maximum likelihood estimation procedure was used to examine shared decision-making preferences and therapeutic alliance as predictors of visit satisfaction. Results Preferences for involvement in treatment decisions was the unique component of shared decision-making associated with satisfaction, such that the more consumers desired involvement, the less satisfied they were. Positive collaboration and prescriber input were associated with greater visit satisfaction. Conclusions and Implications for Practice When consumers with serious mental illnesses express preferences to be involved in shared decision-making, it may not be sufficient to only provide information and treatment options; prescribers should attend to consumers’ interest in involvement in actual treatment decisions. Assessment and tailoring of treatment approaches to consumer preferences for shared decision-making should occur within the context of a strong therapeutic relationship. PMID:25664755

Working in partnership: the application of shared decision-making to health visitor practice.

PubMed

Astbury, Ruth; Shepherd, Ashley; Cheyne, Helen

2017-01-01

To explore the processes that support shared decision-making when health visitors and parents are creating plans to improve the well-being of babies and children. Worldwide, there is a focus on promoting children's well-being to enhance the population health. Within the United Kingdom, health visitors have a key responsibility for working in partnership with parents to support this agenda. Despite evidence that the application of 'shared decision-making' frameworks can increase patient participation, improve patient satisfaction and improve health outcomes, there is limited research linking shared decision-making with health visitor practice. A qualitative, descriptive study. The study was undertaken in two phases: in Phase 1, data were collected by audio recording two health visitor-parent decision-making conversations, in the absence of the researcher, where decisions around planning for a baby or child were being made as part of usual care, and then the participants' experiences were sought through individual questionnaires. In Phase 2, semistructured interviews were conducted with nine health visitors and nine parents in relation to their recent experiences of planning care. Evidence of supportive processes included having a shared understanding around the issue needing to be addressed; being able to identify interventions that were accessible for the family; engaging in decision-making through deep, meaningful conversations using sensitive and responsive approaches; and establishing positive relationships between health visitors and parents, significant others within the family and other professionals. Despite evidence of strong, trusting relationships between parents and health visitors, there were times when shared decision-making was unable to take place due to the absence of supportive processes. Health visitors are aware that planning interventions with parents can be complex. These findings indicate the value of using a shared decision-making framework to structure planning, as application of a framework identified the processes that support a collaborative approach in practice. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hidden profiles and concealed information: strategic information sharing and use in group decision making.

PubMed

Toma, Claudia; Butera, Fabrizio

2009-06-01

Two experiments investigated the differential impact of cooperation and competition on strategic information sharing and use in a three-person group decision-making task. Information was distributed in order to create a hidden profile so that disconfirmation of group members' initial preferences was required to solve the task. Experiment 1 revealed that competition, compared to cooperation, led group members to withhold unshared information, a difference that was not significant for shared information. In competition, compared to cooperation, group members were also more reluctant to disconfirm their initial preferences. Decision quality was lower in competition than in cooperation, this effect being mediated by disconfirmation use and not by information sharing. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and revealed the role of mistrust in predicting strategic information sharing and use in competition. These results support a motivated information processing approach of group decision making.

Group Health's participation in a shared decision-making demonstration yielded lessons, such as role of culture change.

PubMed

King, Jaime; Moulton, Benjamin

2013-02-01

In 2007 Washington State became the first state to enact legislation encouraging the use of shared decision making and decision aids to address deficiencies in the informed-consent process. Group Health volunteered to fulfill a legislated mandate to study the costs and benefits of integrating these shared decision-making processes into clinical practice across a range of conditions for which multiple treatment options are available. The Group Health Demonstration Project, conducted during 2009-11, yielded five key lessons for successful implementation, including the synergy between efforts to reduce practice variation and increase shared decision making; the need to support modifications in practice with changes in physician training and culture; and the value of identifying best implementation methods through constant evaluation and iterative improvement. These lessons, and the legislated provisions that supported successful implementation, can guide other states and health care institutions moving toward informed patient choice as the standard of care for medical decision making.

Key concepts relevant to quality of complex and shared decision-making in health care: a literature review.

PubMed

Dy, Sydney M; Purnell, Tanjala S

2012-02-01

High-quality provider-patient decision-making is key to quality care for complex conditions. We performed an analysis of key elements relevant to quality and complex, shared medical decision-making. Based on a search of electronic databases, including Medline and the Cochrane Library, as well as relevant articles' reference lists, reviews of tools, and annotated bibliographies, we developed a list of key concepts and applied them to a decision-making example. Key concepts identified included provider competence, trustworthiness, and cultural competence; communication with patients and families; information quality; patient/surrogate competence; and roles and involvement. We applied this concept list to a case example, shared decision-making for live donor kidney transplantation, and identified the likely most important concepts as provider and cultural competence, information quality, and communication with patients and families. This concept list may be useful for conceptualizing the quality of complex shared decision-making and in guiding research in this area. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Shared decision-making in the paediatric field: a literature review and concept analysis.

PubMed

Park, Eun Sook; Cho, In Young

2017-09-13

The concept of shared decision-making is poorly defined and often used interchangeably with related terms. The aim of this study was to delineate and clarify the concept of shared decision-making in the paediatric field. Rodgers and Knafl's evolutionary concept analysis was used to delineate and clarify the concept. Following a search of the CINAHL, PubMed and MEDLINE databases and online journals between 1995 and 2016, we included a total of 42 articles that referred to shared decision-making in the paediatric field. The attributes included active participation of the three: parents, children and health professionals; collaborative partnership; reaching a compromise; and common goal for child's health. Antecedents were existing several options with different possible outcomes; substantial decisional conflict; recognising child's health situations that decision-making is needed; and willingness to participate in decision-making. Finally, the consequences included decreased decisional conflict; mutual empowerment; improved child health status; and improved quality of paediatric health care. This study provides a theoretical understanding of the concept of shared decision-making in the paediatric field; furthermore, by integrating this concept into paediatric practice, it may help to reduce the gap between theory and practice. The analysis could also provide nursing researchers with insight into paediatric decision-making and establish a foundation to develop future interventions and situation-specific theory for promoting high-quality decision-making in the paediatric field. © 2017 Nordic College of Caring Science.

Shared decision making in Swedish community mental health services - an evaluation of three self-reporting instruments.

PubMed

Rosenberg, David; Schön, Ulla-Karin; Nyholm, Maria; Grim, Katarina; Svedberg, Petra

2017-04-01

Despite the potential impact of shared decision making on users satisfaction with care and quality in health care decisions, there is a lack of knowledge and skills regarding how to work with shared decision making among health care providers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of three instruments that measure varied dimensions of shared decision making, based on self-reports by clients, in a Swedish community mental health context. The study sample consisted of 121 clients with experience of community mental health care, and involved in a wide range of decisions regarding both social support and treatment. The questionnaires were examined for face and content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity. The instruments displayed good face and content validity, satisfactory internal consistency and a moderate to good level of stability in test-retest reliability with fair to moderate construct correlations, in a sample of clients with serious mental illness and experience of community mental health services in Sweden. The questionnaires are considered to be relevant to the decision making process, user-friendly and appropriate in a Swedish community mental health care context. They functioned well in settings where non-medical decisions, regarding social and support services, are the primary focus. The use of instruments that measure various dimensions of the self-reported experience of clients, can be a key factor in developing knowledge of how best to implement shared decision making in mental health services.

Evidence Based Medicine and Shared Decision Making: the challenge of getting both evidence and preferences into health care.

PubMed

Barratt, Alexandra

2008-12-01

Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and Shared Medical Decision Making (SDM) are changing the nature of health care decisions. It is broadly accepted that health care decisions require the integration of research evidence and individual preferences. These approaches are justified on both efficacy grounds (that evidence based practice and Shared Decision Making should lead to better health outcomes and may lead to a more cost-effective use of health care resources) and ethical grounds (patients' autonomy should be respected in health care). However, despite endorsement by physicians and consumers of these approaches, implementation remains limited in practice, particularly outside academic and tertiary health care centres. There are practical problems of implementation, which include training, access to research, and development of and access to tools to display evidence and support decision making. There may also be philosophical difficulties, and some have even suggested that the two approaches (evidence based practice and Shared Decision Making) are fundamentally incompatible. This paper look at the achievements of EBM and SDM so far, the potential tensions between them, and how things might progress in the future.

Shared Decision-Making for Cancer Care Among Racial and Ethnic Minorities: A Systematic Review

PubMed Central

Mead, Erin L.; Doorenbos, Ardith Z.; Javid, Sara H.; Haozous, Emily A.; Alvord, Lori Arviso; Flum, David R.

2013-01-01

To assess decision-making for cancer treatment among racial/ethnic minority patients, we systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence from studies of “shared decision-making,” “cancer,” and “minority groups,” using PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and EMBASE. We identified significant themes that we compared across studies, refined, and organized into a conceptual model. Five major themes emerged: treatment decision-making, patient factors, family and important others, community, and provider factors. Thematic data overlapped categories, indicating that individuals’ preferences for medical decision-making cannot be authentically examined outside the context of family and community. The shared decision-making model should be expanded beyond the traditional patient–physician dyad to include other important stakeholders in the cancer treatment decision process, such as family or community leaders. PMID:24134353

Jordanian Physicians' Attitudes toward Disclosure of Cancer Information and Patient Participation in Treatment Decision-making.

PubMed

Obeidat, Rana; Khrais, Huthaifah I

2016-01-01

This study aims to determine the attitude of Jordanian physicians toward disclosure of cancer information, comfort and use of different decision-making approaches, and treatment decision making. A descriptive, comparative research design was used. A convenience sample of 86 Jordanian medical and radiation oncologists and surgeons practicing mainly in oncology was recruited. A modified version of a structured questionnaire was used for data collection. The questionnaire is a valid measure of physicians' views of shared decision making. Almost 91% of all physicians indicated that the doctor should tell the patient and let him/her decide if the family should know of an early-stage cancer diagnosis. Physicians provide abundant information about the extent of the disease, the side effects and benefits of the treatment, and details of the treatment procedures. They also provided less information on the effects of treatment on the sexuality, mood, and family of the patient. Almost 48% of the participating physicians reported using shared decision making as their usual approach for treatment decision making, and 67% reported that they were comfortable with this approach. The main setting of clinical activity was the only factor associated with physicians' usual approach to medical decision making. Moreover, age, years of experience, and main setting of clinical activity were associated with physicians' comfort level with the shared approach. Although Jordanian physicians appreciate patient autonomy, self-determination, and right to information, paternalistic decision making and underuse of the shared decision-making approach persist. Strategies that target both healthcare providers and patients must be employed to promote shared decision making in the Jordanian healthcare system.

Why shared decision making is not good enough: lessons from patients.

PubMed

Olthuis, Gert; Leget, Carlo; Grypdonck, Mieke

2014-07-01

A closer look at the lived illness experiences of medical professionals themselves shows that shared decision making is in need of a logic of care. This paper underlines that medical decision making inevitably takes place in a messy and uncertain context in which sharing responsibilities may impose a considerable burden on patients. A better understanding of patients' lived experiences enables healthcare professionals to attune to what individual patients deem important in their lives.This will contribute to making medical decisions in a good and caring manner, taking into account the lived experience of being ill.

The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda May 10, 2016, New Orleans, LA.

PubMed

Grudzen, Corita R; Anderson, Jana R; Carpenter, Christopher R; Hess, Erik P

2016-12-01

Shared decision making in emergency medicine has the potential to improve the quality, safety, and outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients. Given that the ED is the gateway to care for patients with a variety of illnesses and injuries and the safety net for patients otherwise unable to access care, shared decision making in the ED is relevant to numerous disciplines and the interests of the United States (U.S.) public. On May 10, 2016 the 16th annual Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference, "Shared Decision Making: Development of a Policy-Relevant Patient-Centered Research Agenda" was held in New Orleans, Louisiana. During this one-day conference clinicians, researchers, policy-makers, patient and caregiver representatives, funding agency representatives, trainees, and content experts across many areas of medicine interacted to define high priority areas for research in 1 of 6 domains: 1) diagnostic testing; 2) policy, 3) dissemination/implementation and education, 4) development and testing of shared decision making approaches and tools in practice, 5) palliative care and geriatrics, and 6) vulnerable populations and limited health literacy. This manuscript describes the current state of shared decision making in the ED context, provides an overview of the conference planning process, the aims of the conference, the focus of each respective breakout session, the roles of patient and caregiver representatives and an overview of the conference agenda. The results of this conference published in this issue of AEM provide an essential summary of the future research priorities for shared decision making to increase quality of care and patient-centered outcomes. © 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Retrieval of publications addressing shared decision making: an evaluation of full-text searches on medical journal websites.

PubMed

Blanc, Xavier; Collet, Tinh-Hai; Auer, Reto; Iriarte, Pablo; Krause, Jan; Légaré, France; Cornuz, Jacques; Clair, Carole

2015-04-07

Full-text searches of articles increase the recall, defined by the proportion of relevant publications that are retrieved. However, this method is rarely used in medical research due to resource constraints. For the purpose of a systematic review of publications addressing shared decision making, a full-text search method was required to retrieve publications where shared decision making does not appear in the title or abstract. The objective of our study was to assess the efficiency and reliability of full-text searches in major medical journals for identifying shared decision making publications. A full-text search was performed on the websites of 15 high-impact journals in general internal medicine to look up publications of any type from 1996-2011 containing the phrase "shared decision making". The search method was compared with a PubMed search of titles and abstracts only. The full-text search was further validated by requesting all publications from the same time period from the individual journal publishers and searching through the collected dataset. The full-text search for "shared decision making" on journal websites identified 1286 publications in 15 journals compared to 119 through the PubMed search. The search within the publisher-provided publications of 6 journals identified 613 publications compared to 646 with the full-text search on the respective journal websites. The concordance rate was 94.3% between both full-text searches. Full-text searching on medical journal websites is an efficient and reliable way to identify relevant articles in the field of shared decision making for review or other purposes. It may be more widely used in biomedical research in other fields in the future, with the collaboration of publishers and journals toward open-access data.

An introduction to behavioural decision-making theories for paediatricians.

PubMed

Haward, Marlyse F; Janvier, Annie

2015-04-01

Behavioural decision-making theories provide insights into how people make choices under conditions of uncertainty. However, few have been studied in paediatrics. This study introduces these theories, reviews current research and makes recommendations for their application within the context of shared decision-making. As parents are expected to share decision-making in paediatrics, it is critical that the fields of behavioural economics, communication and decision sciences merge with paediatric clinical ethics to optimise decision-making. ©2015 Foundation Acta Paediatrica. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Participants' recall and understanding of genomic research and large-scale data sharing.

PubMed

Robinson, Jill Oliver; Slashinski, Melody J; Wang, Tao; Hilsenbeck, Susan G; McGuire, Amy L

2013-10-01

As genomic researchers are urged to openly share generated sequence data with other researchers, it is important to examine the utility of informed consent documents and processes, particularly as these relate to participants' engagement with and recall of the information presented to them, their objective or subjective understanding of the key elements of genomic research (e.g., data sharing), as well as how these factors influence or mediate the decisions they make. We conducted a randomized trial of three experimental informed consent documents (ICDs) with participants (n = 229) being recruited to genomic research studies; each document afforded varying control over breadth of release of genetic information. Recall and understanding, their impact on data sharing decisions, and comfort in decision making were assessed in a follow-up structured interview. Over 25% did not remember signing an ICD to participate in a genomic study, and the majority (54%) could not correctly identify with whom they had agreed to share their genomic data. However, participants felt that they understood enough to make an informed decision, and lack of recall did not impact final data sharing decisions or satisfaction with participation. These findings raise questions about the types of information participants need in order to provide valid informed consent, and whether subjective understanding and comfort with decision making are sufficient to satisfy the ethical principle of respect for persons.

Primary Care Physician Involvement in Shared Decision Making for Critically Ill Patients and Family Satisfaction with Care.

PubMed

Huang, Kevin B; Weber, Urs; Johnson, Jennifer; Anderson, Nathanial; Knies, Andrea K; Nhundu, Belinda; Bautista, Cynthia; Poskus, Kelly; Sheth, Kevin N; Hwang, David Y

2018-01-01

An intensive care unit (ICU) patient's primary care physician (PCP) may be able to assist family with certain ICU shared medical decisions. We explored whether families of patients in nonopen ICUs who nevertheless report involvement of a patient's PCP in medical decision making are more satisfied with ICU shared decision making than families who do not. Between March 2013 and December 2015, we administered the Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 survey to family members of adult neuroscience ICU patients. We compared the mean score for the survey subsection regarding shared decision making (graded on a 100-point scale), as well as individual survey items, between those who reported the patient's PCP involvement in any medical decision making versus those who did not. Among 263 respondents, there was no difference in mean overall decision-making satisfaction scores for those who reported involvement (81.1; SD = 15.2) versus those who did not (80.1; SD = 12.8; P = .16). However, a higher proportion reporting involvement felt completely satisfied with their 1) inclusion in the ICU decision making process (75.9% vs 61.4%; P = .055), and 2) control over the care of the patient (73.6% vs 55.6%; P = .02), with no difference regarding consistency of clinical information provided by the medical team (64.8% vs 63.5%; P = 1.00). Families who report involvement of a patient's PCP in medical decision making for critically ill patients may be more satisfied than those who do not with regard to specific aspects of ICU decision making. Further research would help understand how best to engage PCPs in shared decisions. © Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Exploring differences in the use of the statin choice decision aid and diabetes medication choice decision aid in primary care.

PubMed

Ballard, Aimee Yu; Kessler, Maya; Scheitel, Marianne; Montori, Victor M; Chaudhry, Rajeev

2017-08-10

Shared decision making is essential to patient centered care, but can be difficult for busy clinicians to implement into practice. Tools have been developed to aid in shared decision making and embedded in electronic medical records (EMRs) to facilitate use. This study was undertaken to explore the patterns of use and barriers and facilitators to use of two decision aids, the Statin Choice Decision Aid (SCDA) and the Diabetes Medication Choice Decision Aid (DMCDA), in primary care practices where the decision aids are embedded in the EMR. A survey exploring factors that influenced use of each decision aid was sent to eligible primary care clinicians affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. Survey data was collected and clinician use of each decision aid via links from the EMR was tracked. The survey response rate was 40% (105/262). Log file data indicated 51% of clinicians used the SCDA and 9% of clinicians used the DMCDA. Reasons for lack of use included lack of knowledge of the EMR link, not finding the decision aids helpful, and time constraints. Survey responses indicated that use of the tool as intended was low, with many clinicians only discussing decision aid topics that they found relevant. Although guidelines for both the treatment of blood cholesterol with a statin and for the treatment of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes recommend shared decision making, tools that facilitate shared decision making are not routinely used even when embedded in the EMR. Even when decision aids are used, their use may not reflect patient centered care.

Effect of counseling quality on anxiety, grief, and coping after second-trimester abortion for pregnancy complications.

PubMed

Kerns, Jennifer L; Mengesha, Biftu; McNamara, Blair C; Cassidy, Arianna; Pearlson, Geffan; Kuppermann, Miriam

2018-06-01

We sought to explore the relationship between counseling quality, measured by shared decision making and decision satisfaction, and psychological outcomes (anxiety, grief, and posttraumatic stress) after second-trimester abortion for pregnancy complications. We conducted a cross-sectional study of women who underwent second-trimester abortion for complications. We recruited participants from Facebook and online support groups and surveyed them about counseling experiences and psychosocial issues. We used multivariate linear regression to evaluate relationships between counseling quality and psychological outcomes. We analyzed data from 145 respondents. Shared decision making and decision satisfaction scores were positively and strongly correlated in bivariate analysis (r=0.7, p<.0001), as were posttraumatic stress and grief scores (r=0.7, p<.0001). In the adjusted analysis, higher decision satisfaction was associated with lower grief and posttraumatic stress scores (p=.02 and p=.01, respectively) and higher shared decision making was associated with lower posttraumatic stress scores (p=.01). Decision satisfaction and shared decision making have a positive effect on psychological outcomes after second-trimester abortion for pregnancy complications. Counseling quality may be especially important in this setting given the sensitive nature of decisions regarding pregnancy termination for complications. These results highlight the importance of patient-centered counseling for women seeking pregnancy termination. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Research in Brief: Shared Decision Making Enhances Instructional Leadership.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lindle, Joan Clark

1992-01-01

A study of three middle school principals about their instructional leadership activities before and after the establishment of shared decision making revealed an enhancement of leadership. The nature of the middle school teacher's role demands participative leadership and communication and decision making revolved around instructional issues.…

Shared Decision Making in Cancer Care

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Butow, Phyllis; Tattersall, Martin

2005-01-01

Cancer treatment outcomes have improved over the past 20 years, but treatment decision making in this context remains complex. There are often a number of reasonable treatment alternatives, including no treatment in some circumstances. Patients and doctors often have to weigh up uncertain benefits against uncertain costs. Shared decision making…

75 FR 17763 - National Park Service Benefits-Sharing Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-07

... DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Park Service Benefits-Sharing Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.... 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Record of Decision for the...

Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants' perspectives.

PubMed

Oliver, J M; Slashinski, M J; Wang, T; Kelly, P A; Hilsenbeck, S G; McGuire, A L

2012-01-01

Technological advancements are rapidly propelling the field of genome research forward, while lawmakers attempt to keep apace with the risks these advances bear. Balancing normative concerns of maximizing data utility and protecting human subjects, whose privacy is at risk due to the identifiability of DNA data, are central to policy decisions. Research on genome research participants making real-time data sharing decisions is limited; yet, these perspectives could provide critical information to ongoing deliberations. We conducted a randomized trial of 3 consent types affording varying levels of control over data release decisions. After debriefing participants about the randomization process, we invited them to a follow-up interview to assess their attitudes toward genetic research, privacy and data sharing. Participants were more restrictive in their reported data sharing preferences than in their actual data sharing decisions. They saw both benefits and risks associated with sharing their genomic data, but risks were seen as less concrete or happening in the future, and were largely outweighed by purported benefits. Policymakers must respect that participants' assessment of the risks and benefits of data sharing and their privacy-utility determinations, which are associated with their final data release decisions, vary. In order to advance the ethical conduct of genome research, proposed policy changes should carefully consider these stakeholder perspectives. Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Primum Non Nocere: is shared decision-making the answer?

PubMed

Santhirapala, Ramai; Moonesinghe, Ramani

2016-01-01

Surgical ambition is rising, with the Royal College of Surgeons reporting an increase in the number of procedures by a million over the past decade (Royal College of Surgeons. Surgery and the NHS in Numbers. Available from https://www.rcseng.ac.uk). Underpinning, this is a rapidly growing population, especially those in the over 85 age group, coupled with rising perioperative expertise; options for surgery are now present where conditions were once managed conservatively. Matching the right patient to the right procedure has never been so pertinent (Bader, Am Soc Anesthesiol 78(6), 2014). At the heart of these increasingly complex decisions, which may prove fatal or result in serious morbidity, lies the aspiration of shared decision-making (SDM) (Glance et al., N Engl J Med 370:1379-81, 2014). Shared decision-making is a patient-centred approach taking into account the beliefs, preferences and views of the patient as an expert in what is right for them, supported by clinicians who are the experts in diagnostics and valid therapeutic options (Coulter and Collins, Making shared decision-making a reality: no decision about me, without me, 2011). It has been described as the pinnacle of patient-centred care (Barry et al., N Engl J Med 366:780-1, 2012). In this commentary, we explore further the concept of shared decision-making, supported by a recent article which highlights critical deficits in current perioperative practice (Ankuda et al., Patient Educ Couns 94(3):328-33, 2014). This article was chosen for the purposes of this commentary as it is a large study across several surgical specialties investigating preoperative shared decision-making, and to our knowledge, the only of this kind.

Shared decision-making for people living with dementia in extended care settings: a systematic review

PubMed Central

Bunn, Frances; Goodman, Claire

2018-01-01

Background Shared decision-making is recognised as an important element of person-centred dementia care. Objectives The aim of this review was to explore how people living with dementia and cognitive impairment can be included in day-to-day decisions about their health and care in extended care settings. Design A systematic review including primary research relating to shared decision-making, with cognitively impaired adults in (or transferrable to) extended care settings. Databases searched were: CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, NICE Evidence, OpenGrey, Autism Data, Google Scholar, Scopus and Medicines Complete (June to October 2016 and updated 2018) for studies published in the last 20 years. Results Of the 19 included studies 15 involved people with living dementia, seven in extended care settings. People living with cognitive impairment often have the desire and ability to participate in decision-making about their everyday care, although this is regularly underestimated by their staff and family care partners. Shared decision-making has the potential to improve quality of life for both the person living with dementia and those who support them. How resources to support shared decision-making are implemented in extended care settings is less well understood. Conclusions Evidence suggests that people living with cognitive impairment value opportunities to be involved in everyday decision-making about their care. How these opportunities are created, understood, supported and sustained in extended care settings remains to be determined. Trial registration number CRD42016035919 PMID:29886439

The Relationship between Shared Leadership and Administrative Creativity in Kuwaiti Schools

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Alanezi, Ahmad

2016-01-01

To continue to fulfill their social and educational role, educational institutions must develop or adopt modern leadership trends based on solid theory and proven effectiveness. Shared leadership is a method of management that allows teachers to participate in decision making and share in the implementation of those decisions. A study sample of…

Teachers in the Lead: A District's Approach to Shared Leadership

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Stegall, David; Linton, Jayme

2012-01-01

Whether a principal builds a structure of shared decision making, shared leadership, or not, teachers will have ideas and conversations about what they feel may be more effective. These conversations impact the entire culture of a school. When teachers have the opportunity to take ownership of decision making and planning, the ultimate decisions…

American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

MedlinePlus

... Connect. Learn more and register! New NQP Shared Decision Making Action Brief Released A new NQF National Quality Partners (NQP™) Shared Decision Making Action Brief has been issued calling for all ...

How is Shared Decision-Making Defined among African-Americans with Diabetes?

PubMed Central

Peek, Monica E.; Quinn, Michael T.; Gorawara-Bhat, Rita; Odoms-Young, Angela; Wilson, Shannon C.; Chin, Marshall H.

2011-01-01

Objective This study investigates how shared decision-making (SDM) is defined by African-American patients with diabetes, and compares patients’ conceptualization of SDM with the Charles model. Methods We utilized race-concordant interviewers/moderators to conduct in-depth interviews and focus groups among a purposeful sample of African-American patients with diabetes. Each interview/focus group was audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and imported into Atlas.ti software. Coding was done using an iterative process and each transcription was independently coded by two members of the research team. Results Although the conceptual domains were similar, patient definitions of what it means to “share” in the decision-making process differed significantly from the Charles model of SDM. Patients stressed the value of being able to “tell their story and be heard” by physicians, emphasized the importance of information sharing rather than decision-making sharing, and included an acceptable role for non-adherence as a mechanism to express control and act on treatment preferences. Conclusion Current instruments may not accurately measure decision-making preferences of African-American patients with diabetes. Practice Implications Future research should develop instruments to effectively measure decision-making preferences within this population. Emphasizing information-sharing that validates patients’ experiences may be particularly meaningful to African-Americans with diabetes. PMID:18684581

Patients' perception of their involvement in shared treatment decision making: Key factors in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

PubMed

Veilleux, Sophie; Noiseux, Isabelle; Lachapelle, Nathalie; Kohen, Rita; Vachon, Luc; Guay, Brian White; Bitton, Alain; Rioux, John D

2018-02-01

This study aims to characterize the relationships between the quality of the information given by the physician, the involvement of the patient in shared decision making (SDM), and outcomes in terms of satisfaction and anxiety pertaining to the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A Web survey was conducted among 200 Canadian patients affected with IBD. The theoretical model of SDM was adjusted using path analysis. SAS software was used for all statistical analyses. The quality of the knowledge transfer between the physician and the patient is significantly associated with the components of SDM: information comprehension, patient involvement and decision certainty about the chosen treatment. In return, patient involvement in SDM is significantly associated with higher satisfaction and, as a result, lower anxiety as regards treatment selection. This study demonstrates the importance of involving patients in shared treatment decision making in the context of IBD. Understanding shared decision making may motivate patients to be more active in understanding the relevant information for treatment selection, as it is related to their level of satisfaction, anxiety and adherence to treatment. This relationship should encourage physicians to promote shared decision making. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Shared decision-making and decision support: their role in obstetrics and gynecology.

PubMed

Tucker Edmonds, Brownsyne

2014-12-01

To discuss the role for shared decision-making in obstetrics/gynecology and to review evidence on the impact of decision aids on reproductive health decision-making. Among the 155 studies included in a 2014 Cochrane review of decision aids, 31 (29%) addressed reproductive health decisions. Although the majority did not show evidence of an effect on treatment choice, there was a greater uptake of mammography in selected groups of women exposed to decision aids compared with usual care; and a statistically significant reduction in the uptake of hormone replacement therapy among detailed decision aid users compared with simple decision aid users. Studies also found an effect on patient-centered outcomes of care, such as medication adherence, quality-of-life measures, and anxiety scores. In maternity care, only decision analysis tools affected final treatment choice, and patient-directed aids yielded no difference in planned mode of birth after cesarean. There is untapped potential for obstetricians/gynecologists to optimize decision support for reproductive health decisions. Given the limited evidence-base guiding practice, the preference-sensitive nature of reproductive health decisions, and the increase in policy efforts and financial incentives to optimize patients' satisfaction, it is increasingly important for obstetricians/gynecologists to appreciate the role of shared decision-making and decision support in providing patient-centered reproductive healthcare.

Choosing to Decline: Finding Common Ground through the Perspective of Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Megregian, Michele; Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne

2018-05-18

Respectful communication is a key component of any clinical relationship. Shared decision making is the process of collaboration that occurs between a health care provider and patient in order to make health care decisions based upon the best available evidence and the individual's preferences. A midwife and woman (and her support persons) engage together to make health care decisions, using respectful communication that is based upon the best available evidence and the woman's preferences, values, and goals. Supporting a woman's autonomy, however, can be particularly challenging in maternity care when recommended treatments or interventions are declined. In the past, the real or perceived increased risk to a woman's health or that of her fetus as a result of that choice has occasionally resulted in coercion. Through the process of shared decision making, the woman's autonomy may be supported, including the choice to decline interventions. The case presented here demonstrates how a shared decision-making framework can support the health care provider-patient relationship in the context of informed refusal. © 2018 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

How do patients from eastern and western Germany compare with regard to their preferences for shared decision making?

PubMed

Hamann, Johannes; Bieber, Christiane; Elwyn, Glyn; Wartner, Eva; Hörlein, Elisabeth; Kissling, Werner; Toegel, Christfried; Berth, Hendrik; Linde, Klaus; Schneider, Antonius

2012-08-01

Increasing emphasis is being placed on involving patients in decisions concerning their health. This shift towards more patient engagement by health professionals and towards more desire by patients for participation may be partly based on socio-political factors. To compare the preferences for shared decision making of patients from eastern and western Germany we analysed five patient samples (n = 2318) (general practice patients and schizophrenia patients from eastern and western Germany). Patients' role preferences for shared decisions were measured using the decision-making subscale of the Autonomy Preference Index. Patients resident in eastern Germany expressed lower preferences for shared decision making than patients in western Germany. This was true after controlling for socio-demographic variables and for patient group. The cultural imprint (e.g. western vs. former communist society) seems to have a significant influence on patients' expectations and behaviour in the medical encounter. Health services providers need to be aware that health attitudes within the same health system might vary for historical and cultural reasons. The engagement of patients in medical decisions might not be susceptible to a 'one size fits all' approach; doctors should instead aim to accommodate the individual patient's desire for autonomy.

Shared decision making in the United States: policy and implementation activity on multiple fronts.

PubMed

Frosch, Dominick L; Moulton, Benjamin W; Wexler, Richard M; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Volk, Robert J; Levin, Carrie A

2011-01-01

Shared decision making in the United States has become an important element in health policy debates. The recently passed federal health care reform legislation includes several key provisions related to shared decision making (SDM) and patient decision support. Several states have passed or are considering legislation that incorporates SDM as a key component of improved health care provision. Research on SDM is funded by a range of public and private organizations. Non-profit, for-profit, academic and government organizations are developing decision support interventions for numerous conditions. Some interventions are publicly available; others are distributed to patients through health insurance and healthcare providers. A significant number of clinical implementation projects are underway to test and evaluate different ways of incorporating SDM and patient decision support into routine clinical care. Numerous professional organizations are advocating for SDM and social networking efforts are increasing their advocacy as well. Policy makers are intrigued by the potential of SDM to improve health care provision and potentially lower costs. The role of shared decision making in policy and practice will be part of the larger health care reform debate. 2011. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Promising Approaches From Behavioral Economics to Improve Patient Lung Cancer Screening Decisions.

PubMed

Barnes, Andrew J; Groskaufmanis, Lauren; Thomson, Norman B

2016-12-01

Lung cancer is a devastating disease, the deadliest form of cancer in the world and in the United States. As a consequence of CMS's determination to provide low-dose CT (LDCT) as a covered service for at-risk smokers, LDCT lung cancer screening is now a covered service for many at-risk patients that first requires counseling and shared clinical decision making, including discussions of the risks and benefits of LDCT screening. However, shared decision making fundamentally relies on the premise that with better information, patients will arrive at rational decisions that align with their preferences and values. Evidence from the field of behavioral economics offers many contrary viewpoints that take into account patient decision making biases and the role of the shared decision environment that can lead to flawed choices and that are particularly relevant to lung cancer screening and treatment. This article discusses some of the most relevant biases, and suggests incorporating such knowledge into screening and treatment guidelines and shared decision making best practices to increase the likelihood that such efforts will produce their desired objectives to improve survival and quality of life. Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Couple decision making and use of cultural scripts in Malawi.

PubMed

Mbweza, Ellen; Norr, Kathleen F; McElmurry, Beverly

2008-01-01

To examine the decision-making processes of husband and wife dyads in matrilineal and patrilineal marriage traditions of Malawi in the areas of money, food, pregnancy, contraception, and sexual relations. Qualitative grounded theory using simultaneous interviews of 60 husbands and wives (30 couples). Data were analyzed according to the guidelines of simultaneous data collection and analysis. The analysis resulted in development of core categories and categories of decision-making process. Data matrixes were used to identify similarities and differences within couples and across cases. Most couples reported using a mix of final decision-making approaches: husband-dominated, wife-dominated, and shared. Gender based and nongender based cultural scripts provided rationales for their approaches to decision making. Gender based cultural scripts (husband-dominant and wife-dominant) were used to justify decision-making approaches. Non-gender based cultural scripts (communicating openly, maintaining harmony, and children's welfare) supported shared decision making. Gender based cultural scripts were used in decision making more often among couples from the district with a patrilineal marriage tradition and where the husband had less than secondary school education and was not formally employed. Nongender based cultural scripts to encourage shared decision making can be used in designing culturally tailored reproductive health interventions for couples. Nurses who work with women and families should be aware of the variations that occur in actual couple decision-making approaches. Shared decision making can be used to encourage the involvement of men in reproductive health programs.

Family health care decision making and self-efficacy with patients with ALS at the end of life

PubMed Central

NOLAN, MARIE T.; KUB, JOAN; HUGHES, MARK T.; TERRY, PETER B.; ASTROW, ALAN B.; CARBO, CYNTHIA A.; THOMPSON, RICHARD E.; CLAWSON, LORA; TEXEIRA, KENNETH; SULMASY, DANIEL P.

2008-01-01

Objective: Persons with ALS differ from those with other terminal illnesses in that they commonly retain capacity for decision making close to death. The role patients would opt to have their families play in decision making at the end of life may therefore be unique. This study compared the preferences of patients with ALS for involving family in health care decisions at the end of life with the actual involvement reported by the family after death. Methods: A descriptive correlational design with 16 patient–family member dyads was used. Quantitative findings were enriched with in-depth interviews of a subset of five family members following the patient's death. Results: Eighty-seven percent of patients had issued an advance directive. Patients who would opt to make health care decisions independently (i.e., according to the patient's preferences alone) were most likely to have their families report that decisions were made in the style that the patient preferred. Those who preferred shared decision making with family or decision making that relied upon the family were more likely to have their families report that decisions were made in a style that was more independent than preferred. When interviewed in depth, some family members described shared decision making although they had reported on the survey that the patient made independent decisions. Significance of results: The structure of advance directives may suggest to families that independent decision making is the ideal, causing them to avoid or underreport shared decision making. Fear of family recriminations may also cause family members to avoid or underreport shared decision making. Findings from this study might be used to guide clinicians in their discussions of treatments and health care decision making with persons with ALS and their families. PMID:18662421

Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters.

PubMed

Karnieli-Miller, Orit; Eisikovits, Zvi

2009-07-01

The results of recent research have led to the increased advocacy of shared decision-making regarding medical treatment. Nonetheless, only a limited number of studies have focused on the process of decision-making in real-time encounters. The present paper aims to document and analyze this process. Specifically, we assess whether these decisions are the result of partnership or of persuasive tactics based on power and hierarchical relationships. We will describe and analyze different strategies used by pediatric gastroenterologists in breaking bad news encounters, as well as their consequences. The analysis is based on a multi-method, multi-participant phenomenological study on breaking bad news to adolescents and their families regarding a chronic illness. It included 17 units of analysis (actual encounters and 52 interviews with physicians, parents and adolescents). Data were collected from three hospitals in Northern Israel using observations and audiotapes of diagnosis disclosure encounters and audio-taped interviews with all participants. The analysis identified eight different presentation tactics used in actual encounters during which physicians made various use of language, syntax and different sources of power to persuade patients to agree with their preferred treatment choice. The tactics included various ways of presenting the illness, treatment and side effects; providing examples from other success or failure stories; sharing the decision only concerning technicalities; and using plurals and authority. The findings suggest that shared decision-making may be advocated as a philosophical tenet or a value, but it is not necessarily implemented in actual communication with patients. Rather, treatment decisions tend to be unilaterally made, and a variety of persuasive approaches are used to ensure agreement with the physician's recommendation. The discussion is focused on the complexity of sharing a decision, especially in the initial bad news encounter; and the potentially harmful implications on building a trusting relationship between the physician and the family when a decision is not shared.

Assessing the Effects of Financial Literacy on Patient Engagement.

PubMed

Meyer, Melanie A; Hudak, Ronald P

2016-07-01

We investigated the relationship between financial literacy and patient engagement while considering the possible interaction effects due to patient financial responsibility and patient-physician shared decision making, and the impact of personal attributes. Participants consisted of an Internet-based sample of American adults (N = 160). Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship of the study variables on patient engagement. We found that patient financial responsibility (β = -.19, p < .05) and patient-physician shared decision-making (β = .17, p < .05) predicted patient engagement. However, there was no statistically significant relationship between patient financial literacy and patient engagement; moreover, the moderation effects of patient financial responsibility and shared decision making with financial literacy also were not statistically significant. Increasing patient financial responsibility and patient-physician shared decision making can impact patient engagement. Understanding the predictors of patient engagement and the factors that influence financial behaviors may allow for the development of interventions to enable patients to make better healthcare decisions, and ultimately, improve health outcomes.

Patients With Limited Health Literacy Have Similar Preferences but Different Perceptions in Surgical Decision-making for Carpal Tunnel Release.

PubMed

Roh, Young Hak; Koh, Young Do; Kim, Jong Oh; Noh, Jung Ho; Gong, Hyun Sik; Baek, Goo Hyun

2018-04-01

Health literacy is the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information needed to make appropriate health decisions. The proper comprehension by patients regarding a given disease, its treatment, and the physician's instructions plays an important role in shared decision-making. Studies have disagreed over the degree to which differences in health literacy affect patients' preferences for shared decision-making; we therefore sought to evaluate this in the context of shared decision-making about carpal tunnel release. (1) Do patients with limited health literacy have different preferences of shared decision-making for carpal tunnel release than those with greater levels of health literacy? (2) How do patients with limited health literacy retrospectively perceive their role in shared decision-making after carpal tunnel release? Over a 32-month period, one surgeon surgically treated 149 patients for carpal tunnel syndrome. Patients were eligible if they had cognitive and language function to provide informed consent and complete a self-reported questionnaire and were not eligible if they had nerve entrapment other than carpal tunnel release or had workers compensation issues; based on those, 140 (94%) were approached for study. Of those, seven (5%) were lost to followup before 6 months, leaving 133 for analysis here. Their mean age was 55 years (range, 31-76 years), and 83% (111 of 133) were women. Thirty-three percent (44 of 133) of patients had less than a high school education. Health literacy was measured according to the Newest Vital Sign during the initial visit, and a score of ≤ 3 was considered limited health literacy. Forty-four percent of patients had limited health literacy. The Control Preferences Scale was used for patients to indicate their preferred role in surgical decision-making preoperatively and to assess their perceived level of involvement postoperatively. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine whether patients' clinical, demographic, and health literacy factors accounted for the preoperative preferences and postoperative assessments of their role in shared decision-making. A total of 133 patients would provide 94% power for a medium effect size for linear regression with five main predictors. We found no differences between patients with lower levels of health literacy and those with greater health literacy in terms of preferences of shared decision-making for carpal tunnel release (3.0 ± 1.6 versus 2.7 ± 1.4; mean difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, -0.2 to 0.8; p = 0.25). A history of surgical procedures (coefficient = -0.32, p < 0.01) and a lower Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (coefficient = 0.17, p = 0.02) were independently associated with a preference for an active role in shared decision-making. However, patients with limited health literacy (coefficient = -0.31, p = 0.01) and an absence of a caregiver (coefficient = -0.28, p = 0.03) perceived a more passive role in actual decision-making. Physicians should be aware of the discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of shared decision-making among patients with limited health literacy, and physicians should consider providing a decision aid tailored to basic levels of health literacy to help patients achieve their preferred role in decision-making. Level II, prognostic study.

Shared decision-making for people living with dementia in extended care settings: a systematic review.

PubMed

Daly, Rachel Louise; Bunn, Frances; Goodman, Claire

2018-06-09

Shared decision-making is recognised as an important element of person-centred dementia care. The aim of this review was to explore how people living with dementia and cognitive impairment can be included in day-to-day decisions about their health and care in extended care settings. A systematic review including primary research relating to shared decision-making, with cognitively impaired adults in (or transferrable to) extended care settings. Databases searched were: CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, NICE Evidence, OpenGrey, Autism Data, Google Scholar, Scopus and Medicines Complete (June to October 2016 and updated 2018) for studies published in the last 20 years. Of the 19 included studies 15 involved people with living dementia, seven in extended care settings. People living with cognitive impairment often have the desire and ability to participate in decision-making about their everyday care, although this is regularly underestimated by their staff and family care partners. Shared decision-making has the potential to improve quality of life for both the person living with dementia and those who support them. How resources to support shared decision-making are implemented in extended care settings is less well understood. Evidence suggests that people living with cognitive impairment value opportunities to be involved in everyday decision-making about their care. How these opportunities are created, understood, supported and sustained in extended care settings remains to be determined. CRD42016035919. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Study protocol for 'we DECide': implementation of advance care planning for nursing home residents with dementia.

PubMed

Ampe, Sophie; Sevenants, Aline; Coppens, Evelien; Spruytte, Nele; Smets, Tinne; Declercq, Anja; van Audenhove, Chantal

2015-05-01

To evaluate the effects of 'we DECide', an educational intervention for nursing home staff on shared decision-making in the context of advance care planning for residents with dementia. Advance care planning (preparing care choices for when persons no longer have decision-making capacity) is of utmost importance for nursing home residents with dementia, but is mostly not realized for this group. Advance care planning consists of discussing care choices and making decisions and corresponds to shared decision-making (the involvement of persons and their families in care and treatment decisions). This quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study is conducted in 19 nursing homes (Belgium). Participants are nursing home staff. 'We DECide' focuses on three crucial moments for discussing advance care planning: the time of admission, crisis situations and everyday conversations. The 'ACP-audit' assesses participants' views on the organization of advance care planning (organizational level), the 'OPTION scale' evaluates the degree of shared decision-making in individual conversations (clinical level) and the 'IFC-SDM Questionnaire' assesses participants' views on Importance, Frequency and Competence of realizing shared decision-making (clinical level). (Project funded: July 2010). The study hypothesis is that 'we DECide' results in a higher realization of shared decision-making in individual conversations on advance care planning. A better implementation of advance care planning will lead to a higher quality of end-of-life care and more person-centred care. We believe our study will be of interest to researchers and to professional nursing home caregivers and policy-makers. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Patient and physician views of shared decision making in cancer.

PubMed

Tamirisa, Nina P; Goodwin, James S; Kandalam, Arti; Linder, Suzanne K; Weller, Susan; Turrubiate, Stella; Silva, Colleen; Riall, Taylor S

2017-12-01

Engaging patients in shared decision making involves patient knowledge of treatment options and physician elicitation of patient preferences. Our aim was to explore patient and physician perceptions of shared decision making in clinical encounters for cancer care. Patients and physicians were asked open-ended questions regarding their perceptions of shared decision making throughout their cancer care. Transcripts of interviews were coded and analysed for shared decision-making themes. At an academic medical centre, 20 cancer patients with a range of cancer diagnoses, stages of cancer and time from diagnosis, and eight physicians involved in cancer care were individually interviewed. Most physicians reported providing patients with written information. However, most patients reported that written information was too detailed and felt that the physicians did not assess the level of information they wished to receive. Most patients wanted to play an active role in the treatment decision, but also wanted the physician's recommendation, such as what their physician would choose for him/herself or a family member in a similar situation. While physicians stated that they incorporated patient autonomy in decision making, most provided data without making treatment recommendations in the format preferred by most patients. We identified several communication gaps in cancer care. While patients want to be involved in the decision-making process, they also want physicians to provide evidence-based recommendations in the context of their individual preferences. However, physicians often are reluctant to provide a recommendation that will bias the patient. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Transforming organizational culture through nursing shared governance.

PubMed

Newman, Karen Profitt

2011-03-01

Nursing shared governance (NSG) provides a framework for the professionalization of nursing, provides a broader distribution of decision making across the profession, and allocates decisions based on accountability and role expectations. Shared governance defines staff-based decisions, accountability, roles, and ownership of staff in those activities that directly affect nurses' lives and practice. Although NSG is a somewhat ambiguous concept with a vast application, examining it from the perspective of structure, process, and outcomes can more clearly outline a successful strategy for implementation and growth. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Analysis of Decision Factors for the Application of Information Access Controls within the Organization

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Foerster, Carl A.

2013-01-01

The application of access controls on internal information necessarily impacts the availability of that information for sharing inside the enterprise. The decisions establishing the degree of control are a crucial first step to balance the requirements to protect and share. This research develops a set of basic decision factors and examines other…

Trouble in Paradise: Teacher Conflicts in Shared Decision Making. NCEL Occasional Paper No. 8.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Weiss, Carol H.; And Others

Drawing on interviews with 180 staff members from 45 public high schools in 15 states, this document examines the advantages and disadvantages of teacher participation in shared decision making. The settings of six high schools that had structured mechanisms for teacher participation in school decisions are described, and problems that emerged…

What Motivates Family Physicians to Participate in Training Programs in Shared Decision Making?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Allaire, Anne-Sophie; Labrecque, Michel; Giguere, Anik; Gagnon, Marie-Pierre; Legare, France

2012-01-01

Introduction: Little is known about the factors that influence family physician (FP) participation in continuing professional development (CPD) programs in shared decision making (SDM). We sought to identify the factors that motivate FPs to participate in DECISION+, a CPD program in SDM. Methods: In 2007-2008, we collected data from 39 FPs who…

The relationship between shared decision-making and health-related quality of life among patients in Hong Kong SAR, China.

PubMed

Xu, Richard H; Cheung, Annie W L; Wong, Eliza L Y

2017-08-01

To elucidate the association between health-related quality of life and shared decision-making among patients in Hong Kong after adjustment for potential confounding variables. A telephone survey was conducted with patients attending all public specialist outpatient clinics in Hong Kong between July and December 2014. The Specialist Outpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire and EQ-5D questionnaire were used to evaluate shared decision-making and quality of life, respectively. We performed a Tobit regression analysis to examine the associations between shared decision-making and quality of life after adjustment for known social, economic and health-related factors. Twenty-six of the Hospital Authority's specialist outpatient clinics. Patients aged 18 years or older who attended one of the Hospital Authority's specialist outpatient clinics between July and November 2014. Shared decision-making and quality of life score. Overall, 13 966 patients completed the study. The group reporting partial involvement in decision-making had slightly higher EQ-5D scores than the 'not involved' group and the 'fully involved' group. EQ-5D scores were higher among subjects who were younger, male, and had a higher level of education. Respondents living alone and living in institutions scored lower on the EQ-5D than patients living with families. Important differences in the relationship between the attitudes towards shared decision-making and quality of life were identified among patients. These associations should be taken into consideration when promoting patient-centred care and improving health professional-patient communication. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Shared Decision Making: The Need For Patient-Clinician Conversation, Not Just Information.

PubMed

Hargraves, Ian; LeBlanc, Annie; Shah, Nilay D; Montori, Victor M

2016-04-01

The growth of shared decision making has been driven largely by the understanding that patients need information and choices regarding their health care. But while these are important elements for patients who make decisions in partnership with their clinicians, our experience suggests that they are not enough to address the larger issue: the need for the patient and clinician to jointly create a course of action that is best for the individual patient and his or her family. The larger need in evidence-informed shared decision making is for a patient-clinician interaction that offers conversation, not just information, and care, not just choice. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

Call for shared decision making in China: Challenges and opportunities.

PubMed

Yao, Mi; Finnikin, Samuel; Cheng, K K

2017-06-01

China's healthcare system has undergone extensive changes over recent years and the most recent reforms are designed to shift the emphasis away from hospital based services towards a more primary care based system. There is an increasing recognition that shared decision making needs to play a central role in the delivery of healthcare in China, but there are several significant barriers to overcome before this aspiration becomes a reality. Doctor-patient relationships in China are poor, consultations are often brief transactions and levels of trust are low. Implementing a shared decision making process developed in the Western World may be hampered by cultural differences, although this remains an under-researched area. There is, however, a suggestion that the academic community is starting to take an interest in encouraging shared decision making in practice and indications that the Chinese public may be willing to consider this new approach to healthcare. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Enhancing Shared Decision Making Through Carefully Designed Interventions That Target Patient And Provider Behavior.

PubMed

Tai-Seale, Ming; Elwyn, Glyn; Wilson, Caroline J; Stults, Cheryl; Dillon, Ellis C; Li, Martina; Chuang, Judith; Meehan, Amy; Frosch, Dominick L

2016-04-01

Patient-provider communication and shared decision making are essential for primary care delivery and are vital contributors to patient experience and health outcomes. To alleviate communication shortfalls, we designed a novel, multidimensional intervention aimed at nudging both patients and primary care providers to communicate more openly. The intervention was tested against an existing intervention, which focused mainly on changing patients' behaviors, in four primary care clinics involving 26 primary care providers and 300 patients. Study results suggest that compared to usual care, both the novel and existing interventions were associated with better patient reports of how well primary care providers engaged them in shared decision making. Future research should build on the work in this pilot to rigorously examine the comparative effectiveness and scalability of these interventions to improve shared decision making at the point of care. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

Ethical Information Transparency and Sexually Transmitted Infections.

PubMed

Feltz, Adam

2015-01-01

Shared decision making is intended to help protect patient autonomy while satisfying the demands of beneficence. In shared decision making, information is shared between health care professional and patient. The sharing of information presents new and practical problems about how much information to share and how transparent that information should be. Sharing information also allows for subtle paternalistic strategies to be employed to "nudge" the patient in a desired direction. These problems are illustrated in two experiments. Experiment 1 (N = 146) suggested that positively framed messages increased the strength of judgments about whether a patient with HIV should designate a surrogate compared to a negatively framed message. A simple decision aid did not reliably reduce this effect. Experiment 2 (N = 492) replicated these effects. In addition, Experiment 2 suggested that providing some additional information (e.g., about surrogate decision making accuracy) can reduce tendencies to think that one with AIDS should designate a surrogate. These results indicate that in some circumstances, nudges (e.g., framing) influence judgments in ways that non-nudging interventions (e.g., simple graphs) do not. While non-nudging interventions are generally preferable, careful thought is required for determining the relative benefits and costs associated with information transparency and persuasion.

Factors and outcomes of decision making for cancer clinical trial participation.

PubMed

Biedrzycki, Barbara A

2011-09-01

To describe factors and outcomes related to the decision-making process regarding participation in a cancer clinical trial. Cross-sectional, descriptive. Urban, academic, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in the mid-Atlantic United States. 197 patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Mailed survey using one investigator-developed instrument, eight instruments used in published research, and a medical record review. disease context, sociodemographics, hope, quality of life, trust in healthcare system, trust in health professional, preference for research decision control, understanding risks, and information. decision to accept or decline research participation and satisfaction with this decision. All of the factors within the Research Decision Making Model together predicted cancer clinical trial participation and satisfaction with this decision. The most frequently preferred decision-making style for research participation was shared (collaborative) (83%). Multiple factors affect decision making for cancer clinical trial participation and satisfaction with this decision. Shared decision making previously was an unrecognized factor and requires further investigation. Enhancing the process of research decision making may facilitate an increase in cancer clinical trial enrollment rates. Oncology nurses have unique opportunities as educators and researchers to support shared decision making by those who prefer this method for deciding whether to accept or decline cancer clinical trial participation.

Effective follow-up consultations: the importance of patient-centered communication and shared decision making.

PubMed

Brand, Paul L P; Stiggelbout, Anne M

2013-12-01

Paediatricians spend a considerable proportion of their time performing follow-up visits for children with chronic conditions, but they rarely receive specific training on how best to perform such consultations. The traditional method of running a follow-up consultation is based on the doctor's agenda, and is problem-oriented. Patients and parents, however, prefer a patient-centered, and solution-focused approach. Although many physicians now recognize the importance of addressing the patient's perspective in a follow-up consultation, a number of barriers hamper its implementation in practice, including time constraints, lack of appropriate training, and a strong tradition of the biomedical, doctor-centered approach. Addressing the patient's perspective successfully can be achieved through shared decision making, clinicians and patients making decisions together based on the best clinical evidence. Research shows that shared decision making not only increases patient, parent, and physician satisfaction with the consultation, but also may improve health outcomes. Shared decision making involves building a physician-patient-parent partnership, agreeing on the problem at hand, laying out the available options with their benefits and risks, eliciting the patient's views and preferences on these options, and agreeing on a course of action. Shared decision making requires specific communication skills, which can be learned, and should be mastered through deliberate practice. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

An empirical analysis of the corporate call decision

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Carlson, Murray Dean

1998-12-01

In this thesis we provide insights into the behavior of financial managers of utility companies by studying their decisions to redeem callable preferred shares. In particular, we investigate whether or not an option pricing based model of the call decision, with managers who maximize shareholder value, does a better job of explaining callable preferred share prices and call decisions than do other models of the decision. In order to perform these tests, we extend an empirical technique introduced by Rust (1987) to include the use of information from preferred share prices in addition to the call decisions. The model we develop to value the option embedded in a callable preferred share differs from standard models in two ways. First, as suggested in Kraus (1983), we explicitly account for transaction costs associated with a redemption. Second, we account for state variables that are observed by the decision makers but not by the preferred shareholders. We interpret these unobservable state variables as the benefits and costs associated with a change in capital structure that can accompany a call decision. When we add this variable, our empirical model changes from one which predicts exactly when a share should be called to one which predicts the probability of a call as the function of the observable state. These two modifications of the standard model result in predictions of calls, and therefore of callable preferred share prices, that are consistent with several previously unexplained features of the data; we show that the predictive power of the model is improved in a statistical sense by adding these features to the model. The pricing and call probability functions from our model do a good job of describing call decisions and preferred share prices for several utilities. Using data from shares of the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PGE) we obtain reasonable estimates for the transaction costs associated with a call. Using a formal empirical test, we are able to conclude that the managers of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company clearly take into account the value of the option to delay the call when making their call decisions. Overall, the model seems to be robust to tests of its specification and does a better job of describing the data than do simpler models of the decision making process. Limitations in the data do not allow us to perform the same tests in a larger cross-section of utility companies. However, we are able to estimate transaction cost parameters for many firms and these do not seem to vary significantly from those of PGE. This evidence does not cause us to reject our hypothesis that managerial behavior is consistent with a model in which managers maximize shareholder value.

Acceptance of shared decision making with reference to an electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) and its association to decision making in patients: an evaluation study.

PubMed

Hirsch, Oliver; Keller, Heidemarie; Krones, Tanja; Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert

2011-07-07

Decision aids based on the philosophy of shared decision making are designed to help patients make informed choices among diagnostic or treatment options by delivering evidence-based information on options and outcomes. A patient decision aid can be regarded as a complex intervention because it consists of several presumably relevant components. Decision aids have rarely been field tested to assess patients' and physicians' attitudes towards them. It is also unclear what effect decision aids have on the adherence to chosen options. The electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) to be used within the clinical encounter has a modular structure and contains evidence-based decision aids for the following topics: cardiovascular prevention, atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, oral antidiabetics, conventional and intensified insulin therapy, and unipolar depression. We conducted an evaluation study in which 29 primary care physicians included 192 patients. After the consultation, patients filled in questionnaires and were interviewed via telephone two months later. We used generalised estimation equations to measure associations within patient variables and traditional crosstab analyses. Patients were highly satisfied with arriba-lib and the process of shared decision making. Two-thirds of patients reached in the telephone interview wanted to be counselled again with arriba-lib. There was a high congruence between preferred and perceived decision making. Of those patients reached in the telephone interview, 80.7% said that they implemented the decision, independent of gender and education. Elderly patients were more likely to say that they implemented the decision. Shared decision making with our multi-modular electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) was accepted by a high number of patients. It has positive associations to general aspects of decision making in patients. It can be used for patient groups with a wide range of individual characteristics.

Patient Preferences and Surrogate Decision Making in Neuroscience Intensive Care Units

PubMed Central

Cai, Xuemei; Robinson, Jennifer; Muehlschlegel, Susanne; White, Douglas B.; Holloway, Robert G.; Sheth, Kevin N.; Fraenkel, Liana; Hwang, David Y.

2016-01-01

In the neuroscience intensive care unit (NICU), most patients lack the capacity to make their own preferences known. This fact leads to situations where surrogate decision makers must fill the role of the patient in terms of making preference-based treatment decisions, oftentimes in challenging situations where prognosis is uncertain. The neurointensivist has a large responsibility and role to play in this shared decision making process. This review covers how NICU patient preferences are determined through existing advance care documentation or surrogate decision makers and how the optimum roles of the physician and surrogate decision maker are addressed. We outline the process of reaching a shared decision between family and care team and describe a practice for conducting optimum family meetings based on studies of ICU families in crisis. We review challenges in the decision making process between surrogate decision makers and medical teams in neurocritical care settings, as well as methods to ameliorate conflicts. Ultimately, the goal of shared decision making is to increase knowledge amongst surrogates and care providers, decrease decisional conflict, promote realistic expectations and preference-centered treatment strategies, and lift the emotional burden on families of neurocritical care patients. PMID:25990137

Working with interpreters: The challenges of introducing Option Grid patient decision aids.

PubMed

Wood, Fiona; Phillips, Katie; Edwards, Adrian; Elwyn, Glyn

2017-03-01

We aimed to observe how an Option Grid™ decision aid for clinical encounters might be used where an interpreter is present, and to assess the impact of its use on shared decision making. Data were available from three clinical consultations between patient, clinician (a physiotherapist), and interpreter about knee osteoarthritis. Clinicians were trained in the use of an Option Grid decision aid and the tool was used. Consultations were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated by independent translators into English. Analysis revealed the difficulties with introducing a written decision aid into an interpreted consultation. The extra discussion needed between the clinician and interpreter around the principles and purpose of shared decision making and instructions regarding the Option Grid decision aid proved challenging and difficult to manage. Discussion of treatment options while using an Option Grid decision aid was predominantly done between clinician and interpreter. The patient appeared to have little involvement in discussion of treatment options. Patients were not active participants within the discussion. Further work needs to be done on how shared decision making can be achieved within interpreted consultations. Option Grid decision aids are not being used as intended in interpreted consultations. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Physicians' Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Chronic Disease and Its Barriers and Facilitators.

PubMed

Dodds, Cassandra M; Britto, Maria T; Denson, Lee A; Lovell, Daniel J; Saeed, Shehzad; Lipstein, Ellen A

2016-04-01

This study assessed pediatric physicians' use of shared decision making (SDM) in 2 chronic conditions. Most physicians indicated that parent and adolescent trust and emotional readiness facilitated SDM, physicians' preferred approach to decision making. At the same time, they perceived few barriers, other than insurance limitations, to using SDM. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The use of video-based patient education for shared decision-making in the treatment of prostate cancer.

PubMed

Gomella, L G; Albertsen, P C; Benson, M C; Forman, J D; Soloway, M S

2000-08-01

Increased consumerism, patient empowerment, and autonomy are creating a health care revolution. In recent years, the public has become better informed and more sophisticated. An extraordinary amount of treatment advice from books, the media, and the Internet is available to patients today, although much of it is confusing or conflicting. Consequently, the traditional, paternalistic doctor-patient relationship is yielding to a more consumerist one. The new dynamic is based on a participatory ethic and a change in the balance of power. This shared decision-making creates a true partnership between professionals and patients, in which each contributes equally to decisions about treatment or care. Evidence suggests that in diseases such as prostate cancer, where there may be a number of appropriate treatment options for a particular patient, shared decision-making may lead to improved clinical and quality-of-life outcomes. This article explores the evolving relationship between the physician and patient, the pros and cons of shared decision-making, and the use of video technology in the clinical setting. The authors review the use of medical decision aids, including a video-based educational program called CHOICES, in the treatment of prostate cancer and other diseases.

[Shared medical decision making in gynaecology].

PubMed

This, P; Panel, P

2010-02-01

When two options or more can be chosen in medical care, the final decision implies two steps: facts analysis, and patient evaluation of preferences. Shared Medical Decision-Making is a rational conceptual frame that can be used in such cases. In this paper, we describe the concept, its practical modalities, and the questions raised by its use. In gynaecology, many medical situations involve "sensitive preferences choice": for example, contraceptive choice, menorrhagia treatment, and approach of menopause. Some tools from the "Shared Medical Decision Making" concept are useful to structure medical consultations, to convey information, and to reveal patients preferences. Decision aid are used in clinical research settings, but some of them may also be easily used in usual practice, and help physicians to improve both quality and traceability of the decisional process. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Review of experimental studies in social psychology of small groups when an optimal choice exists and application to operating room management decision-making.

PubMed

Prahl, Andrew; Dexter, Franklin; Braun, Michael T; Van Swol, Lyn

2013-11-01

Because operating room (OR) management decisions with optimal choices are made with ubiquitous biases, decisions are improved with decision-support systems. We reviewed experimental social-psychology studies to explore what an OR leader can do when working with stakeholders lacking interest in learning the OR management science but expressing opinions about decisions, nonetheless. We considered shared information to include the rules-of-thumb (heuristics) that make intuitive sense and often seem "close enough" (e.g., staffing is planned based on the average workload). We considered unshared information to include the relevant mathematics (e.g., staffing calculations). Multiple studies have shown that group discussions focus more on shared than unshared information. Quality decisions are more likely when all group participants share knowledge (e.g., have taken a course in OR management science). Several biases in OR management are caused by humans' limited abilities to estimate tails of probability distributions in their heads. Groups are more susceptible to analogous biases than are educated individuals. Since optimal solutions are not demonstrable without groups sharing common language, only with education of most group members can a knowledgeable individual influence the group. The appropriate model of decision-making is autocratic, with information obtained from stakeholders. Although such decisions are good quality, the leaders often are disliked and the decisions considered unjust. In conclusion, leaders will find the most success if they do not bring OR management operational decisions to groups, but instead act autocratically while obtaining necessary information in 1:1 conversations. The only known route for the leader making such decisions to be considered likable and for the decisions to be considered fair is through colleagues and subordinates learning the management science.

Supporting shared decision making using an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee in an interface musculoskeletal clinic: A stepped wedge trial.

PubMed

Elwyn, Glyn; Pickles, Tim; Edwards, Adrian; Kinsey, Katharine; Brain, Kate; Newcombe, Robert G; Firth, Jill; Marrin, Katy; Nye, Alan; Wood, Fiona

2016-04-01

To evaluate whether introducing tools, specifically designed for use in clinical encounters, namely Option Grids, into a clinical practice setting leads to higher levels of shared decision making. A stepped wedge trial design where 6 physiotherapists at an interface clinic in Oldham, UK, were sequentially instructed in how to use an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Patients with suspected or confirmed osteoarthritis of the knee were recruited, six per clinician prior to instruction, and six per clinician afterwards. We measured shared decision making, patient knowledge, and readiness to decide. A total of 72 patients were recruited; 36 were allocated to the intervention group. There was an 8.4 point (95% CI 4.4 to 12.2) increase in the Observer OPTION score (range 0-100) in the intervention group. The mean gain in knowledge was 0.9 points (score range 0-5, 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5). There was no increase in encounter duration. Shared decision making increased when clinicians used the knee osteoarthritis Option Grid. Tools designed to support collaboration and deliberation about treatment options lead to increased levels of shared decision making. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Using Option Grids: steps toward shared decision-making for neonatal circumcision.

PubMed

Fay, Mary; Grande, Stuart W; Donnelly, Kyla; Elwyn, Glyn

2016-02-01

To assess the impact, acceptability and feasibility of a short encounter tool designed to enhance the process of shared decision-making and parental engagement. We analyzed video-recordings of clinical encounters, half undertaken before and half after a brief intervention that trained four clinicians how to use Option Grids, using an observer-based measure of shared decision-making. We also analyzed semi-structured interviews conducted with the clinicians four weeks after their exposure to the intervention. Observer OPTION(5) scores were higher at post-intervention, with a mean of 33.9 (SD=23.5) compared to a mean of 16.1 (SD=7.1) for pre-intervention, a significant difference of 17.8 (95% CI: 2.4, 33.2). Prior to using the intervention, clinicians used a consent document to frame circumcision as a default practice. Encounters with the Option Grid conferred agency to both parents and clinicians, and facilitated shared decision-making. Clinician reported recognizing the tool's positive effect on their communication process. Tools such as Option Grids have the potential to make it easier for clinicians to achieve shared decision-making. Encounter tools have the potential to change practice. More research is needed to test their feasibility in routine practice. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: a participant-level meta-analysis.

PubMed

Wyatt, Kirk D; Branda, Megan E; Inselman, Jonathan W; Ting, Henry H; Hess, Erik P; Montori, Victor M; LeBlanc, Annie

2014-09-02

Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear. Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, concordance between stated decision and action taken, and degree of patient engagement by the clinician using the OPTION scale. An estimated minimal important difference was used to determine if nonsignificant results could be explained by low power. We did not find a statistically significant interaction between clinician/patient gender mix and arm for decisional conflict, satisfaction with the clinical encounter or patient engagement. A borderline significant interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for one outcome: concordance between stated decision and action taken, where encounters with female clinician/male patient showed increased concordance in the decision aid arm compared to control (8% more concordant encounters). All other gender dyads showed decreased concordance with decision aid use (6% fewer concordant encounters for same-gender, 16% fewer concordant encounters for male clinician/female patient). In this participant-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, decision aids used at the point of care demonstrated comparable efficacy across gender dyads. Purported barriers to shared decision making based on gender were not detected when tested for a minimum detected difference. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00888537, NCT01077037, NCT01029288, NCT00388050, NCT00578981, NCT00949611, NCT00217061.

Shared decision making after severe stroke-How can we improve patient and family involvement in treatment decisions?

PubMed

Visvanathan, Akila; Dennis, Martin; Mead, Gillian; Whiteley, William N; Lawton, Julia; Doubal, Fergus Neil

2017-12-01

People who are well may regard survival with disability as being worse than death. However, this is often not the case when those surviving with disability (e.g. stroke survivors) are asked the same question. Many routine treatments provided after an acute stroke (e.g. feeding via a tube) increase survival, but with disability. Therefore, clinicians need to support patients and families in making informed decisions about the use of these treatments, in a process termed shared decision making. This is challenging after acute stroke: there is prognostic uncertainty, patients are often too unwell to participate in decision making, and proxies may not know the patients' expressed wishes (i.e. values). Patients' values also change over time and in different situations. There is limited evidence on successful methods to facilitate this process. Changes targeted at components of shared decision making (e.g. decision aids to provide information and discussing patient values) increase patient satisfaction. How this influences decision making is unclear. Presumably, a "shared decision-making tool" that introduces effective changes at various stages in this process might be helpful after acute stroke. For example, by complementing professional judgement with predictions from prognostic models, clinicians could provide information that is more accurate. Decision aids that are personalized may be helpful. Further qualitative research can provide clinicians with a better understanding of patient values and factors influencing this at different time points after a stroke. The evaluation of this tool in its success to achieve outcomes consistent with patients' values may require more than one clinical trial.

Understanding the Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening: A Model of Factors That Shape Informed Decision Making.

PubMed

Petrova, Dafina; Garcia-Retamero, Rocio; Cokely, Edward T

2015-10-01

Decisions about cancer screenings often involve the consideration of complex and counterintuitive evidence. We investigated psychological factors that promote the comprehension of benefits and harms associated with common cancer screenings and their influence on shared decision making. In experiment 1, 256 men received information about PSA-based prostate cancer screening. In experiment 2, 355 women received information about mammography-based breast cancer screening. In both studies, information about potential screening outcomes was provided in 1 of 3 formats: text, a fact box, or a visual aid (e.g., mortality with and without screening and rate of overdiagnosis). We modeled the interplay of comprehension, perceived risks and benefits, intention to participate in screening, and desire for shared decision making. Generally, visual aids were the most effective format, increasing comprehension by up to 18%. Improved comprehension was associated with 1) superior decision making (e.g., fewer intentions to participate in screening when it offered no benefit) and 2) more desire to share in decision making. However, comprehension of the evidence had a limited effect on experienced emotions, risk perceptions, and decision making among those participants who felt that the consequences of cancer were extremely severe. Even when information is counterintuitive and requires the integration of complex harms and benefits, user-friendly risk communications can facilitate comprehension, improve high-stakes decisions, and promote shared decision making. However, previous beliefs about the effectiveness of screening or strong fears about specific cancers may interfere with comprehension and informed decision making. © The Author(s) 2015.

Decision-making of older patients in context of the doctor-patient relationship: a typology ranging from "self-determined" to "doctor-trusting" patients.

PubMed

Wrede-Sach, Jennifer; Voigt, Isabel; Diederichs-Egidi, Heike; Hummers-Pradier, Eva; Dierks, Marie-Luise; Junius-Walker, Ulrike

2013-01-01

Background. This qualitative study aims to gain insight into the perceptions and experiences of older patients with regard to sharing health care decisions with their general practitioners. Patients and Methods. Thirty-four general practice patients (≥70 years) were asked about their preferences and experiences concerning shared decision making with their doctors using qualitative semistructured interviews. All interviews were analysed according to principles of content analysis. The resulting categories were then arranged into a classification grid to develop a typology of preferences for participating in decision-making processes. Results. Older patients generally preferred to make decisions concerning everyday life rather than medical decisions, which they preferred to leave to their doctors. We characterised eight different patient types based on four interdependent positions (self-determination, adherence, information seeking, and trust). Experiences of a good doctor-patient relationship were associated with trust, reliance on the doctor for information and decision making, and adherence. Conclusion. Owing to the varied patient decision-making types, it is not easy for doctors to anticipate the desired level of patient involvement. However, the decision matter and the self-determination of patients provide good starting points in preparing the ground for shared decision making. A good relationship with the doctor facilitates satisfying decision-making experiences.

Promoting Shared Decision Making in Disorders of Sex Development (DSD): Decision Aids and Support Tools.

PubMed

Siminoff, L A; Sandberg, D E

2015-05-01

Specific complaints and grievances from adult patients with disorders of sex development (DSD), and their advocates center around the lack of information or misinformation they were given about their condition and feeling stigmatized and shamed by the secrecy surrounding their condition and its management. Many also attribute poor sexual function to damaging genital surgery and/or repeated, insensitive genital examinations. These reports suggest the need to reconsider the decision-making process for the treatment of children born with DSD. This paper proposes that shared decision making, an important concept in adult health care, be operationalized for the major decisions commonly encountered in DSD care and facilitated through the utilization of decision aids and support tools. This approach may help patients and their families make informed decisions that are better aligned with their personal values and goals. It may also lead to greater confidence in decision making with greater satisfaction and less regret. A brief review of the past and current approach to DSD decision making is provided, along with a review of shared decision making and decision aids and support tools. A case study explores the need and potential utility of this suggested new approach. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

20 CFR 416.1866 - Deciding whether you are a child: Are you the head of a household?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... the head of a household. (b) If you share decision-making equally. If you live with one or more people and everyone has an equal voice in the decision-making (for example, a group of students who share off... are responsible for the day-to-day decisions on the operation of your own household. If you live with...

An assessment of the shared-decision model in parents of children with acute otitis media.

PubMed

Merenstein, Dan; Diener-West, Marie; Krist, Alex; Pinneger, Matthew; Cooper, Lisa A

2005-12-01

Medicine is shifting from a doctor-centered approach to a model entailing more shared decision-making. Many organizations now recommend a shared-decision approach to treating children with acute otitis media (AOM). Our primary objectives in this study were to assess (1) which style of decision-making on the physician's part would most effectively reduce parents' proclivity to use antibiotics for treatment of their child's AOM and (2) parental satisfaction with different doctor-patient decision-making styles. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine how parents respond to doctor-patient communication styles in 3 clinical vignettes that presented 2 versions of a shared-decision model (SDM) and 1 paternalistic model. Parents were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 vignettes. The main predictor variable was the vignette assignment, and the main outcomes were (1) parent proclivity to use antibiotics and (2) parent ratings of care by the physician in the vignette. Using logistic regression, we adjusted for caregivers' age, gender, income, knowledge of antibiotics, decision-making preference, confidence in physician, and length of relationship with personal physician. Four hundred sixty-six parents met inclusion criteria, with a response rate of 94%. General characteristics were similar across vignette assignment groups. Parents who received the paternalistic-model vignettes were more likely to say that they would use antibiotics than those who received the SDM vignettes (odds ratio: 4.9; 95% confidence interval: 2.3-10.6). This result remained statistically significant after adjustment for potential confounders. In addition, parents in the shared-decision groups were more satisfied (93% and 84%) than those in the paternalistic-model group (76%). To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine parent interest, acceptance, and satisfaction with the SDM. Our findings suggest that shared decision-making for AOM may lead to less antibiotic usage and higher levels of parental satisfaction. Although more studies are needed to examine how best to incorporate parents in the SDM, our study serves as an example of the potential benefit of this approach in pediatric medicine.

Principles of shared decision-making within teams.

PubMed

Jacobs, Jeffrey P; Wernovsky, Gil; Cooper, David S; Karl, Tom R

2015-12-01

In the domain of paediatric and congenital cardiac care, the stakes are huge. Likewise, the care of these children assembles a group of "A+ personality" individuals from the domains of cardiac surgery, cardiology, anaesthesiology, critical care, and nursing. This results in an environment that has opportunity for both powerful collaboration and powerful conflict. Providers of healthcare should avoid conflict when it has no bearing on outcome, as it is clearly a squandering of individual and collective political capital. Outcomes after cardiac surgery are now being reported transparently and publicly. In the present era of transparency, one may wonder how to balance the following potentially competing demands: quality healthcare, transparency and accountability, and teamwork and shared decision-making. An understanding of transparency and public reporting in the domain of paediatric cardiac surgery facilitates the implementation of a strategy for teamwork and shared decision-making. In January, 2015, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) began to publicly report outcomes of paediatric and congenital cardiac surgery using the 2014 Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database (STS-CHSD) Mortality Risk Model. The 2014 STS-CHSD Mortality Risk Model facilitates description of Operative Mortality adjusted for procedural and patient-level factors. The need for transparency in reporting of outcomes can create pressure on healthcare providers to implement strategies of teamwork and shared decision-making to assure outstanding results. A simple strategy of shared decision-making was described by Tom Karl and was implemented in multiple domains by Jeff Jacobs and David Cooper. In a critical-care environment, it is not unusual for healthcare providers to disagree about strategies of management of patients. When two healthcare providers disagree, each provider can classify the disagreement into three levels: • SDM Level 1 Decision: "We disagree but it really does not matter, so do whatever you desire!" • SDM Level 2 Decision: "We disagree and I believe it matters, but I am OK if you do whatever you desire!!" • SDM Level 3 Decision: "We disagree and I must insist (diplomatically and politely) that we follow the strategy that I am proposing!!!!!!" SDM Level 1 Decisions and SDM Level 2 Decisions typically do not create stress on the team, especially when there is mutual purpose and respect among the members of the team. SDM Level 3 Decisions are the real challenge. Periodically, the healthcare team is faced with such Level 3 Decisions, and teamwork and shared decision-making may be challenged. Teamwork is a learned behaviour, and mentorship is critical to achieve a properly balanced approach. If we agree to leave our egos at the door, then, in the final analysis, the team will benefit and we will set the stage for optimal patient care. In the environment of strong disagreement, true teamwork and shared decision-making are critical to preserve the unity and strength of the multi-disciplinary team and simultaneously provide excellent healthcare.

An Analysis of Implementation of the Defense Travel System at the Naval Postgraduate School

DTIC Science & Technology

2002-03-01

processing called the Shared Services Office. The justification for this reorganization decision was to eliminate some inefficiency in the travel process...Table 2 shows the pros, cons, and issues surrounding the decision to create a Shared Services Office. Travel Manager was also modified to submit...service Location/space issues Expertise is centralized Travelers waiting for shared services concept to fail Coordinating the best order for

Predictors of Shared Decision Making and Level of Agreement between Consumers and Providers in Psychiatric Care

PubMed Central

Fukui, Sadaaki; Salyers, Michelle P.; Matthias, Marianne S.; Collins, Linda; Thompson, John; Coffman, Melinda; Torrey, William C.

2014-01-01

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively examine elements of shared decision making (SDM), and to establish empirical evidence for factors correlated with SDM and the level of agreement between consumer and provider in psychiatric care. Transcripts containing 128 audio-recorded medication check-up visits with eight providers at three community mental health centers were rated using the Shared Decision Making scale, adapted from Braddock’s Informed Decision Making Scale (Braddock et al., 1997; 1999; 2008). Multilevel regression analyses revealed that greater consumer activity in the session and greater decision complexity significantly predicted the SDM score. The best predictor of agreement between consumer and provider was “exploration of consumer preference,” with a four-fold increase in full agreement when consumer preferences were discussed more completely. Enhancing active consumer participation, particularly by incorporating consumer preferences in the decision making process appears to be an important factor in SDM. PMID:23299226

Biological information systems: Evolution as cognition-based information management.

PubMed

Miller, William B

2018-05-01

An alternative biological synthesis is presented that conceptualizes evolutionary biology as an epiphenomenon of integrated self-referential information management. Since all biological information has inherent ambiguity, the systematic assessment of information is required by living organisms to maintain self-identity and homeostatic equipoise in confrontation with environmental challenges. Through their self-referential attachment to information space, cells are the cornerstone of biological action. That individualized assessment of information space permits self-referential, self-organizing niche construction. That deployment of information and its subsequent selection enacted the dominant stable unicellular informational architectures whose biological expressions are the prokaryotic, archaeal, and eukaryotic unicellular forms. Multicellularity represents the collective appraisal of equivocal environmental information through a shared information space. This concerted action can be viewed as systematized information management to improve information quality for the maintenance of preferred homeostatic boundaries among the varied participants. When reiterated in successive scales, this same collaborative exchange of information yields macroscopic organisms as obligatory multicellular holobionts. Cognition-Based Evolution (CBE) upholds that assessment of information precedes biological action, and the deployment of information through integrative self-referential niche construction and natural cellular engineering antecedes selection. Therefore, evolutionary biology can be framed as a complex reciprocating interactome that consists of the assessment, communication, deployment and management of information by self-referential organisms at multiple scales in continuous confrontation with environmental stresses. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Decision-making on shared sanitation in the informal settlements of Kisumu, Kenya.

PubMed

Simiyu, Sheillah; Swilling, Mark; Cairncross, Sandy

2017-10-01

Unlike most quantitative studies that investigate decision-making on investing in sanitation, this study adopted a qualitative approach to investigate decision-making on shared sanitation in the informal settlements of Kisumu city, in Kenya. Using a grounded theory approach, landlords and tenants were interviewed to identify sanitation decisions, individuals involved in decision-making and factors influencing decision-making. The results indicate that the main sanitation decisions are on investment, emptying, repair and cleaning. Landlords make investment, emptying and repair decisions, while tenants make cleaning decisions. Absentee landlords are less involved in most decision-making compared to live-in landlords, who rarely consult tenants in decision-making. Tenants make decisions after consultations with a third party and often collectively with other tenants. Sanitation interventions in informal settlements should thus, target landlords and tenants, with investment efforts being directed at landlords and maintenance efforts at tenants.

A legal framework to enable sharing of Clinical Decision Support knowledge and services across institutional boundaries.

PubMed

Hongsermeier, Tonya; Maviglia, Saverio; Tsurikova, Lana; Bogaty, Dan; Rocha, Roberto A; Goldberg, Howard; Meltzer, Seth; Middleton, Blackford

2011-01-01

The goal of the CDS Consortium (CDSC) is to assess, define, demonstrate, and evaluate best practices for knowledge management and clinical decision support in healthcare information technology at scale - across multiple ambulatory care settings and Electronic Health Record technology platforms. In the course of the CDSC research effort, it became evident that a sound legal foundation was required for knowledge sharing and clinical decision support services in order to address data sharing, intellectual property, accountability, and liability concerns. This paper outlines the framework utilized for developing agreements in support of sharing, accessing, and publishing content via the CDSC Knowledge Management Portal as well as an agreement in support of deployment and consumption of CDSC developed web services in the context of a research project under IRB oversight.

Tools to Promote Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Austin, C Adrian; Mohottige, Dinushika; Sudore, Rebecca L; Smith, Alexander K; Hanson, Laura C

2015-07-01

Serious illness impairs function and threatens survival. Patients facing serious illness value shared decision making, yet few decision aids address the needs of this population. To perform a systematic review of evidence about decision aids and other exportable tools that promote shared decision making in serious illness, thereby (1) identifying tools relevant to the treatment decisions of seriously ill patients and their caregivers, (2) evaluating the quality of evidence for these tools, and (3) summarizing their effect on outcomes and accessibility for clinicians. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychInfo from January 1, 1995, through October 31, 2014, and identified additional studies from reference lists and other systematic reviews. Clinical trials with random or nonrandom controls were included if they tested print, video, or web-based tools for advance care planning (ACP) or decision aids for serious illness. We extracted data on the study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Each tool was evaluated for its effect on patient outcomes and accessibility. Seventeen randomized clinical trials tested decision tools in serious illness. Nearly all the trials were of moderate or high quality and showed that decision tools improve patient knowledge and awareness of treatment choices. The available tools address ACP, palliative care and goals of care communication, feeding options in dementia, lung transplant in cystic fibrosis, and truth telling in terminal cancer. Five randomized clinical trials provided further evidence that decision tools improve ACP documentation, clinical decisions, and treatment received. Clinicians can access and use evidence-based tools to engage seriously ill patients in shared decision making. This field of research is in an early stage; future research is needed to develop novel decision aids for other serious diagnoses and key decisions. Health care delivery organizations should prioritize the use of currently available tools that are evidence based and effective.

Patient Decision Aids Improve Decision Quality and Patient Experience and Reduce Surgical Rates in Routine Orthopaedic Care: A Prospective Cohort Study.

PubMed

Sepucha, Karen; Atlas, Steven J; Chang, Yuchiao; Dorrwachter, Janet; Freiberg, Andrew; Mangla, Mahima; Rubash, Harry E; Simmons, Leigh H; Cha, Thomas

2017-08-02

Patient decision aids are effective in randomized controlled trials, yet little is known about their impact in routine care. The purpose of this study was to examine whether decision aids increase shared decision-making when used in routine care. A prospective study was designed to evaluate the impact of a quality improvement project to increase the use of decision aids for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis, lumbar disc herniation, or lumbar spinal stenosis. A usual care cohort was enrolled before the quality improvement project and an intervention cohort was enrolled after the project. Participants were surveyed 1 week after a specialist visit, and surgical status was collected at 6 months. Regression analyses adjusted for clustering of patients within clinicians and examined the impact on knowledge, patient reports of shared decision-making in the visit, and surgical rates. With 550 surveys, the study had 80% to 90% power to detect a difference in these key outcomes. The response rates to the 1-week survey were 70.6% (324 of 459) for the usual care cohort and 70.2% (328 of 467) for the intervention cohort. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in any patient characteristic between the 2 cohorts. More patients received decision aids in the intervention cohort at 63.6% compared with the usual care cohort at 27.3% (p = 0.007). Decision aid use was associated with higher knowledge scores, with a mean difference of 18.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4 to 26.1 points; p < 0.001) for the usual care cohort and 15.3 points (95% CI, 7.5 to 23.0 points; p = 0.002) for the intervention cohort. Patients reported more shared decision-making (p = 0.009) in the visit with their surgeon in the intervention cohort, with a mean Shared Decision-Making Process score (and standard deviation) of 66.9 ± 27.5 points, compared with the usual care cohort at 62.5 ± 28.6 points. The majority of patients received their preferred treatment, and this did not differ by cohort or decision aid use. Surgical rates were lower in the intervention cohort for those who received the decision aids at 42.3% compared with 58.8% for those who did not receive decision aids (p = 0.023) and in the usual care cohort at 44.3% for those who received decision aids compared with 55.7% for those who did not receive them (p = 0.45). The quality improvement project successfully integrated patient decision aids into a busy orthopaedic clinic. When used in routine care, decision aids are associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, and lower surgical rates. There is increasing pressure to design systems of care that inform and involve patients in decisions about elective surgery. In this study, the authors found that patient decision aids, when used as part of routine orthopaedic care, were associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, higher patient experience ratings, and lower surgical rates.

Strategies to facilitate shared decision-making about pediatric oncology clinical trial enrollment: A systematic review.

PubMed

Robertson, Eden G; Wakefield, Claire E; Signorelli, Christina; Cohn, Richard J; Patenaude, Andrea; Foster, Claire; Pettit, Tristan; Fardell, Joanna E

2018-07-01

We conducted a systematic review to identify the strategies that have been recommended in the literature to facilitate shared decision-making regarding enrolment in pediatric oncology clinical trials. We searched seven databases for peer-reviewed literature, published 1990-2017. Of 924 articles identified, 17 studies were eligible for the review. We assessed study quality using the 'Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool'. We coded the results and discussions of papers line-by-line using nVivo software. We categorized strategies thematically. Five main themes emerged: 1) decision-making as a process, 2) individuality of the process; 3) information provision, 4) the role of communication, or 5) decision and psychosocial support. Families should have adequate time to make a decision. HCPs should elicit parents' and patients' preferences for level of information and decision involvement. Information should be clear and provided in multiple modalities. Articles also recommended providing training for healthcare professionals and access to psychosocial support for families. High quality, individually-tailored information, open communication and psychosocial support appear vital in supporting decision-making regarding enrollment in clinical trials. These data will usefully inform future decision-making interventions/tools to support families making clinical trial decisions. A solid evidence-base for effective strategies which facilitate shared decision-making is needed. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Cultural influences on the physician-patient encounter: The case of shared treatment decision-making.

PubMed

Charles, Cathy; Gafni, Amiram; Whelan, Tim; O'Brien, Mary Ann

2006-11-01

In this paper we discuss the influence of culture on the process of treatment decision-making, and in particular, shared treatment decision-making in the physician-patient encounter. We explore two key issues: (1) the meaning of culture and the ways that it can affect treatment decision-making; (2) cultural issues and assumptions underlying the development and use of treatment decision aids. This is a conceptual paper. Based on our knowledge and reading of the key literature in the treatment decision-making field, we looked for written examples where cultural influences were taken into account when discussing the physician-patient encounter and when designing instruments (decision aids) to help patients participate in making decisions. Our assessment of the situation is that to date, and with some recent exceptions, research in the above areas has not been culturally sensitive. We suggest that more research attention should be focused on exploring potential cultural variations in the meaning of and preferences for shared decision-making as well as on the applicability across cultural groups of decision aids developed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decision-making with physicians. Both patients and physicians need to be aware of the cultural assumptions underlying the development and use of decision aids and assess their cultural sensitivity to the needs and preferences of patients in diverse cultural groups.

Tax decisions bring good and bad news for hospitals.

PubMed

Bromberg, R S

1980-12-01

Three recent court decisions denying tax exemptions to shared hospital laundry service organizations should dispel the belief that tax exemptions will automatically be granted to shared service organizations. Two other decisions on the sale of goods and services to persons other than hospitals suggest that the IRS is moving toward a position that accepts certain services as indigenous to the exempt functions of a modern community hospital.

Patient Decision Control and the Use of Cardiac Catheterization

PubMed Central

Paasche-Orlow, Michael K.; Orner, Michelle B.; Stewart, Sabrina K.; Kressin, Nancy R.

2015-01-01

Background: Shared decision-making is a key determinant of patient-centered care. A lack of patient involvement in treatment decisions may explain persistent racial disparities in rates of cardiac catheterization (CCATH). To date, limited evidence exists to demonstrate whether patients who engage in shared decision-makingare more or less likely to undergo non-emergency CCATH. Objective: To assess the relationship between participation in the decision to undergo a CCATH and the use of CCATH. We also examined whether preference for or actual engagement in decision-making varied by patient race. Methods: We analyzed data from 826 male Veterans Administration patients for whom CCATH was indicated and who participated in the Cardiac Decision Making Study. Results: After controlling for confounders, patients reporting any degree of decision control were more likely to receive CCATH compared with those reporting no control (doctor made decision without patient input) (54% vs 39%, P<.0001). Across racial groups, patients were equally likely to report a preference for control over decision-making (P=.53) as well as to experience discordance between their preference for control and their perception of the actual decision-making process (P=.59). Therefore, these factors did not mediate racial disparities in rates of CCATH use. Conclusion: Shared decision-making is an essential feature of whole-person care. While participation in decision-making may not explain disparities in CCATH rates, further work is required to identify strategies to improve congruence between patients' desire for and actual control over decision-making to actualize patient-centered care. PMID:26331101

Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision making in health-care encounters: Systematic review of conversation analytic research.

PubMed

Land, Victoria; Parry, Ruth; Seymour, Jane

2017-12-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is generally treated as good practice in health-care interactions. Conversation analytic research has yielded detailed findings about decision making in health-care encounters. To map decision making communication practices relevant to health-care outcomes in face-to-face interactions yielded by prior conversation analyses, and to examine their function in relation to SDM. We searched nine electronic databases (last search November 2016) and our own and other academics' collections. Published conversation analyses (no restriction on publication dates) using recordings of health-care encounters in English where the patient (and/or companion) was present and where the data and analysis focused on health/illness-related decision making. We extracted study characteristics, aims, findings relating to communication practices, how these functioned in relation to SDM, and internal/external validity issues. We synthesised findings aggregatively. Twenty-eight publications met the inclusion criteria. We sorted findings into 13 types of communication practices and organized these in relation to four elements of decision-making sequences: (i) broaching decision making; (ii) putting forward a course of action; (iii) committing or not (to the action put forward); and (iv) HCPs' responses to patients' resistance or withholding of commitment. Patients have limited opportunities to influence decision making. HCPs' practices may constrain or encourage this participation. Patients, companions and HCPs together treat and undertake decision making as shared, though to varying degrees. Even for non-negotiable treatment trajectories, the spirit of SDM can be invoked through practices that encourage participation (eg by bringing the patient towards shared understanding of the decision's rationale). © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A critical narrative analysis of shared decision-making in acute inpatient mental health care.

PubMed

Stacey, Gemma; Felton, Anne; Morgan, Alastair; Stickley, Theo; Willis, Martin; Diamond, Bob; Houghton, Philip; Johnson, Beverley; Dumenya, John

2016-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a high priority in healthcare policy and is complementary to the recovery philosophy in mental health care. This agenda has been operationalised within the Values-Based Practice (VBP) framework, which offers a theoretical and practical model to promote democratic interprofessional approaches to decision-making. However, these are limited by a lack of recognition of the implications of power implicit within the mental health system. This study considers issues of power within the context of decision-making and examines to what extent decisions about patients' care on acute in-patient wards are perceived to be shared. Focus groups were conducted with 46 mental health professionals, service users, and carers. The data were analysed using the framework of critical narrative analysis (CNA). The findings of the study suggested each group constructed different identity positions, which placed them as inside or outside of the decision-making process. This reflected their view of themselves as best placed to influence a decision on behalf of the service user. In conclusion, the discourse of VBP and SDM needs to take account of how differentials of power and the positioning of speakers affect the context in which decisions take place.

Breast Conservation Therapy Versus Mastectomy: Shared Decision-Making Strategies and Overcoming Decisional Conflicts in Your Patients.

PubMed

Margenthaler, Julie A; Ollila, David W

2016-10-01

Although breast-conserving therapy is considered the preferred treatment for the majority of women with early-stage breast cancer, mastectomy rates in this group remain high. The patient, physician, and systems factors contributing to a decision for mastectomy are complicated. Understanding the individual patient's values and goals when making this decision is paramount to providing a shared decision-making process that will yield the desired outcome. The cornerstones of this discussion include education of the patient, access to decision-aid tools, and time to make an informed decision. However, it is also paramount for the physician to understand that a significant majority of women with an informed and complete understanding of their surgical choices will still prefer mastectomy. The rates of breast conservation versus mastectomy should not be considered a quality measure alone. Rather, the extent by which patients are informed, involved in decision-making, and undergoing treatments that reflect their goals is the true test of quality. Here we explore some of the factors that impact the patient preference for breast conservation versus mastectomy and how shared decision-making can be maximized for patient satisfaction.

"I'm Keeping Those There, Are You?": The Role of a New User Interface Paradigm--Separate Control of Shared Space (SCOSS)--in the Collaborative Decision-Making Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kerawalla, Lucinda; Pearce, Darren; Yuill, Nicola; Luckin, Rosemary; Harris, Amanda

2008-01-01

We take a socio-cultural approach to comparing how dual control of a new user interface paradigm--Separate Control of Shared Space (SCOSS)--and dual control of a single user interface can work to mediate the collaborative decision-making process between pairs of children carrying out a multiple categorisation word task on a shared computer.…

Decision on risk-averse dual-channel supply chain under demand disruption

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Yan, Bo; Jin, Zijie; Liu, Yanping; Yang, Jianbo

2018-02-01

We studied dual-channel supply chains using centralized and decentralized decision-making models. We also conducted a comparative analysis of the decisions before and after demand disruption. The study shows that the amount of change in decision-making is a linear function of the amount of demand disruption, and it is independent of the risk-averse coefficient. The optimal sales volume decision of the disturbing supply chain is related to market share and demand disruption in the decentralized decision-making model. The optimal decision is only influenced by demand disruption in the centralized decision-making model. The stability of the sales volume of the two models is related to market share and demand disruption. The optimal system production of the two models shows robustness, but their stable internals are different.

Praises & Nudges: A Case of District-Wide Change.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Doyle, Richard; And Others

This paper describes the processes and outcomes experienced by the Marshalltown Community School District (Iowa) as it implemented a shared decision-making, school-improvement program. A district Shared Decision Making (SDM) Team and School Improvement Program (SIP) teams were trained to facilitate greater staff participation in the…

A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions.

PubMed

Siminoff, Laura A; Step, Mary M

2005-07-01

The authors present a communication model of shared decision making (CMSDM) that explicitly identifies the communication process as the vehicle for decision making in cancer treatment. In this view, decision making is necessarily a sociocommunicative process whereby people enter into a relationship, exchange information, establish preferences, and choose a course of action. The model derives from contemporary notions of behavioral decision making and ethical conceptions of the doctor-patient relationship. This article briefly reviews the theoretical approaches to decision making, notes deficiencies, and embeds a more socially based process into the dynamics of the physician-patient relationship, focusing on cancer treatment decisions. In the CMSDM, decisions depend on (a) antecedent factors that have potential to influence communication, (b) jointly constructed communication climate, and (c) treatment preferences established by the physician and the patient.

Extending The P4P Agenda, Part 1: How Medicare Can Improve Patient Decision Making And Reduce Unnecessary Care

PubMed Central

Wennberg, John E.; O'Connor, Annette M.; Collins, E. Dale; Weinstein, James N.

2008-01-01

The decision to undergo many discretionary medical treatments should be based on informed patient choice. Shared decision making is an effective strategy for achieving this goal. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should extend its pay-for-performance (P4P) agenda to assure that all Americans have access to a certified shared decision-making process. This paper outlines a strategy to achieve informed patient choice as the standard of practice for preference-sensitive care. PMID:17978377

Decision-Making of Older Patients in Context of the Doctor-Patient Relationship: A Typology Ranging from “Self-Determined” to “Doctor-Trusting” Patients

PubMed Central

Voigt, Isabel; Diederichs-Egidi, Heike; Hummers-Pradier, Eva; Dierks, Marie-Luise; Junius-Walker, Ulrike

2013-01-01

Background. This qualitative study aims to gain insight into the perceptions and experiences of older patients with regard to sharing health care decisions with their general practitioners. Patients and Methods. Thirty-four general practice patients (≥70 years) were asked about their preferences and experiences concerning shared decision making with their doctors using qualitative semistructured interviews. All interviews were analysed according to principles of content analysis. The resulting categories were then arranged into a classification grid to develop a typology of preferences for participating in decision-making processes. Results. Older patients generally preferred to make decisions concerning everyday life rather than medical decisions, which they preferred to leave to their doctors. We characterised eight different patient types based on four interdependent positions (self-determination, adherence, information seeking, and trust). Experiences of a good doctor-patient relationship were associated with trust, reliance on the doctor for information and decision making, and adherence. Conclusion. Owing to the varied patient decision-making types, it is not easy for doctors to anticipate the desired level of patient involvement. However, the decision matter and the self-determination of patients provide good starting points in preparing the ground for shared decision making. A good relationship with the doctor facilitates satisfying decision-making experiences. PMID:23691317

The Effect of Shared Information on Pilot/Controller And Controller/Controller Interactions

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Hansman, R. John

1999-01-01

In order to respond to the increasing demand on limited airspace system resources, a number of applications of information technology have been proposed, or are under investigation, to improve the efficiency, capacity and reliability of ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) operations. Much of the attention in advanced ATM technology has focused on advanced automation systems or decision aiding systems to improve the performance of individual Pilots or Controllers. However, the most significant overall potential for information technology appears to he in increasing the shared information between human agents such as Pilots, Controllers or between interacting Controllers or traffic flow managers. Examples of proposed shared information systems in the US include; Controller Pilot Databank Communication (CPDLC), Traffic Management Advisor (TMA); Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS); Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) and NAS Level Common Information Exchange. Air Traffic Management is fundamentally a human centered process consisting of the negotiation, execution and monitoring of contracts between human agents for the allocation of limited airspace, runway and airport surface resources. The decision processes within ATM tend to be Semistructured. Many of the routine elements in ATM decision making on the part of the Controllers or Pilots are well Structured and can be represented by well defined rules or procedures. However in disrupted conditions, the ATM decision processes are often Unstructured and cannot be reduced to a set of discrete rules. As a consequence, the ability to automate ATM processes will be limited and ATM will continue to be a human centric process where the responsibility and the authority for the negotiation will continue to rest with human Controllers and Pilots. The use of information technology to support the human decision process will therefore be an important aspect of ATM modernization. The premise of many of the proposed shared information systems is that the performance of ATM operations will improve with an increase in Shared Situation Awareness between agents (Pilots, Controller, Dispatchers). This will allow better informed control decisions and an improved ability to negotiate between agents. A common information basis may reduce communication load and may increase the level of collaboration in the decision process. In general, information sharing is expected to have advantages for all agents within the system. However there are important questions which remain to be,addressed. For example: What shared information is most important for developing effective Shared Situation Awareness? Are there issues of information saturation? Does information parity create ambiguity in control authority? Will information sharing induce undesirable or unstable gaming behavior between agents? This paper will explore the effect of current and proposed information sharing between different ATM agents. The paper will primarily concentrate on bilateral tactical interactions between specific agents (Pilot/Controller; Controller/Controller; Pilot/Dispatcher; Controller/Dispatcher) however it will also briefly discuss multilateral interaction and more strategic interactions.

The interplay between sharing behavior and beliefs about others in children during dictator games.

PubMed

Santamaría-García, Hernando; González-Gadea, María Luz; Di Tella, Rafael; Ibáñez, Agustín; Sigman, Mariano

2018-02-01

Previous studies in adults demonstrated that beliefs and sharing decisions in social scenarios are closely related. However, to date, little is known about the development of this relationship in children. By using a modified dictator game, we assessed sharing behavior and beliefs about others in children between 3 and 12 years old. We performed four studies (N = 376) aimed to assess whether decisions were related to beliefs (Studies 1 and 2) and whether information about the recipient's forced sharing behavior would shape decisions and beliefs (Studies 3 and 4). Results of Studies 1 and 2 showed that beliefs about others' generosity were related to children's sharing behavior. In Studies 3 and 4, we found that only children older than 9 years shared more pieces of candy when they knew that the recipient would be forced to share (cooperative context) than when they knew that the recipient would be forced not to share (noncooperative context). Besides, children older than 6 years did not modify their beliefs about others' generosity according to these social contexts. These results suggest that normative or preconceived beliefs about the functioning of the social world may guide social behavior in children. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Transfer of Decision Making and Farm Tasks from Father to Son in Father-and-Son Farming Arrangements. RS-51, August 1976.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Coughenour, C. Milton; And Others

The study examined the division of decision-making and farm tasks in a joint father and son enterprise, the extent to which the decisions tended to be shared equally, and the extent to which the principal operator had responsibility for those tasks not shared. Data were collected in 1974 from fathers and sons who were joint operators of 145 farms…

Shared Decision Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lashway, Larry

1997-01-01

In shared decision making (SDM), principals collaborate with teachers and sometimes parents to take actions aimed at improving instruction and school climate. While research on SDM outcomes is still inconclusive, the literature shows that SDM brings both benefits and problems, and that the principal is a key figure. This brief offers a sampling of…

Better Decisions through Consultation and Collaboration

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

This manual discusses the benefits of public involvement to agency decision makers, including expanding shared baseline knowledge, generating support for the decision, and developing ongoing relationships that will help in implementing decisions.

Medical students, clinical preventive services, and shared decision-making.

PubMed

Keefe, Carole W; Thompson, Margaret E; Noel, Mary Margaret

2002-11-01

Improving access to preventive care requires addressing patient, provider, and systems barriers. Patients often lack knowledge or are skeptical about the importance of prevention. Physicians feel that they have too little time, are not trained to deliver preventive services, and are concerned about the effectiveness of prevention. We have implemented an educational module in the required family practice clerkship (1) to enhance medical student learning about common clinical preventive services and (2) to teach students how to inform and involve patients in shared decision making about those services. Students are asked to examine available evidence-based information for preventive screening services. They are encouraged to look at the recommendations of various organizations and use such resources as reports from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to determine recommendations they want to be knowledgeable about in talking with their patients. For learning shared decision making, students are trained to use a model adapted from Braddock and colleagues(1) to discuss specific screening services and to engage patients in the process of making informed decisions about what is best for their own health. The shared decision making is presented and modeled by faculty, discussed in small groups, and students practice using Web-based cases and simulations. The students are evaluated using formative and summative performance-based assessments as they interact with simulated patients about (1) screening for high blood cholesterol and other lipid abnormalities, (2) screening for colorectal cancer, (3) screening for prostate cancer, and (4) screening for breast cancer. The final student evaluation is a ten-minute, videotaped discussion with a simulated patient about screening for colorectal cancer that is graded against a checklist that focuses primarily on the elements of shared decision making. Our medical students appear quite willing to accept shared decision making as a skill that they should have in working with patients, and this was the primary focus of the newly implemented module. However, we have learned that students need to deepen their understanding of screening services in order to help patients understand the associated benefits and risks. The final videotaped interaction with a simulated patient about colorectal cancer screening has been very helpful in making it more obvious to faculty what students believe and know about screening for colorectal cancer. As the students are asked to discuss clinical issues with patients and discuss the pros and cons of screening tests as part of the shared decision-making process, their thinking becomes transparent and it is evident where curricular changes and enhancements are required. We have found that an explicit model that allows students to demonstrate a process for shared decision making is a good introductory tool. We think it would be helpful to provide students with more formative feedback. We would like to develop faculty development programs around shared decision making so that more of our clinical faculty would model such a process with patients. Performance-based assessments are resource-intensive, but they appear to be worth the added effort in terms of enhanced skills development and a more comprehensive appraisal of student learning.

The Role of Patients: Shared Decision-Making.

PubMed

Beers, Emily; Lee Nilsen, Marci; Johnson, Jonas T

2017-08-01

Shared decision-making affords patients and their families the autonomy to make difficult decisions after receiving comprehensive information about medical facts and treatment options. It is essential that patients' values are respected. The essential steps include first informing patients of the need for a decision, then explaining the various facts involved; after which, it is important to elicit patients' preferences and goals. Once the treatment options and outcomes important to patients are identified, an actual decision can be made. This activity is complex and requires a commitment of time and is enhanced through employment of a multidisciplinary team approach. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Shared decision making: relevant concepts and facilitating strategies.

PubMed

Bae, Jong-Myon

2017-01-01

As the paradigm in healthcare nowadays is the evidence-based, patient-centered decision making, the issue of shared decision making (SDM) is highlighted. The aims of this manuscript were to look at the relevant concepts and suggest the facilitating strategies for overcoming barriers of conducting SDM. While the definitions of SDM were discordant, several concepts such as good communication, individual autonomy, patient participants, and patient-centered decision-making were involved. Further, the facilitating strategies of SDM were to educate and train physician, to apply clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids, to develop valid measurement tools for evaluation of SDM processes, and to investigate the impact of SDM.

Sodium valproate in pregnancy: what are the risks and should we use a shared decision-making approach?

PubMed

Macfarlane, Alastair; Greenhalgh, Trisha

2018-06-01

Despite significant teratogenic risks, sodium valproate is still widely prescribed in many countries to women of childbearing age, as a mood stabiliser in bipolar disorder and also in epilepsy. The UK has recently banned valproate use in women who are not in a pregnancy prevention programme. Whilst this ruling reflects prevailing clinical practice, it also highlights an ongoing debate about when (if ever) a woman who is or could become pregnant should be allowed to choose to take valproate. We review the benefits and harms of drugs available for bipolar disorder and epilepsy in women of childbearing age, with a particular focus on teratogenic risk. We speculate on hypothetical rare situations in which potential benefits of valproate may outweigh potential harms in such women. We also review the literature on shared decision-making - on which there is now a NICE guideline and numerous evidence-based decision tools. Drawing on previous work by experts in shared decision-making, we offer a list of 'frequently asked questions' and a matrix of options to support conversations with women about continuing or discontinuing the drug in (or in anticipation of) pregnancy. We also consider whether shared decision-making is an appropriate paradigm when considering whether to continue a teratogenic drug. We conclude that because valproate in pregnancy remains the subject of such debate, there is scope for further research - not only into the relative efficacy and safety of alternatives to it - but also into the dynamics of communication and shared decision-making in this situation.

The CHOICE pilot project: Challenges of implementing a combined peer work and shared decision-making programme in an early intervention service.

PubMed

Simmons, Magenta B; Coates, Dominiek; Batchelor, Samantha; Dimopoulos-Bick, Tara; Howe, Deborah

2017-12-12

Youth participation is central to early intervention policy and quality frameworks. There is good evidence for peer support (individuals with lived experience helping other consumers) and shared decision making (involving consumers in making decisions about their own care) in adult settings. However, youth programs are rarely tested or described in detail. This report aims to fill this gap by describing a consumer focused intervention in an early intervention service. This paper describes the development process, intervention content and implementation challenges of the Choices about Healthcare Options Informed by Client Experiences and Expectations (CHOICE) Pilot Project. This highly novel and innovative project combined both youth peer work and youth shared decision making. Eight peer workers were employed to deliver an online shared decision-making tool at a youth mental health service in New South Wales, Australia. The intervention development involved best practice principles, including international standards and elements of co-design. The implementation of the peer workforce in the service involved a number of targeted strategies designed to support this new service model. However, several implementation challenges were experienced which resulted in critical learning about how best to deliver these types of interventions. Delivering peer work and shared decision making within an early intervention service is feasible, but not without challenges. Providing adequate detail about interventions and implementation strategies fills a critical gap in the literature. Understanding optimal youth involvement strategies assists others to deliver acceptable and effective services to young people who experience mental ill health. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

An evidence-based shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: protocol of a randomised-controlled trial.

PubMed

Buhse, Susanne; Heller, Tabitha; Kasper, Jürgen; Mühlhauser, Ingrid; Müller, Ulrich Alfons; Lehmann, Thomas; Lenz, Matthias

2013-10-19

Lack of patient involvement in decision making has been suggested as one reason for limited treatment success. Concepts such as shared decision making may contribute to high quality healthcare by supporting patients to make informed decisions together with their physicians.A multi-component shared decision making programme on the prevention of heart attack in type 2 diabetes has been developed. It aims at improving the quality of decision-making by providing evidence-based patient information, enhancing patients' knowledge, and supporting them to actively participate in decision-making. In this study the efficacy of the programme is evaluated in the setting of a diabetes clinic. A single blinded randomised-controlled trial is conducted to compare the shared decision making programme with a control-intervention. The intervention consists of an evidence-based patient decision aid on the prevention of myocardial infarction and a corresponding counselling module provided by diabetes educators. Similar in duration and structure, the control-intervention targets nutrition, sports, and stress coping. A total of 154 patients between 40 and 69 years of age with type 2 diabetes and no previous diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease or stroke are enrolled and allocated either to the intervention or the control-intervention. Primary outcome measure is the patients' knowledge on benefits and harms of heart attack prevention captured by a standardised knowledge test. Key secondary outcome measure is the achievement of treatment goals prioritised by the individual patient. Treatment goals refer to statin taking, HbA1c-, blood pressure levels and smoking status. Outcomes are assessed directly after the counselling and at 6 months follow-up. Analyses will be carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Concurrent qualitative methods are used to explore intervention fidelity and to gain insight into implementation processes. Interventions to facilitate evidence-based shared decision making represent an innovative approach in diabetes care. The results of this study will provide information on the efficacy of such a concept in the setting of a diabetes clinic in Germany. ISRCTN84636255.

Complex Decision-Making in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis.

PubMed

Hamel, Aimee V; Gaugler, Joseph E; Porta, Carolyn M; Hadidi, Niloufar Niakosari

Heart failure follows a highly variable and difficult course. Patients face complex decisions, including treatment with implantable cardiac defibrillators, mechanical circulatory support, and heart transplantation. The course of decision-making across multiple treatments is unclear yet integral to providing informed and shared decision-making. Recognizing commonalities across treatment decisions could help nurses and physicians to identify opportunities to introduce discussions and support shared decision-making. The specific aims of this review are to examine complex treatment decision-making, specifically implantable cardiac defibrillators, ventricular assist device, and cardiac transplantation, and to recognize commonalities and key points in the decisional process. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched for English-language studies that included qualitative findings reflecting the complexity of heart failure decision-making. Using a 3-step process, findings were synthesized into themes and subthemes. Twelve articles met criteria for inclusion. Participants included patients, caregivers, and clinicians and included decisions to undergo and decline treatment. Emergent themes were "processing the decision," "timing and prognostication," and "considering the future." Subthemes described how participants received and understood information about the therapy, making and changing a treatment decision, timing their decision and gauging health status outcomes in the context of their decision, the influence of a life or death decision, and the future as a factor in their decisional process. Commonalities were present across therapies, which involved the timing of discussions, the delivery of information, and considerations of the future. Exploring this further could help support patient-centered care and optimize shared decision-making interventions.

Virtual Small Business Emergency Operations Center (VSBEOC): Shared Awareness and Decision Making for Small Business

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-06-01

Shared Awareness and Decision Making for Small Business Topic(s) 2. Topic 1: Concepts, Theory , and Policy 1. Topic 5: Collaboration, Shared...emergencies do not have the time or the resources to collaborate on a continual basis with a large number of organizations. 3. A primary Crisis Management...Center (CMC) should be identified in advance. This is the initial site used by the Crisis Management Team and Response Teams for directing and

A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process

PubMed Central

Durand, Marie Anne; Song, Julia; Aarts, Johanna; Barr, Paul J; Berger, Zackary; Cochran, Nan; Frosch, Dominick; Galasiński, Dariusz; Gulbrandsen, Pål; Han, Paul K J; Härter, Martin; Kinnersley, Paul; Lloyd, Amy; Mishra, Manish; Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth; Scholl, Isabelle; Tomori, Kounosuke; Trevena, Lyndal; Witteman, Holly O; Van der Weijden, Trudy

2017-01-01

Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement. Design Multistage consultation process. Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties. Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties. Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on “team talk,” “option talk,” and “decision talk,” to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals. Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences. PMID:29109079

Patients' preferences regarding shared decision-making in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: results from a patient-empowerment study.

PubMed

Baars, Judith E; Markus, Tineke; Kuipers, Ernst J; van der Woude, C Janneke

2010-01-01

Shared decision-making is gaining favor in clinical practice, although the extent to which patients want to be involved in choosing their treatment varies substantially. Because data are lacking on the preferences of patients with chronic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we wanted to assess IBD patients' preferences about being involved in such decisions. Adult IBD patients were asked to anonymously complete an online survey on their preferences. Non-parametric tests (chi(2)) were used to determine the relationship between responses and respondents. The questionnaire was completed by 1,067 patients, 617 with Crohn's disease and 450 with ulcerative colitis. Patients' mean age was 43 (SD 13.7) years; the majority were female (66%). In total, 866 patients (81%) reported it as 'very important' to be actively involved in the decision-making process, and another 177 (17%) rated it as 'quite important'. When asked how their treatment could be improved, 537 patients (50%) wanted close, equitable collaboration with their physician. This preference was significantly associated with a disease duration of

Back to the Bedside: Developing a Bedside Aid for Concussion and Brain Injury Decisions in the Emergency Department

PubMed Central

Melnick, Edward R.; Lopez, Kevin; Hess, Erik P.; Abujarad, Fuad; Brandt, Cynthia A.; Shiffman, Richard N.; Post, Lori A.

2015-01-01

Context: Current information-rich electronic health record (EHR) interfaces require large, high-resolution screens running on desktop computers. This interface compromises the provider’s already limited time at the bedside by physically separating the patient from the doctor. The case study presented here describes a patient-centered clinical decision support (CDS) design process that aims to bring the physician back to the bedside by integrating a patient decision aid with CDS for shared use by the patient and provider on a touchscreen tablet computer for deciding whether or not to obtain a CT scan for minor head injury in the emergency department, a clinical scenario that could benefit from CDS but has failed previous implementation attempts. Case Description: This case study follows the user-centered design (UCD) approach to build a bedside aid that is useful and usable, and that promotes shared decision-making between patients and their providers using a tablet computer at the bedside. The patient-centered decision support design process focuses on the prototype build using agile software development, but also describes the following: (1) the requirement gathering phase including triangulated qualitative research (focus groups and cognitive task analysis) to understand current challenges, (2) features for patient education, the physician, and shared decision-making, (3) system architecture and technical requirements, and (4) future plans for formative usability testing and field testing. Lessons Learned: We share specific lessons learned and general recommendations from critical insights gained in the patient-centered decision support design process about early stakeholder engagement, EHR integration, external expert feedback, challenges to two users on a single device, project management, and accessibility. Conclusions: Successful implementation of this tool will require seamless integration into the provider’s workflow. This protocol can create an effective interface for shared decision-making and safe resource reduction at the bedside in the austere and dynamic clinical environment of the ED and is generalizable for these purposes in other clinical environments as well. PMID:26290885

Back to the Bedside: Developing a Bedside Aid for Concussion and Brain Injury Decisions in the Emergency Department.

PubMed

Melnick, Edward R; Lopez, Kevin; Hess, Erik P; Abujarad, Fuad; Brandt, Cynthia A; Shiffman, Richard N; Post, Lori A

2015-01-01

Current information-rich electronic health record (EHR) interfaces require large, high-resolution screens running on desktop computers. This interface compromises the provider's already limited time at the bedside by physically separating the patient from the doctor. The case study presented here describes a patient-centered clinical decision support (CDS) design process that aims to bring the physician back to the bedside by integrating a patient decision aid with CDS for shared use by the patient and provider on a touchscreen tablet computer for deciding whether or not to obtain a CT scan for minor head injury in the emergency department, a clinical scenario that could benefit from CDS but has failed previous implementation attempts. This case study follows the user-centered design (UCD) approach to build a bedside aid that is useful and usable, and that promotes shared decision-making between patients and their providers using a tablet computer at the bedside. The patient-centered decision support design process focuses on the prototype build using agile software development, but also describes the following: (1) the requirement gathering phase including triangulated qualitative research (focus groups and cognitive task analysis) to understand current challenges, (2) features for patient education, the physician, and shared decision-making, (3) system architecture and technical requirements, and (4) future plans for formative usability testing and field testing. We share specific lessons learned and general recommendations from critical insights gained in the patient-centered decision support design process about early stakeholder engagement, EHR integration, external expert feedback, challenges to two users on a single device, project management, and accessibility. Successful implementation of this tool will require seamless integration into the provider's workflow. This protocol can create an effective interface for shared decision-making and safe resource reduction at the bedside in the austere and dynamic clinical environment of the ED and is generalizable for these purposes in other clinical environments as well.

Can streamlined multi-criteria decision analysis be used to implement shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening?

PubMed Central

Dolan, James G.; Boohaker, Emily; Allison, Jeroan; Imperiale, Thomas F.

2013-01-01

Background Current US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established methodology well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine if a streamlined form of MCDA using rank order based judgments can accurately assess patients’ colorectal cancer screening priorities. Methods We converted priorities for four decision criteria and three sub-criteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average risk patients using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in a prior study into rank order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the two sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and non-parametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing three currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. Results Correlations between the two sets of priorities for the seven criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of absolute differences between rank order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ± 0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal and the relative rankings of the three screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar. Conclusion Rank order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making. PMID:24300851

Ethical issues in neonatal and pediatric clinical trials.

PubMed

Laventhal, Naomi; Tarini, Beth A; Lantos, John

2012-10-01

Children have been identified as uniquely vulnerable clinical research subjects since the early 1970s. This article reviews the historical underpinnings of this designation, the current regulatory framework for pediatric and neonatal research, and common problems in pediatric research oversight. It also presents 3 areas of pediatric and neonatal research (genomic screening, healthy children donating stem cells, and therapeutic hypothermia for neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy) that highlight contemporary challenges in pediatric research ethics, including balancing risk and benefit, informed consent and assent, and clinical equipoise. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Recognizing Ways to Improve Shared Decision Making

PubMed Central

Hasak, Jessica M.; Myckatyn, Terence M.; Grabinski, Victoria F.; Philpott, Sydney E.; Parikh, Rajiv P.

2017-01-01

Background: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is an elective, preference-sensitive decision made during a stressful, time-pressured period after a cancer diagnosis. Shared decision making (SDM) can improve decision quality about preference-sensitive choices. Stakeholders’ perspectives on ways to support PMBR decision-making were explored. Methods: Forty semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (20 postmastectomy patients, 10 PMBR surgeons, 10 PMBR nurses) were conducted. Clinicians were recruited from diverse practices across the United States. Patients were recruited using purposive sampling with varying PMBR experiences, including no reconstruction. The interview guide was based on an implementation research framework. Themes were identified using grounded theory approach, based on frequency and emotive force conveyed. Results: Engagement in SDM was variable. Some patients wanted more information about PMBR from clinicians, particularly about risks. Some clinicians acknowledged highlighting benefits and downplaying risks. Many patients felt pressured to make a choice by their clinicians. Clinicians who successfully engaged patients through decisions often used outside resources to supplement conversations. Conclusions: Patient–clinician trust was critical to high-quality decisions, and many patients expressed decision regret when they were not engaged in PMBR discussions. Patients often perceived a race- or age-related bias in clinician information sharing. Interventions to support SDM may enhance decision quality and reduce decision regret about PMBR, ultimately improving patient-centered care for women with breast cancer. PMID:29263969

Practices of US health insurance companies concerning MS therapies interfere with shared decision-making and harm patients.

PubMed

Bourdette, Dennis N; Hartung, Daniel M; Whitham, Ruth H

2016-04-01

The US Food and Drug Administration has registered 13 multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The medications are not interchangeable as they vary in route of administration, efficacy, and safety profile. Selecting the appropriate MS DMT for individual patients requires shared decision-making between patients and neurologists. To reduce costs, insurance companies acting through pharmacy benefit companies restrict access to MS DMTs through tiered coverage and other regulations. We discuss how policies established by insurance companies that limit access to MS DMTs interfere with the process of shared decision-making and harm patients. We present potential actions that neurologists can take to change how insurance companies manage MS DMTs.

Skill sharing and delegation practice in two Queensland regional allied health cancer care services: a comparison of tasks.

PubMed

Passfield, Juanine; Nielsen, Ilsa; Brebner, Neil; Johnstone, Cara

2017-07-24

Objective Delegation and skill sharing are emerging service strategies for allied health (AH) professionals working in Queensland regional cancer care services. The aim of the present study was to describe the consistency between two services for the types and frequency of tasks provided and the agreement between teams in the decision to delegate or skill share clinical tasks, thereby determining the potential applicability to other services. Methods Datasets provided by two similar services were collated. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to assess the extent of agreement. Results In all, 214 tasks were identified as being undertaken by the services (92% agreement). Across the services, 70 tasks were identified as high frequency (equal to or more frequently than weekly) and 29 as not high frequency (46% agreement). Of the 68 tasks that were risk assessed, agreement was 66% for delegation and 60% for skill sharing, with high-frequency and intervention tasks more likely to be delegated. Conclusions Strong consistency was apparent for the clinical tasks undertaken by the two cancer care AH teams, with moderate agreement for the frequency of tasks performed. The proportion of tasks considered appropriate for skill sharing and/or delegation was similar, although variation at the task level was apparent. Further research is warranted to examine the range of factors that affect the decision to skill share or delegate. What is known about the topic? There is limited research evidence regarding the use of skill sharing and delegation service models for AH in cancer care services. In particular, the extent to which decisions about task safety and appropriateness for delegation or skill sharing can be generalised across services has not been investigated. What does this paper add? This study investigated the level of clinical task consistency between two similar AH cancer care teams in regional centres. It also examined the level of agreement with regard to delegation and skill sharing to provide an indication of the level of local service influence on workforce and service model decisions. What are the implications for practitioners? Local factors have a modest influence on delegation and skill sharing decisions of AH teams. Practitioners need to be actively engaged in decision making at the local level to ensure the clinical service model meets local needs. However, teams should also capitalise on commonalities between settings to limit duplication of training and resource development through collaborative networks.

Decision making in midwifery: rationality and intuition.

PubMed

Steinhauer, Suyai

2015-04-01

Decision making in midwifery is a complex process that shapes and underpins clinical practice and determines, to a large extent, the quality of care. Effective decision making and professional accountability are central to clinical governance, and being able.to justify all decisions is a professional and legal requirement. At the same time, there is an emphasis in midwifery on shared decision making, and keeping women at the centre of their care, and research reveals that feelings of choice, control and autonomy are central to a positive birth experience. However the extent to which decisions are really shared and care truly woman-centred is debatable and affected by environment and culture. Using a case study of a decision made in clinical practice around amniotomy, this article explores the role of the intuitive thinking system in midwifery decision making, and highlights the importance of involving women in the decision making process.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 11: reporting outcomes of an evidence-driven approach to disinvestment in a local healthcare setting.

PubMed

Harris, Claire; Allen, Kelly; Ramsey, Wayne; King, Richard; Green, Sally

2018-05-30

This is the final paper in a thematic series reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was established to explore a systematic, integrated, evidence-based organisation-wide approach to disinvestment in a large Australian health service network. This paper summarises the findings, discusses the contribution of the SHARE Program to the body of knowledge and understanding of disinvestment in the local healthcare setting, and considers implications for policy, practice and research. The SHARE program was conducted in three phases. Phase One was undertaken to understand concepts and practices related to disinvestment and the implications for a local health service and, based on this information, to identify potential settings and methods for decision-making about disinvestment. The aim of Phase Two was to implement and evaluate the proposed methods to determine which were sustainable, effective and appropriate in a local health service. A review of the current literature incorporating the SHARE findings was conducted in Phase Three to contribute to the understanding of systematic approaches to disinvestment in the local healthcare context. SHARE differed from many other published examples of disinvestment in several ways: by seeking to identify and implement disinvestment opportunities within organisational infrastructure rather than as standalone projects; considering disinvestment in the context of all resource allocation decisions rather than in isolation; including allocation of non-monetary resources as well as financial decisions; and focusing on effective use of limited resources to optimise healthcare outcomes. The SHARE findings provide a rich source of new information about local health service decision-making, in a level of detail not previously reported, to inform others in similar situations. Multiple innovations related to disinvestment were found to be acceptable and feasible in the local setting. Factors influencing decision-making, implementation processes and final outcomes were identified; and methods for further exploration, or avoidance, in attempting disinvestment in this context are proposed based on these findings. The settings, frameworks, models, methods and tools arising from the SHARE findings have potential to enhance health care and patient outcomes.

The Shared Decision Making Frontier: a Feasibility and Usability Study for Managing Non-Critical Chronic Illness by Combining Behavioural & Decision Theory with Online Technology.

PubMed

Russell, Amina; Van Woensel, William; Abidi, Samina Raza

2015-01-01

The objective of this study is to determine if shared decisions for managing non-critical chronic illness, made through an online biomedical technology intervention, us feasible and usable. The technology intervention incorporates behavioural and decision theories to increase patient engagement, and ultimately long term adherence to health behaviour change. We devised the iheart web intervention as a "proof of concept" in five phases. The implementation incorporates the Vaadin web application framework, Drools, EclipseLink and a MySQL database. Two-thirds of the study participants favoured the technology intervention, based on Likert-scale questions from a post-study questionnaire. Qualitative analysis of think aloud feedback, video screen captures and open-ended questions from the post-study questionnaire uncovered six main areas or themes for improvement. We conclude that online shared decisions for managing a non-critical chronic illness are feasible and usable through the iheart web intervention.

Shared Decision Making in Education Governance Using Business Portals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Peoples, Adrian L.

2009-01-01

The purpose of this study was to address a high-volume problem for the Delaware Department of Education Office of Professional Accountability (OPA). This problem was addressed by sharing the certification decision with qualified personnel located at each of the four teacher preparation programs located in Delaware at Delaware State University…

Pleasure and Pain: Faculty and Administrators in a Shared Governance Environment.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Fitzgerald, Sallyanne H.

1998-01-01

Describes frictions inherent in the decision-making process at a California community college, where shared governance is both clearly defined and mandated. Discusses responsibility versus consultation and offers two successful examples (regarding the writing center and the basic writing program) in which faculty were involved in the decision and…

Knowing Better: Improving Collective Decision Making in Higher Education Shared Governance

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Manick, Christopher J. D.

2016-01-01

This dissertation addresses the question: Should higher education governance and decision-making be an elite or collective responsibility? It brings into conversation (i) the debate over the future of shared (i.e. participatory, faculty) governance in higher education, and (ii) research in democratic theory, specifically the epistemic defense of…

What Factors are Associated with Consumer Initiation of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Visits?

PubMed

Matthias, Marianne S; Fukui, Sadaaki; Salyers, Michelle P

2017-01-01

Understanding consumer initiation of shared decision making (SDM) is critical to improving SDM in mental health consultations, particularly because providers do not always invite consumer participation in treatment decisions. This study examined the association between consumer initiation of nine elements of SDM as measured by the SDM scale, and measures of consumer illness self-management and the consumer-provider relationship. In 63 mental health visits, three SDM elements were associated with self-management or relationship factors: discussion of consumer goals, treatment alternatives, and pros and cons of a decision. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.

Psychiatric service staff perceptions of implementing a shared decision-making tool: a process evaluation study

PubMed Central

Schön, Ulla-Karin; Grim, Katarina; Wallin, Lars; Rosenberg, David; Svedberg, Petra

2018-01-01

ABSTRACT Purpose: Shared decision making, SDM, in psychiatric services, supports users to experience a greater sense of involvement in treatment, self-efficacy, autonomy and reduced coercion. Decision tools adapted to the needs of users have the potential to support SDM and restructure how users and staff work together to arrive at shared decisions. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse the implementation process of an SDM intervention for users of psychiatric services in Sweden. Method: The implementation was studied through a process evaluation utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods. In designing the process evaluation for the intervention, three evaluation components were emphasized: contextual factors, implementation issues and mechanisms of impact. Results: The study addresses critical implementation issues related to decision-making authority, the perceived decision-making ability of users and the readiness of the service to increase influence and participation. It also emphasizes the importance of facilitation, as well as suggesting contextual adaptations that may be relevant for the local organizations. Conclusion: The results indicate that staff perceived the decision support tool as user-friendly and useful in supporting participation in decision-making, and suggest that such concrete supports to participation can be a factor in implementation if adequate attention is paid to organizational contexts and structures. PMID:29405889

Psychiatric service staff perceptions of implementing a shared decision-making tool: a process evaluation study.

PubMed

Schön, Ulla-Karin; Grim, Katarina; Wallin, Lars; Rosenberg, David; Svedberg, Petra

2018-12-01

Shared decision making, SDM, in psychiatric services, supports users to experience a greater sense of involvement in treatment, self-efficacy, autonomy and reduced coercion. Decision tools adapted to the needs of users have the potential to support SDM and restructure how users and staff work together to arrive at shared decisions. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse the implementation process of an SDM intervention for users of psychiatric services in Sweden. The implementation was studied through a process evaluation utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods. In designing the process evaluation for the intervention, three evaluation components were emphasized: contextual factors, implementation issues and mechanisms of impact. The study addresses critical implementation issues related to decision-making authority, the perceived decision-making ability of users and the readiness of the service to increase influence and participation. It also emphasizes the importance of facilitation, as well as suggesting contextual adaptations that may be relevant for the local organizations. The results indicate that staff perceived the decision support tool as user-friendly and useful in supporting participation in decision-making, and suggest that such concrete supports to participation can be a factor in implementation if adequate attention is paid to organizational contexts and structures.

What perceptions do patients have of decision making (DM)? Toward an integrative patient-centered care model. A qualitative study using focus-group interviews.

PubMed

Moreau, Alain; Carol, Laurent; Dedianne, Marie Cécile; Dupraz, Christian; Perdrix, Corinne; Lainé, Xavier; Souweine, Gilbert

2012-05-01

To understand patients' perceptions of decision making and identify relationships among decision-making models. This qualitative study was made up of four focus group interviews (elderly persons, users of health support groups, students, and rural inhabitants). Participants were asked to report their perceptions of decision making in three written clinical scenarios (hypertension, breast cancer, prostate cancer). The analysis was based on the principles of grounded theory. Most patients perceived decision making as shared decision making, a deliberative question-response interaction with the physician that allowed patients to be experts in obtaining clearer information, participating in the care process, and negotiating compromises with physician preferences. Requesting second opinions allowed patients to maintain control, even within the paternalistic model preferred by elderly persons. Facilitating factors (trust, qualitative non-verbal communication, time to think) and obstacles (serious/emergency situations, perceived inadequate scientific competence, problems making requests, fear of knowing) were also part of shared decision making. In the global concept of patient-centered care, shared decision making can be flexible and can integrate paternalistic and informative models. Physicians' expertise should be associated with biomedical and relational skills through listening to, informing, and advising patients, and by supporting patients' choices. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Pack-Year Cigarette Smoking History for Determination of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility. Comparison of the Electronic Medical Record versus a Shared Decision-making Conversation.

PubMed

Modin, Hannah E; Fathi, Joelle T; Gilbert, Christopher R; Wilshire, Candice L; Wilson, Andrew K; Aye, Ralph W; Farivar, Alexander S; Louie, Brian E; Vallières, Eric; Gorden, Jed A

2017-08-01

Implementation of lung cancer screening programs is occurring across the United States. Programs vary in approaches to patient identification and shared decision-making. The eligibility of persons referred to screening programs, the outcomes of eligibility determination during shared decision-making, and the potential for the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify eligible individuals have not been well described. Our objectives were to assess the eligibility of individuals referred for lung cancer screening and compare information extracted from the EMR to information derived from a shared decision-making conversation for the determination of eligibility for lung cancer screening. We performed a retrospective analysis of individuals referred to a centralized lung cancer screening program serving a five-hospital health services system in Seattle, Washington between October 2014 and January 2016. Demographics, referral, and outcomes data were collected. A pack-year smoking history derived from the EMR was compared with the pack-year history obtained during a shared decision-making conversation performed by a licensed nurse professional representing the lung cancer screening program. A total of 423 individuals were referred to the program, of whom 59.6% (252 of 423) were eligible. Of those, 88.9% (224 of 252) elected screening. There was 96.2% (230 of 239) discordance in pack-year smoking history between the EMR and the shared decision-making conversation. The EMR underreported pack-years of smoking for 85.2% (196 of 230) of the participants, with a median difference of 29.2 pack-years. If identification of eligible individuals relied solely on the accuracy of the pack-year smoking history recorded in the EMR, 53.6% (128 of 239) would have failed to meet the 30-pack-year threshold for screening. Many individuals referred for lung cancer screening may be ineligible. Overreliance on the EMR for identification of individuals at risk may lead to missed opportunities for appropriate lung cancer screening.

Frontostriatal Dysfunction During Decision Making in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

PubMed

Norman, Luke J; Carlisi, Christina O; Christakou, Anastasia; Murphy, Clodagh M; Chantiluke, Kaylita; Giampietro, Vincent; Simmons, Andrew; Brammer, Michael; Mataix-Cols, David; Rubia, Katya

2018-03-24

The aim of the current paper is to provide the first comparison of computational mechanisms and neurofunctional substrates in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during decision making under ambiguity. Sixteen boys with ADHD, 20 boys with OCD, and 20 matched control subjects (12-18 years of age) completed a functional magnetic resonance imaging version of the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain activation was compared between groups using three-way analysis of covariance. Hierarchical Bayesian analysis was used to compare computational modeling parameters between groups. Patient groups shared reduced choice consistency and relied less on reinforcement learning during decision making relative to control subjects, while adolescents with ADHD alone demonstrated increased reward sensitivity. During advantageous choices, both disorders shared underactivation in ventral striatum, while OCD patients showed disorder-specific underactivation in the ventromedial orbitofrontal cortex. During outcome evaluation, shared underactivation to losses in patients relative to control subjects was found in the medial prefrontal cortex and shared underactivation to wins was found in the left putamen/caudate. ADHD boys showed disorder-specific dysfunction in the right putamen/caudate, which was activated more to losses in patients with ADHD but more to wins in control subjects. The findings suggest shared deficits in using learned reward expectancies to guide decision making, as well as shared dysfunction in medio-fronto-striato-limbic brain regions. However, findings of unique dysfunction in the ventromedial orbitofrontal cortex in OCD and in the right putamen in ADHD indicate additional, disorder-specific abnormalities and extend similar findings from inhibitory control tasks in the disorders to the domain of decision making under ambiguity. Copyright © 2018 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Modular Architecture for Integrated Model-Based Decision Support.

PubMed

Gaebel, Jan; Schreiber, Erik; Oeser, Alexander; Oeltze-Jafra, Steffen

2018-01-01

Model-based decision support systems promise to be a valuable addition to oncological treatments and the implementation of personalized therapies. For the integration and sharing of decision models, the involved systems must be able to communicate with each other. In this paper, we propose a modularized architecture of dedicated systems for the integration of probabilistic decision models into existing hospital environments. These systems interconnect via web services and provide model sharing and processing capabilities for clinical information systems. Along the lines of IHE integration profiles from other disciplines and the meaningful reuse of routinely recorded patient data, our approach aims for the seamless integration of decision models into hospital infrastructure and the physicians' daily work.

Insights into the concept and measurement of health literacy from a study of shared decision-making in a low literacy population.

PubMed

Smith, Sian K; Nutbeam, Don; McCaffery, Kirsten J

2013-08-01

This article explores the concept and measurement of health literacy in the context of shared health decision-making. It draws upon a series of qualitative and quantitative studies undertaken in the development and evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for low literacy populations. The findings indicate that different types of health literacy (functional, interactive and critical) are required in decision-making and present a set of instruments to assess and discriminate between higher level health literacy skills required for engagement in decision-making. It concludes that greater sophistication in both the definition and measurement of health literacy in research is needed.

Substitute consent to data sharing: a way forward for international dementia research?

PubMed Central

Thorogood, Adrian; Deschênes St-Pierre, Constance; Knoppers, Bartha Maria

2017-01-01

Abstract A deluge of genetic and health-related data is being generated about patients with dementia. International sharing of these data accelerates dementia research. Seeking consent to data sharing is a challenge for dementia research where patients have lost or risk losing legal capacity. The laws of most countries enable substitute decision makers (SDMs) to consent on behalf of incapable adults to research participation. We compare regulatory frameworks governing capacity, research, and personal data protection across eight countries to determine when SDMs can consent to data sharing. In most countries, an SDM can consent to data sharing in the incapable adult's best interests. Best interests typically include consideration of the individual's previously expressed wishes, values and beliefs; well-being; and inclusion in decision making. Countries differ in how these considerations are balanced. A clear previous consent or refusal to share data typically binds the discretion of an SDM. Though generally permissive, National patchworks of laws and guidelines cause confusion. Clarity on the applicable law and processes to enhance ethical decision making are needed to facilitate substitute consent. Researchers can encourage patients to communicate their research preferences before a loss of capacity, and educate SDMs about their ethical and legal duties. The research community must also continue to promote the importance of data sharing in dementia. PMID:28852560

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States.

PubMed

Wagner, Monika; Samaha, Dima; Khoury, Hanane; O'Neil, William M; Lavoie, Louis; Bennetts, Liga; Badgley, Danielle; Gabriel, Sylvie; Berthon, Anthony; Dolan, James; Kulke, Matthew H; Goetghebeur, Mireille

2018-01-01

Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making. The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing. The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option. Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives. Ipsen Pharma.

Qualitative analysis of patient-centered decision attributes associated with initiating hepatitis C treatment.

PubMed

Zuchowski, Jessica L; Hamilton, Alison B; Pyne, Jeffrey M; Clark, Jack A; Naik, Aanand D; Smith, Donna L; Kanwal, Fasiha

2015-10-01

In this era of a constantly changing landscape of antiviral treatment options for chronic viral hepatitis C (CHC), shared clinical decision-making addresses the need to engage patients in complex treatment decisions. However, little is known about the decision attributes that CHC patients consider when making treatment decisions. We identify key patient-centered decision attributes, and explore relationships among these attributes, to help inform the development of a future CHC shared decision-making aid. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with CHC patients at four Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals, in three comparison groups: contemplating CHC treatment at the time of data collection (Group 1), recently declined CHC treatment (Group 2), or recently started CHC treatment (Group 3). Participant descriptions of decision attributes were analyzed for the entire sample as well as by patient group and by gender. Twenty-nine Veteran patients participated (21 males, eight females): 12 were contemplating treatment, nine had recently declined treatment, and eight had recently started treatment. Patients on average described eight (range 5-13) decision attributes. The attributes most frequently reported overall were: physical side effects (83%); treatment efficacy (79%), new treatment drugs in development (55%); psychological side effects (55%); and condition of the liver (52%), with some variation based on group and gender. Personal life circumstance attributes (such as availability of family support and the burden of financial responsibilities) influencing treatment decisions were also noted by all participants. Multiple decision attributes were interrelated in highly complex ways. Participants considered numerous attributes in their CHC treatment decisions. A better understanding of these attributes that influence patient decision-making is crucial in order to inform patient-centered clinical approaches to care (such as shared decision-making augmented with relevant decision-making aids) that respond to patients' needs, preferences, and circumstances.

Shared governance in the endoscopy department.

PubMed

Metcalf, R; Tate, R

1995-01-01

Studies have indicated that active participation by employees improves job satisfaction and performance. There is a sense of pride and accountability that is demonstrated in the work environment when staff are involved in the decision-making process. Recent emergence of a relatively new philosophy for management that promotes employee ownership is shared governance. This type of leadership allows individuals who are at the center of the work place to participate in the decisions that actively reflect their needs. In this article, the authors describe the process of implementing shared governance in an Endoscopy Department. The effectiveness of shared governance is evidenced by the renewed enthusiasm and energy demonstrated by the staff.

Patients' Values in Clinical Decision-Making.

PubMed

Faggion, Clovis Mariano; Pachur, Thorsten; Giannakopoulos, Nikolaos Nikitas

2017-09-01

Shared decision-making involves the participation of patient and dental practitioner. Well-informed decision-making requires that both parties understand important concepts that may influence the decision. This fourth article in a series of 4 aims to discuss the importance of patients' values when a clinical decision is made. We report on how to incorporate important concepts for well-informed, shared decision-making. Here, we present patient values as an important issue, in addition to previously established topics such as the risk of bias of a study, cost-effectiveness of treatment approaches, and a comparison of therapeutic benefit with potential side effects. We provide 2 clinical examples and suggestions for a decision tree, based on the available evidence. The information reported in this article may improve the relationship between patient and dental practitioner, resulting in more well-informed clinical decisions. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Shared Decision Making in Common Chronic Conditions: Impact of a Resident Training Workshop.

PubMed

Simmons, Leigh; Leavitt, Lauren; Ray, Alaka; Fosburgh, Blair; Sepucha, Karen

2016-01-01

Physicians must be competent in several different kinds of communication skills in order to implement shared decision making; however, these skills are not part of routine medical student education, nor are they formally taught during residency training. We developed a 1- and 2-hour workshop curriculum for internal medicine residents to promote shared decision making in treatment decisions for four common chronic conditions: diabetes, depression, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. The workshops included a written case exercise, a short didactic presentation on shared decision-making concepts and strategies for risk communication, and two role-playing exercises focused on decision making for depression and hyperlipidemia treatment. We delivered the workshop as a required component of the resident curriculum in ambulatory medicine. To evaluate the impact of the workshop, we used written course evaluations, tracked the use of the newly introduced Decision Worksheets, and asked preceptors to perform direct observation of treatment decision conversations. Residents were involved in the development of the workshop and helped identify key content, suggested framing for difficult topics, and confirmed the need for the skills workshop. One hundred thirty internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residents attended 8 workshops over a 4-month period. In written cases completed before the workshop, the majority of residents indicated that they would discuss medications, but few mentioned other treatment options or documented patients' goals and preferences in a sample encounter note with a patient with new depression symptoms. Overall, most participants (89.7%) rated the workshop as excellent or very good, and 93.5% said that they would change their practice based on what they learned. Decision Worksheets addressing diabetes, depression, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension were available on a primary care-focused intranet site and were downloaded almost 1,200 times in the first 8 months following the workshops. Preceptors were able to observe only one consult during which one of the four topics was discussed. Internal medicine residents had considerable gaps in shared decision-making skills as measured in a baseline written exercise. Residents provided valuable contributions to the development of a Decision Worksheet to be used at the point of care. Participants rated the skills workshop highly, though interns rated the exercise more useful than PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents did. The Decision Worksheets were accessed often following the sessions; however, observing the Decision Worksheets in use in real time was a challenge in the resident-faculty clinic. Additional studies are warranted to examine whether the workshop was successful in increasing residents' ability to implement skills in practice.

A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process.

PubMed

Elwyn, Glyn; Durand, Marie Anne; Song, Julia; Aarts, Johanna; Barr, Paul J; Berger, Zackary; Cochran, Nan; Frosch, Dominick; Galasiński, Dariusz; Gulbrandsen, Pål; Han, Paul K J; Härter, Martin; Kinnersley, Paul; Lloyd, Amy; Mishra, Manish; Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth; Scholl, Isabelle; Tomori, Kounosuke; Trevena, Lyndal; Witteman, Holly O; Van der Weijden, Trudy

2017-11-06

Objectives  To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement. Design  Multistage consultation process. Setting  Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties. Participants  19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties. Results  After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on "team talk," "option talk," and "decision talk," to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals. Conclusions  The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Counseling and Shared Decision-Making Visit.

PubMed

Mazzone, Peter J; Tenenbaum, Amanda; Seeley, Meredith; Petersen, Hilary; Lyon, Christina; Han, Xiaozhen; Wang, Xiao-Feng

2017-03-01

Lung cancer screening is a complex balance of benefits and harms. A counseling and shared decision-making visit has been mandated to assist patients with the decision about participation in screening. To our knowledge, the impact of this visit on patient understanding and decisions has not been studied. We developed a centralized counseling and shared decision-making visit for our lung cancer screening program. The visit included confirmation of eligibility for screening, education supported by a narrated slide show, individualized risk assessment with a decision aid, time for answering questions, and data collection. We surveyed consecutive patients prior to the visit, immediately after the visit, and 1 month after the visit to determine the impact of the visit on their knowledge. Twenty-three of 423 patients (5.4%) who had a visit did not proceed to the screening CT scan. One hundred twenty-five consecutive patients completed the initial survey, 122 completed the postvisit survey, and 113 completed the 1-month follow-up survey. Prior to the visit, the patients had a poor level of understanding about the age and smoking eligibility criteria (8.8% and 13.6% correct, respectively) and the benefits and harms of screening (55.2% and 38.4% correct, respectively). There was a significant improvement in knowledge noted after the visit for all questions (P = .03 to P < .0001). Knowledge waned by the 1-month follow-up but remained higher than it was before the visit. A centralized counseling and shared decision-making visit impacts the patient's knowledge about the eligibility criteria, benefits, and harms of lung cancer screening with LDCT, helping patients make value-based decisions. Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Promoting Shared Decision Making through Descriptive Inquiry

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Seher, Rachel; Traugh, Cecelia; Cheng, Alan

2018-01-01

This article shows how City-As-School, a progressive public school in New York City, used descriptive inquiry to deepen shared decision making, which is a central value of the school and part of a democratic way of life. Descriptive inquiry is a democratic knowledge-making process that was developed at the Prospect School in North Bennington,…

College Students, Shared Decision Making, and the Appropriate Use of Antibiotics for Respiratory Tract Infections: A Systematic Literature Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Blyer, Kristina; Hulton, Linda

2016-01-01

Objective: This systematic review examines shared decision making to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for college students with respiratory tract infections. Participants/Methods: CINAL, Cochrane, PubMed, EBSCO, and PsycNET were searched in October 2014 using the following criteria: English language, human subjects, peer-reviewed, shared…

Shared Decision Making for Clients with Mental Illness: A Randomized Factorial Survey

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lukens, Jonathan M.; Solomon, Phyllis; Sorenson, Susan B.

2013-01-01

Objective: The goal of this study was to test the degree to which client clinical characteristics and environmental context and social workers' practice values and experience influenced support for client's autonomy and willingness to engage in shared decision making (SDM), and whether willingness to engage in SDM was mediated by support for…

Shared governance in a clinic system.

PubMed

Meyers, Michelle M; Costanzo, Cindy

2015-01-01

Shared governance in health care empowers nurses to share in the decision-making process, which results in decentralized management and collective accountability. Share governance practices have been present in hospitals since the late 1970s. However, shared governance in ambulatory care clinics has not been well established. The subjects of this quality project included staff and administrative nurses in a clinic system. The stakeholder committee chose what model of shared governance to implement and educated clinic staff. The Index of Professional Nursing Governance measured a shared governance score pre- and postimplementation of the Clinic Nursing Council. The Clinic Nursing Council met bimonthly for 3 months during this project to discuss issues and make decisions related to nursing staff. The Index of Professional Nursing Governance scores indicated traditional governance pre- and postimplementation of the Clinic Nursing Council, which is to be expected. The stakeholder committee was beneficial to the initial implementation process and facilitated staff nurse involvement. Shared governance is an evolutionary process that develops empowered nurses and nurse leaders.

Increased Patient Enrollment to a Randomized Surgical Trial Through Equipoise Polling of an Expert Surgeon Panel.

PubMed

Ghogawala, Zoher; Schwartz, J Sanford; Benzel, Edward C; Magge, Subu N; Coumans, Jean Valery; Harrington, J Fred; Gelbs, Jared C; Whitmore, Robert G; Butler, William E; Barker, Fred G

2016-07-01

To determine whether patients who learned the views of an expert surgeons' panel's assessment of equipoise between 2 alternative operative treatments had increased likelihood of consenting to randomization. Difficulty obtaining patient consent to randomization is an important barrier to conducting surgical randomized clinical trials, the gold standard for generating clinical evidence. Observational study of the rate of patient acceptance of randomization within a 5-center randomized clinical trial comparing lumbar spinal decompression versus lumbar spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion for patients with symptomatic grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eligible patients were enrolled in the trial and then asked to accept randomization. A panel of 10 expert spine surgeons was formed to review clinical information and images for individual patients to provide an assessment of suitability for randomization. The expert panel vote was disclosed to the patient by the patient's surgeon before the patient decided whether to accept randomization or not. Randomization acceptance among eligible patients without expert panel review was 40% (19/48) compared with 81% (47/58) among patients undergoing expert panel review (P < 0.001). Among expert-reviewed patients, randomization acceptance was 95% when all experts or all except 1 voted for randomization, 75% when 2 experts voted against randomization, and 20% with 3 or 4 votes against (P < 0.001 for trend). Patients provided with an expert panel's assessment of their own suitability for randomization were twice as likely to agree to randomization compared with patients receiving only their own surgeon's recommendation.

The feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing arthroscopic hip surgery to conservative care for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: the FASHIoN feasibility study.

PubMed

Griffin, D R; Dickenson, E J; Wall, P D H; Realpe, A; Adams, A; Parsons, N; Hobson, R; Achten, J; Costa, M L; Foster, N E; Hutchinson, C E; Petrou, S; Donovan, J L

2016-10-01

To determine whether it was feasible to perform a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing arthroscopic hip surgery to conservative care in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). This study had two phases: a pre-pilot and pilot RCT. In the pre-pilot, we conducted interviews with clinicians who treated FAI and with FAI patients to determine their views about an RCT. We developed protocols for operative and conservative care. In the pilot RCT, we determined the rates of patient eligibility, recruitment and retention, to investigate the feasibility of the protocol and we established methods to assess treatment fidelity. In the pre-pilot phase, 32 clinicians were interviewed, of which 26 reported theoretical equipoise, but in example scenarios 7 failed to show clinical equipoise. Eighteen patients treated for FAI were also interviewed, the majority of whom felt that surgery and conservative care were acceptable treatments. Surgery was viewed by patients as a 'definitive solution'. Patients were motivated to participate in research but were uncomfortable about randomization. Randomization was more acceptable if the alternative was available at the end of the trial. In the pilot phase, 151 patients were assessed for eligibility. Sixty were eligible and invited to take part in the pilot RCT; 42 consented to randomization. Follow-up was 100% at 12 months. Assessments of treatment fidelity were satisfactory. An RCT to compare arthroscopic hip surgery with conservative care in patients with FAI is challenging but feasible. Recruitment has started for a full RCT.

Correalism and Equipoise: Kiesler and Giedion on the sustainable

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Braham, W.W.

1997-12-31

This paper inquires about standards for the sustainable that are not strictly bound to the principles of conservation or scarcity. In particular, two earlier contributions to this discussion offer alternate views of sustainability: the architect Frederick Kiesler and the critic-historian Siegfried Giedion both explored the human and social consequences of technological constructions. Their work participates in the long, nineteenth- and twentieth-century discourse about mechanization, that examined the many consequences of industrialization. In a sequence of published and unpublished works in the 1930`s Kieler evolved a theory about the relationship between buildings and nature that he called Correalism. While at themore » end Mechanization Takes Command of 1948, Giedion examined the loss of public and regenerative bathing habits and the rise of the private, forms of cleansing still largely practiced today. He concluded that work with a plea for a dynamic balance that he called Equipoise. Both works develop from ideas of interconnection that he now associates with systems theory and which are properly integral to modern ecology. Their critical questions revolve around the social dimensions of everyday constructions like buildings and bathtubs. The distinction between instrumental criteria and social ones is everywhere present in modern environmentalism, which can be traced to fundamental concerns about either resource use or about health. These two issues are wholly intertwined in most environmental practices, but the assumptions on which they rest are themselves historically changeable. The complex interaction between measurable environmental features and human concerns or desires is the subject of Kiesler`s Correalism.« less

Beyond the treatment effect: Evaluating the effects of patient preferences in randomised trials.

PubMed

Walter, S D; Turner, R; Macaskill, P; McCaffery, K J; Irwig, L

2017-02-01

The treatments under comparison in a randomised trial should ideally have equal value and acceptability - a position of equipoise - to study participants. However, it is unlikely that true equipoise exists in practice, because at least some participants may have preferences for one treatment or the other, for a variety of reasons. These preferences may be related to study outcomes, and hence affect the estimation of the treatment effect. Furthermore, the effects of preferences can sometimes be substantial, and may even be larger than the direct effect of treatment. Preference effects are of interest in their own right, but they cannot be assessed in the standard parallel group design for a randomised trial. In this paper, we describe a model to represent the impact of preferences on trial outcomes, in addition to the usual treatment effect. In particular, we describe how outcomes might differ between participants who would choose one treatment or the other, if they were free to do so. Additionally, we investigate the difference in outcomes depending on whether or not a participant receives his or her preferred treatment, which we characterise through a so-called preference effect. We then discuss several study designs that have been proposed to measure and exploit data on preferences, and which constitute alternatives to the conventional parallel group design. Based on the model framework, we determine which of the various preference effects can or cannot be estimated with each design. We also illustrate these ideas with some examples of preference designs from the literature.

Shared decision making and use of decision AIDS for localized prostate cancer : perceptions from radiation oncologists and urologists.

PubMed

Wang, Elyn H; Gross, Cary P; Tilburt, Jon C; Yu, James B; Nguyen, Paul L; Smaldone, Marc C; Shah, Nilay D; Abouassally, Robert; Sun, Maxine; Kim, Simon P

2015-05-01

The current attitudes of prostate cancer specialists toward decision aids and their use in clinical practice to facilitate shared decision making are poorly understood. To assess attitudes toward decision aids and their dissemination in clinical practice. A survey was mailed to a national random sample of 1422 specialists (711 radiation oncologists and 711 urologists) in the United States from November 1, 2011, through April 30, 2012. Respondents were asked about familiarity, perceptions, and use of decision aids for clinically localized prostate cancer and trust in various professional societies in developing decision aids. The Pearson χ2 test was used to test for bivariate associations between physician characteristics and outcomes. Similar response rates were observed for radiation oncologists and urologists (44.0% vs 46.1%; P=.46). Although most respondents had some familiarity with decision aids, only 35.5% currently use a decision aid in clinic practice. The most commonly cited barriers to decision aid use included the perception that their ability to estimate the risk of recurrence was superior to that of decision aids (7.7% in those not using decision aids and 26.2% in those using decision aids; P<.001) and the concern that patients could not process information from a decision aid (7.6% in those not using decision aids and 23.7% in those using decision aids; P<.001). In assessing trust in decision aids established by various professional medical societies, specialists consistently reported trust in favor of their respective organizations, with 9.2% being very confident and 59.2% being moderately confident (P=.01). Use of decision aids among specialists treating patients with prostate cancer is relatively low. Efforts to address barriers to clinical implementation of decision aids may facilitate greater shared decision making for patients diagnosed as having prostate cancer.

Temporal characteristics of decisions in hospital encounters: a threshold for shared decision making? A qualitative study.

PubMed

Ofstad, Eirik H; Frich, Jan C; Schei, Edvin; Frankel, Richard M; Gulbrandsen, Pål

2014-11-01

To identify and characterize physicians' statements that contained evidence of clinically relevant decisions in encounters with patients in different hospital settings. Qualitative analysis of 50 videotaped encounters from wards, the emergency room (ER) and outpatient clinics in a department of internal medicine at a Norwegian university hospital. Clinical decisions could be grouped in a temporal order: decisions which had already been made, and were brought into the encounter by the physician (preformed decisions), decisions made in the present (here-and-now decisions), and decisions prescribing future actions given a certain course of events (conditional decisions). Preformed decisions were a hallmark in the ward and conditional decisions a main feature of ER encounters. Clinical decisions related to a patient-physician encounter spanned a time frame exceeding the duration of the encounter. While a distribution of decisions over time and space fosters sharing and dilution of responsibility between providers, it makes the decision making process hard to access for patients. In order to plan when and how to involve patients in decisions, physicians need increased awareness of when clinical decisions are made, who usually makes them, and who should make them. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Uncover it, students would learn leadership from Team-Based Learning (TBL): The effect of guided reflection and feedback.

PubMed

Alizadeh, Maryam; Mirzazadeh, Azim; Parmelee, Dean X; Peyton, Elizabeth; Janani, Leila; Hassanzadeh, Gholamreza; Nedjat, Saharnaz

2017-04-01

Little is known about best practices for teaching and learning leadership through Team-Based learning™ (TBL™) with medical students. We hypothesized that guided reflection and feedback would improve shared leadership and shared leadership capacity, and enhance team decision quality in TBL teams. We used the Kolb experiential learning theory as the theoretical framework. The study was conducted at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Three TBL sessions with 206 students (39 teams) participated in the study. Using a quasi-experimental design, one batch received guided reflection and feedback on their team leadership processes (n = 20 teams) and the other received only TBL (n = 19 teams). Observers measured shared leadership using a checklist. Shared leadership capacity was measured using a questionnaire. Scores on a team application exercise were used to assess quality of team decisions. Evidence did not support our first hypothesis that reflection and feedback enhance shared leadership in TBL teams. Percentages of teams displaying shared leadership did not differ between intervention and control groups in sessions 1 (p = 0.6), 2 (p = 1) or 3 (p = 1). The results did not support the second hypothesis. We found no difference in quality of decision making between the intervention and control groups for sessions 1 (p = 0.77), 2 (p = 0.23), or 3 (p = 0.07). The third hypothesis that the reflection and feedback would have an effect on shared leadership capacity was supported (T = -8.55, p > 0.001 adjusted on baseline; T = -8.55, p > 0.001 adjusted on gender). We found that reflection and feedback improved shared leadership capacity but not shared leadership behaviors or team decision quality. We propose medical educators who apply TBL, should provide guided exercise in reflection and feedback so that students may better understand the benefits of working in teams as preparation for their future roles as leaders and members of health care teams.

Service users' experiences of participation in decision making in mental health services.

PubMed

Dahlqvist Jönsson, P; Schön, U-K; Rosenberg, D; Sandlund, M; Svedberg, P

2015-11-01

Despite the potential positive impact of shared decision making on service users knowledge and experience of decisional conflict, there is a lack of qualitative research on how participation in decision making is promoted from the perspective of psychiatric service users. This study highlights the desire of users to participate more actively in decision making and demonstrates that persons with SMI struggle to be seen as competent and equal partners in decision-making situations. Those interviewed did not feel that their strengths, abilities and needs were being recognized, which resulted in a feeling of being omitted from involvement in decision-making situations. The service users describe some essential conditions that could work to promote participation in decision making. These included having personal support, having access to knowledge, being involved in a dialogue and clarity about responsibilities. Mental health nurses can play an essential role for developing and implementing shared decision making as a tool to promote recovery-oriented mental health services. Service user participation in decision making is considered an essential component of recovery-oriented mental health services. Despite the potential of shared decision making to impact service users knowledge and positively influence their experience of decisional conflict, there is a lack of qualitative research on how participation in decision making is promoted from the perspective of psychiatric service users. In order to develop concrete methods that facilitate shared decision making, there is a need for increased knowledge regarding the users' own perspective. The aim of this study was to explore users' experiences of participation in decisions in mental health services in Sweden, and the kinds of support that may promote participation. Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) was utilized to analyse group and individual interviews with 20 users with experience of serious mental illness. The core category that emerged in the analysis described a 'struggle to be perceived as a competent and equal person' while three related categories including being the underdog, being controlled and being omitted described the difficulties of participating in decisions. The data analysis resulted in a model that describes internal and external conditions that influence the promotion of participation in decision making. The findings offer new insights from a user perspective and these can be utilized to develop and investigate concrete methods in order to promote user's participation in decisions. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shared decision making in the medical encounter: are we all talking about the same thing?

PubMed

Moumjid, Nora; Gafni, Amiram; Brémond, Alain; Carrère, Marie-Odile

2007-01-01

This article aims to explore 1) whether after all the research done on shared decision making (SDM) in the medical encounter, a clear definition (or definitions) of SDM exists; 2) whether authors provide a definition of SDM when they use the term; 3) and whether authors are consistent, throughout a given paper, with respect to the research described and the definition they propose or cite. The authors searched different databases (Medline, HealthStar, Cinahl, Cancerlit, Sociological Abstracts, and Econlit) from 1997 to December 2004. The keywords used were informed decision making and shared decision making as these are the keywords more often encountered in the literature. The languages selected were English and French. The 76 reported papers show that 1) several authors clearly define what they mean by SDM or by another closely related phrase, such as informed shared decision making. 2) About a third of the papers reviewed (25/76) cite these authors although 8 of them do not use the term in a manner consistent with the definition cited. 3) Certain authors use the term SDM inconsistently with the definition they propose, and some use the terms informed decision making and SDM as if they were synonymous. 4) Twenty-one papers do not provide or cite any definition, or their use of the term (i.e., SDM) is not consistent with the definition they provide. Although several clear definitions of shared decision making have been proposed, they are cited by only about a third of the papers reviewed. In the other papers, authors refer to the term without specifying or citing a definition or use the term inconsistently with their definition. This is a problem because having a clear definition of the concept and following this definition are essential to guide and focus research. Authors should use the term consistently with the identified definition.

Shared decision-making to improve attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder care.

PubMed

Brinkman, William B; Hartl Majcher, Jessica; Poling, Lauren M; Shi, Gaoyan; Zender, Mike; Sucharew, Heidi; Britto, Maria T; Epstein, Jeffery N

2013-10-01

To examine the effect of a shared decision-making intervention with parents of children newly diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Seven pediatricians participated in a pre/post open trial of decision aids for use before and during the office visit to discuss diagnosis and develop a treatment plan. Encounters pre- (n=21, control group) and post-intervention implementation (n=33, intervention group) were compared. We video-recorded encounters and surveyed parents. Compared to controls, intervention group parents were more involved in shared decision-making (31.2 vs. 43.8 on OPTION score, p<0.01), more knowledgeable (6.4 vs. 8.1 questions correct, p<0.01), and less conflicted about treatment options (16.2 vs. 10.7 on decisional conflict total score, p=0.06). Visit duration was unchanged (41.0 vs. 41.6min, p=0.75). There were no significant differences in the median number of follow-up visits (0 vs. 1 visits, p=0.08), or the proportion of children with medication titration (62% vs. 76%, p=0.28), or parent-completed behavior rating scale to assess treatment response (24% vs. 39%, p=0.36). Our intervention increased shared decision-making with parents. Parents were better informed about treatment options without increasing visit duration. Interventions are available to prepare parents for visits and enable physicians to elicit parent preferences and involvement in decision-making. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Shared clinical decision making

PubMed Central

AlHaqwi, Ali I.; AlDrees, Turki M.; AlRumayyan, Ahmad; AlFarhan, Ali I.; Alotaibi, Sultan S.; AlKhashan, Hesham I.; Badri, Motasim

2015-01-01

Objectives: To determine preferences of patients regarding their involvement in the clinical decision making process and the related factors in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a major family practice center in King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between March and May 2012. Multivariate multinomial regression models were fitted to identify factors associated with patients preferences. Results: The study included 236 participants. The most preferred decision-making style was shared decision-making (57%), followed by paternalistic (28%), and informed consumerism (14%). The preference for shared clinical decision making was significantly higher among male patients and those with higher level of education, whereas paternalism was significantly higher among older patients and those with chronic health conditions, and consumerism was significantly higher in younger age groups. In multivariate multinomial regression analysis, compared with the shared group, the consumerism group were more likely to be female [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) =2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-6.27, p=0.008] and non-dyslipidemic (AOR=2.90, 95% CI: 1.03-8.09, p=0.04), and the paternalism group were more likely to be older (AOR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05, p=0.04), and female (AOR=2.47, 95% CI: 1.32-4.06, p=0.008). Conclusion: Preferences of patients for involvement in the clinical decision-making varied considerably. In our setting, underlying factors that influence these preferences identified in this study should be considered and tailored individually to achieve optimal treatment outcomes. PMID:26620990

What Factors are Associated with Consumer Initiation of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Visits?

PubMed Central

Matthias, Marianne S.; Fukui, Sadaaki; Salyers, Michelle P.

2016-01-01

Understanding consumer initiation of shared decision making (SDM) is critical to improving SDM in mental health consultations, particularly because providers do not always invite consumer participation in treatment decisions. This study examined the association between consumer initiation of nine elements of SDM as measured by the SDM scale, and measures of consumer illness self-management and the consumer-provider relationship. In 63 mental health visits, three SDM elements were associated with self-management or relationship factors: discussion of consumer goals, treatment alternatives, and pros and cons of a decision. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed. PMID:26427999

To what extent is treatment adherence of psychiatric patients influenced by their participation in shared decision making?

PubMed

De Las Cuevas, Carlos; Peñate, Wenceslao; de Rivera, Luis

2014-01-01

Nonadherence to prescribed medications is a significant barrier to the successful treatment of psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. It has been argued that patient participation in shared decision making improves adherence to treatment plans. To assess to what extent treatment adherence of psychiatric patients is influenced by the concordance between their preferred participation and their actual participation in decision making. A total of 967 consecutive psychiatric outpatients completed the Control Preference Scale twice consecutively before consultation, one for their preferences of participation, and the other for the style they had usually experienced until then, and the eight-item self-report Morisky Medication Adherence Scale 8. Most psychiatric outpatients preferred a collaborative role in decision making. Congruence was achieved in only 50% of the patients, with most mismatch cases preferring more involvement than had been experienced. Self-reported adherence was significantly higher in those patients in whom there was concordance between their preferences and their experiences of participation in decision making, regardless of the type of participation preferred. Congruence between patients' preferences and actual experiences for level of participation in shared decision making is relevant for their adherence to treatment.

[Shared decision making].

PubMed

Floer, B; Schnee, M; Böcken, J; Streich, W; Kunstmann, W; Isfort, J; Butzlaff, M

2004-10-29

The demand for integration of patients in medical decisions becomes more and more obvious. Little is known about whether patients are willing and ready to share therapeutic decisions. So far information is lacking, whether existing communication skills of both -- patients and physicians -- are sufficient for shared decision making (SDM). This paper presents new data on patients perspectives regarding SDM. Standardized survey of 3058 German speaking people (1565 females, 1493 males), aged 18-79 years, a population based random sample of an access panel (pool of german households available for specific surveys) regarding the following topics: medical decision making in practice, communication skills and behaviour of physicians. A majority of patients approved the model of SDM. However, some subgroups of patients, especially older patients, were less interested in the concept of SDM. Necessary communication skills which may help patients to participate in decision making were used rather scarcely. Patients who approved the model of SDM more often experienced a common and trustful exchange of information. Most patients favour the concept of SDM. The communication skills necessary for this process are to be promoted and extended. Research on patients' preferences and their participation in health care reform should be intensified. Academic and continuous medical education should focus on knowledge transfer to patients.

Exploring the use of Option Grid™ patient decision aids in a sample of clinics in Poland.

PubMed

Scalia, Peter; Elwyn, Glyn; Barr, Paul; Song, Julia; Zisman-Ilani, Yaara; Lesniak, Monika; Mullin, Sarah; Kurek, Krzysztof; Bushell, Matt; Durand, Marie-Anne

2018-05-29

Research on the implementation of patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in clinical settings has steadily increased across Western countries. A study which implements decision aids and measures their impact on shared decision making has yet to be conducted in the Eastern part of Europe. To study the use of Option Grid TM patient decision aids in a sample of Grupa LUX MED clinics in Warsaw, Poland, and measure their impact on shared decision making. We conducted a pre-post interventional study. Following a three-month period of usual care, clinicians from three Grupa LUX MED clinics received a one-hour training session on how to use three Option Grid TM decision aids and were provided with copies for use for four months. Throughout the study, all eligible patients were asked to complete the three-item CollaboRATE patient-reported measure of shared decision making after their clinical encounter. CollaboRATE enables patients to assess the efforts clinicians make to: (i) inform them about their health issues; (ii) listen to 'what matters most'; (iii) integrate their treatment preference in future plans. A Hierarchical Logistic Regression model was performed to understand which variables had an effect on CollaboRATE. 2,048 patients participated in the baseline phase; 1,889 patients participated in the intervention phase. Five of the thirteen study clinicians had a statistically significant increase in their CollaboRATE scores (p<.05) when comparing baseline phase to intervention phase. All five clinicians were located at the same clinic, the only clinic where an overall increase (non-significant) in the mean CollaboRATE top score percentage occurred from baseline phase (M=60 %, SD=0.49; 95 % CI [57-63 %]) to intervention phase (M=62 %, SD=0.49; 95% CI [59-65%]). Only three of those five clinicians who had a statistically significant increase had a clinically significant difference. The implementation of Option Grid TM helped some clinicians practice shared decision making as reflected in CollaboRATE scores, but most clinicians did not have a significant increase in their scores. Our study indicates that the effect of these interventions may be dependent on clinic contexts and clinician engagement. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed

Martins, W P; Nastri, C O; Rienzi, L; van der Poel, S Z; Gracia, C R; Racowsky, C

2016-11-01

Is blastocyst transfer safe when compared to cleavage stage embryo transfer regarding obstetric and perinatal outcomes? The clinical equipoise between blastocyst and cleavage stage embryo transfer remains as the evidence associating blastocyst transfer with some adverse perinatal outcomes is of low/very low quality. Extended embryo culture to the blastocyst stage provides some theoretical advantages and disadvantages. While it permits embryo self-selection, it also exposes those embryos to possible harm due to the in vitro environment. Both effectiveness and safety should be weighed to permit evidence-based decisions in clinical practice. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting perinatal outcomes for singletons comparing the deliveries resulting from blastocyst and cleavage stage embryo transfer. Observational studies were included because the primary outcomes, perinatal mortality and birth defects, are rare and require a large number of participants (>50 000) to be properly assessed. The last electronic searches were last run on 11 March 2016. There were 12 observational studies encompassing 195 325 singleton pregnancies included in the study. No RCT reported the studied outcomes. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the quality of the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE criteria. Blastocyst stage transfer was associated with increased risks of preterm birth (<37 weeks), very preterm birth (<32 weeks), large for gestational age and perinatal mortality, although the latter was only identified from one study. Conversely, blastocyst stage transfer was associated with a decrease in the risks of small for gestational age and vanishing twins, although the latter was reported by only one study. The observational nature of the included studies and some inconsistency and imprecision in the analysis contributed to decreasing our confidence in the estimates. Due to the overall low quality of available evidence, the clinical equipoise between cleavage stage and blastocyst transfer remains. More large well-conducted studies are needed to clarify the potential risks and benefits of blastocyst transfer. As this review was initiated to support global recommendations on best practice, and in light of the challenges in lower resource settings to offer extended culture to blastocyst stage, it is critical to take into consideration these obstetric and neonatal outcomes in order to ensure any recommendation will not result in the overburdening of existing maternal and child health care systems and services. No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study. The authors have no competing interests to declare. CRD42015023910. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Complementary and Alternative Therapies in ALS

PubMed Central

Bedlack, Richard S.; Joyce, Nanette; Carter, Gregory T.; Pagononi, Sabrina; Karam, Chafic

2015-01-01

Synopsis Given the severity of their illness and lack of effective disease modifying agents, it is not surprising that most patients with ALS consider trying complementary and alternative therapies. Some of the most commonly considered alternative therapies include special diets, nutritional supplements, cannabis, acupuncture, chelation and energy healing. This chapter reviews these in detail. We also describe 3 models by which physicians may frame discussions about alternative therapies: paternalism, autonomy and shared decision making. Finally, we review a program called ALSUntangled which using shared shared decision making to review alternative therapies for ALS. PMID:26515629

Shared Decisions That Count.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Schlechty, Phillip C.

1993-01-01

Advocates of participatory leadership, site-based management, and decentralization often assume that changing decision-making group composition will automatically improve the quality of decisions being made. Stakeholder satisfaction does not guarantee quality results. This article offers a framework for moving the decision-making discussion from…

Shared Decision Making and Autonomy Among US Participants with Multiple Sclerosis in the NARCOMS Registry

PubMed Central

Thomas, Nina; Tyry, Tuula; Fox, Robert J.; Salter, Amber

2017-01-01

Background: Treatment decisions in multiple sclerosis (MS) are affected by many factors and are made by the patient, doctor, or both. With new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) emerging, the complexity surrounding treatment decisions is increasing, further emphasizing the importance of understanding decision-making preferences. Methods: North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry participants completed the Fall 2014 Update survey, which included the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). The CPS consists of five images showing different patient/doctor roles in treatment decision making. The images were collapsed to three categories: patient-centered, shared, and physician-centered decision-making preferences. Associations between decision-making preferences and demographic and clinical factors were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of 7009 participants, 79.3% were women and 93.5% were white (mean [SD] age, 57.6 [10.3] years); 56.7% reported a history of relapses. Patient-centered decision making was most commonly preferred by participants (47.9%), followed by shared decision making (SDM; 42.8%). SDM preference was higher for women and those taking DMTs and increased with age and disease duration (all P < .05). Patient-centered decisions were most common for respondents not taking a DMT at the time of the survey and were preferred by those who had no DMT history compared with those who had previously taken a DMT (P < .0001). There was no difference in SDM preference by current MS disease course after adjusting for other disease-related factors. Conclusions: Responders reported most commonly considering their doctor's opinion before making a treatment decision and making decisions jointly with their doctor. DMT use, gender, and age were associated with decision-making preference. PMID:29270088

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

PubMed

Kaye, Jane; Terry, Sharon F; Juengst, Eric; Coy, Sarah; Harris, Jennifer R; Chalmers, Don; Dove, Edward S; Budin-Ljøsne, Isabelle; Adebamowo, Clement; Ogbe, Emilomo; Bezuidenhout, Louise; Morrison, Michael; Minion, Joel T; Murtagh, Madeleine J; Minari, Jusaku; Teare, Harriet; Isasi, Rosario; Kato, Kazuto; Rial-Sebbag, Emmanuelle; Marshall, Patricia; Koenig, Barbara; Cambon-Thomsen, Anne

2018-03-07

Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world. The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation. We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing.

Decision Making and Cancer

PubMed Central

Reyna, Valerie F.; Nelson, Wendy L.; Han, Paul K.; Pignone, Michael P.

2014-01-01

We review decision-making along the cancer continuum in the contemporary context of informed and shared decision making, in which patients are encouraged to take a more active role in their health care. We discuss challenges to achieving informed and shared decision making, including cognitive limitations and emotional factors, but argue that understanding the mechanisms of decision making offers hope for improving decision support. Theoretical approaches to decision making that explain cognition, emotion, and their interaction are described, including classical psychophysical approaches, dual-process approaches that focus on conflicts between emotion versus cognition (or reason), and modern integrative approaches such as fuzzy-trace theory. In contrast to the earlier emphasis on rote use of numerical detail, modern approaches emphasize understanding the bottom-line gist of options (which encompasses emotion and other influences on meaning) and retrieving relevant social and moral values to apply to those gist representations. Finally, research on interventions to support better decision making in clinical settings is reviewed, drawing out implications for future research on decision making and cancer. PMID:25730718

Models based on value and probability in health improve shared decision making.

PubMed

Ortendahl, Monica

2008-10-01

Diagnostic reasoning and treatment decisions are a key competence of doctors. A model based on values and probability provides a conceptual framework for clinical judgments and decisions, and also facilitates the integration of clinical and biomedical knowledge into a diagnostic decision. Both value and probability are usually estimated values in clinical decision making. Therefore, model assumptions and parameter estimates should be continually assessed against data, and models should be revised accordingly. Introducing parameter estimates for both value and probability, which usually pertain in clinical work, gives the model labelled subjective expected utility. Estimated values and probabilities are involved sequentially for every step in the decision-making process. Introducing decision-analytic modelling gives a more complete picture of variables that influence the decisions carried out by the doctor and the patient. A model revised for perceived values and probabilities by both the doctor and the patient could be used as a tool for engaging in a mutual and shared decision-making process in clinical work.

InformedTogether: Usability Evaluation of a Web-Based Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Advance Care Planning for Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

PubMed Central

Uhler, Lauren M; Pérez Figueroa, Rafael E; Dickson, Mark; McCullagh, Lauren; Kushniruk, Andre; Monkman, Helen; Witteman, Holly O

2015-01-01

Background Advance care planning may help patients receive treatments that better align with their goals for care. We developed a Web-based decision aid called InformedTogether to facilitate shared advance care planning between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and their doctors. Objective Our objective was to assess the usability of the InformedTogether decision aid, including whether users could interact with the decision aid to engage in tasks required for shared decision making, whether users found the decision aid acceptable, and implications for redesign. Methods We conducted an observational study with 15 patients and 8 doctors at two ethnically and socioeconomically diverse outpatient clinics. Data included quantitative and qualitative observations of patients and doctors using the decision aid on tablet or laptop computers and data from semistructured interviews. Patients were shown the decision aid by a researcher acting as the doctor. Pulmonary doctors were observed using the decision aid independently and asked to think aloud (ie, verbalize their thoughts). A thematic analysis was implemented to explore key issues related to decision aid usability. Results Although patients and doctors found InformedTogether acceptable and would recommend that doctors use the decision aid with COPD patients, many patients had difficulty understanding the icon arrays that were used to communicate estimated prognoses and could not articulate the definitions of the two treatment choices—Full Code and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Minor usability problems regarding content, links, layout, and consistency were also identified and corresponding recommendations were outlined. In particular, participants suggested including more information about potential changes in quality of life resulting from the alternative advance directives. Some doctor participants thought the decision aid was too long and some thought it may cause nervousness among patients due to the topic area. Conclusions A decision aid for shared advance care planning for severe COPD was found acceptable to most COPD patients and their doctors. However, many patient participants did not demonstrate understanding of the treatment options or prognostic estimates. Many participants endorsed the use of the decision aid between doctors and their patients with COPD, although they desired more information about quality of life. The design must optimize comprehensibility, including revising the presentation of statistical information in the icon array, and feasibility of integration into clinical workflow, including shortening the decision aid. PMID:27025896

Shared Decision Making and Other Variables as Correlates of Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions in a United States National Survey

PubMed Central

Wills, Celia E.; Holloman, Christopher; Olson, Jacklyn; Hechmer, Catherine; Miller, Carla K.; Duchemin, Anne-Marie

2012-01-01

Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between shared decision-making (SDM) and satisfaction with decision (SWD) within a larger survey of patient decision-making in health care consultations. Methods A randomly selected age-proportionate national sample of adults (aged 21–70 years) stratified on race, ethnicity, and gender (N = 488) was recruited from a health research volunteer registry and completed an online survey with reference to a recent health consultation. Measures included the Shared Decision Making-9 questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) scale, sociodemographic, health, and other standardized decision-making measures. Forward selection weighted multiple regression analysis was used to model correlates of SWD. Results After controlling for sociodemographic variables, SDM-Q-9 total score was associated with SWD, adjusted R2 = .368, p < .001. Three of nine SDM-Q-9 items accounted for significant proportions of variance in SWD. Conclusion SDM was positively associated with SWD and was strongest for three areas of SDM: patients being helped in a health care consultation with understanding information, with treatment preference elicitation, and with weighing options thoroughly. Practice Implications By identifying variables such as SDM that are associated with SWD, health care interventions can better target modifiable factors to enhance satisfaction and other outcomes. PMID:22410642

Shared decision making and other variables as correlates of satisfaction with health care decisions in a United States national survey.

PubMed

Glass, Katherine Elizabeth; Wills, Celia E; Holloman, Christopher; Olson, Jacklyn; Hechmer, Catherine; Miller, Carla K; Duchemin, Anne-Marie

2012-07-01

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between shared decision-making (SDM) and satisfaction with decision (SWD) within a larger survey of patient decision-making in health care consultations. A randomly selected age-proportionate national sample of adults (aged 21-70 years) stratified on race, ethnicity, and gender (N=488) was recruited from a health research volunteer registry and completed an online survey with reference to a recent health consultation. Measures included the shared decision making-9 questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) scale, sociodemographic, health, and other standardized decision-making measures. Forward selection weighted multiple regression analysis was used to model correlates of SWD. After controlling for sociodemographic variables, SDM-Q-9 total score was associated with SWD, adjusted R(2)=.368, p<.001. Three of nine SDM-Q-9 items accounted for significant proportions of variance in SWD. SDM was positively associated with SWD and was strongest for three areas of SDM: patients being helped in a health care consultation with understanding information, with treatment preference elicitation, and with weighing options thoroughly. By identifying variables such as SDM that are associated with SWD, health care interventions can better target modifiable factors to enhance satisfaction and other outcomes. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

TIUPAM: A Framework for Trustworthiness-Centric Information Sharing

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Xu, Shouhuai; Sandhu, Ravi; Bertino, Elisa

Information is essential to decision making. Nowadays, decision makers are often overwhelmed with large volumes of information, some of which may be inaccurate, incorrect, inappropriate, misleading, or maliciously introduced. With the advocated shift of information sharing paradigm from “need to know” to “need to share” this problem will be further compounded. This poses the challenge of achieving assured information sharing so that decision makers can always get and utilize the up-to-date information for making the right decisions, despite the existence of malicious attacks and without breaching privacy of honest participants. As a first step towards answering this challenge this paper proposes a systematic framework we call TIUPAM, which stands for “Trustworthiness-centric Identity, Usage, Provenance, and Attack Management.” The framework is centered at the need of trustworthiness and risk management for decision makers, and supported by four key components: identity management, usage management, provenance management and attack management. We explore the characterization of both the core functions and the supporting components in the TIUPAM framework, which may guide the design and realization of concrete schemes in the future.

"Teacher, Teacher, Tell Us about the Brain!" Sharing Decision Making about Curriculum in Preschool

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Verwys, Susan K.

2007-01-01

In this article, the author presents a discussion regarding the sharing of decision making regarding curriculum in preschool. The preschool where she teaches is housed in a diverse, faith-based elementary school in the heart of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a midsize, midwestern city. It offers full-day, half-day, and two-and-a-half-hour preschool…

School-Based Management/Shared Decision-Making: A Study of School Reform in New York City.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Jewell, Kenneth E.; Rosen, Jacqueline L.

School-Based Management/Shared Decision Making is a city-wide program supported by New York City Schools in collaboration with Bank Street College, based on the belief that students, parents, school staff, and communities have unique needs, and that these needs can best be addressed by these persons. Participating schools formed teams of…

Teachers' Perceptions of School Culture as a Barrier to Shared Decision-Making (SDM) in Egypt's Secondary Schools

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hammad, Waheed

2010-01-01

This article explores cultural factors impeding members of the school community from engaging in shared decision-making (SDM) processes. It reports on findings from a larger qualitative research study of SDM in Egypt's secondary schools. The purpose of the study was to identify barriers to SDM, using data collected from nine general secondary…

The Demands of Decentralization: Skills and Knowledge for Leaders in Restructured Schools

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gok, Kubilay; Peterson, Kent D.; Warren, Valli D.

2005-01-01

One of the most visible and widespread of the current educational reforms is the attempt to decentralize authority to schools and to involve teachers and others in shared decision making. Often occurring together as site-based shared decision making (SBDM), this reform is turning out to be more difficult to implement than once thought. Few noted…

Information-sharing to promote informed choice in prenatal screening in the spirit of the SOGC clinical practice guideline: a proposal for an alternative model.

PubMed

Vanstone, Meredith; Kinsella, Elizabeth Anne; Nisker, Jeff

2012-03-01

The 2011 SOGC clinical practice guideline "Prenatal Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy in Singleton Pregnancies" recommends that clinicians offer prenatal screening to all pregnant women and provide counselling in a non-directive manner. Non-directive counselling is intended to facilitate autonomous decision-making and remove the clinician's views regarding a particular course of action. However, recent research in genetic counselling raises concerns that non-directive counselling is neither possible nor desirable, and that it may not be the best way to facilitate informed choice. We propose an alternative model of information-sharing specific to prenatal screening that combines attributes of the models of informative decision-making and shared decision-making. Our proposed model is intended to provide clinicians with a strategy to communicate information about prenatal screening in a way that facilitates a shared deliberative process and autonomous decision-making. Our proposed model may better prepare a pregnant woman to make an informed choice about participating in prenatal screening on the basis of her consideration of the medical information provided by her clinician and her particular circumstances and values.

Is Shared Leadership Right for Your School District?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Poff, Joni C.; Parks, David J.

2010-01-01

Despite the lack of evidence supporting the direct effects of shared leadership on student achievement, there is evidence that shared leadership may have very positive effects on school culture variables that, in turn, affect student achievement. These indirect effects are sufficient to make shared decision making a worthwhile school reform…

Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials.

PubMed

Sheridan, Stacey L; Golin, Carol; Bunton, Audrina; Lykes, John B; Schwartz, Bob; McCormack, Lauren; Driscoll, David; Bangdiwala, Shrikant I; Harris, Russell P

2012-11-13

Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions. We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician. Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame. SDM interventions can increase men's knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions. #NCT00630188.

A study protocol of the effectiveness of PEGASUS: a multi-centred study comparing an intervention to promote shared decision making about breast reconstruction with treatment as usual.

PubMed

Harcourt, Diana; Paraskeva, Nicole; White, Paul; Powell, Jane; Clarke, Alex

2017-10-02

Increasingly, women elect breast reconstruction after mastectomy. However, their expectations of surgery are often not met, and dissatisfaction with outcome and ongoing psychosocial concerns and distress are common. We developed a patient-centered intervention, PEGASUS:(Patients' Expectations and Goals: Assisting Shared Understanding of Surgery) which supports shared decision making by helping women clarify their own, individual goals about reconstruction so that they can discuss these with their surgeon. Our acceptability/feasibility work has shown it is well received by patients and health professionals alike. We now need to establish whether PEGASUS improves patients' experiences of breast reconstruction decision making and outcomes. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to examine the effectiveness of PEGASUS, an intervention designed to support shared decision making about breast reconstruction. A multi-centered sequential study will compare the impact of PEGASUS with usual care, in terms of patient reported outcomes (self-reported satisfaction with the outcome of surgery, involvement in decision making and in the consultation) and health economics. Initially we will collect data from our comparison (usual care) group (90 women) who will complete standardized measures (Breast-Q, EQ5D -5 L and ICECAP- A) at the time of decision making, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Health professionals will then be trained to use PEGASUS, which will be delivered to the intervention group (another 90 women completing the same measures at the time of decision making, and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery). Health professionals and a purposefully selected sample of participants will be interviewed about whether their expectations of reconstruction were met, and their experiences of PEGASUS (if appropriate). PEGASUS may have the potential to provide health professionals with an easily accessible tool aiming to support shared decision making and improve patients' satisfaction with breast reconstruction. Results of this study will be available at the end of 2019. ISRCTN 18000391 (DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN18000391) 27/01/2016.

NREL Develops OpenEI.org, a Public Website Where Energy Data can be Generated, Shared, and Compared (Fact Sheet)

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Not Available

2013-12-01

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed OpenEI.org, a public, open, data-sharing platform where consumers, analysts, industry experts, and energy decision makers can go to boost their energy IQs, search for energy data, share data, and get access to energy applications. The free site blends elements of social media, linked open-data practices, and MediaWiki-based technology to build a collaborative environment for creating and sharing energy data with the world. The result is a powerful platform that is helping government and industry leaders around the world define policy options, make informed investment decisions, and create new businesses.

Use of a Shared Mental Model by a Team Composed of Oncology, Palliative Care, and Supportive Care Clinicians to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in a Patient With Advanced Cancer.

PubMed

D'Ambruoso, Sarah F; Coscarelli, Anne; Hurvitz, Sara; Wenger, Neil; Coniglio, David; Donaldson, Dusty; Pietras, Christopher; Walling, Anne M

2016-11-01

Our case describes the efforts of team members drawn from oncology, palliative care, supportive care, and primary care to assist a woman with advanced cancer in accepting care for her psychosocial distress, integrating prognostic information so that she could share in decisions about treatment planning, involving family in her care, and ultimately transitioning to hospice. Team members in our setting included a medical oncologist, oncology nurse practitioner, palliative care nurse practitioner, oncology social worker, and primary care physician. The core members were the patient and her sister. Our team grew organically as a result of patient need and, in doing so, operationalized an explicitly shared understanding of care priorities. We refer to this shared understanding as a shared mental model for care delivery, which enabled our team to jointly set priorities for care through a series of warm handoffs enabled by the team's close proximity within the same clinic. When care providers outside our integrated team became involved in the case, significant communication gaps exposed the difficulty in extending our shared mental model outside the integrated team framework, leading to inefficiencies in care. Integration of this shared understanding for care and close proximity of team members proved to be key components in facilitating treatment of our patient's burdensome cancer-related distress so that she could more effectively participate in treatment decision making that reflected her goals of care.

Perspectives on Cybersecurity Information Sharing among Multiple Stakeholders Using a Decision-Theoretic Approach.

PubMed

He, Meilin; Devine, Laura; Zhuang, Jun

2018-02-01

The government, private sectors, and others users of the Internet are increasingly faced with the risk of cyber incidents. Damage to computer systems and theft of sensitive data caused by cyber attacks have the potential to result in lasting harm to entities under attack, or to society as a whole. The effects of cyber attacks are not always obvious, and detecting them is not a simple proposition. As the U.S. federal government believes that information sharing on cybersecurity issues among organizations is essential to safety, security, and resilience, the importance of trusted information exchange has been emphasized to support public and private decision making by encouraging the creation of the Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC). Through a decision-theoretic approach, this article provides new perspectives on ISAC, and the advent of the new Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs), which are intended to provide similar benefits to organizations that cannot fit easily into the ISAC structure. To help understand the processes of information sharing against cyber threats, this article illustrates 15 representative information sharing structures between ISAC, government, and other participating entities, and provide discussions on the strategic interactions between different stakeholders. This article also identifies the costs of information sharing and information security borne by different parties in this public-private partnership both before and after cyber attacks, as well as the two main benefits. This article provides perspectives on the mechanism of information sharing and some detailed cost-benefit analysis. © 2017 Society for Risk Analysis.

Measuring (shared) decision-making--a review of psychometric instruments.

PubMed

Simon, Daniela; Loh, Andreas; Härter, Martin

2007-01-01

In recent years shared decision-making (SDM) has gained importance as an appropriate approach to patient-physician communication and decision-making. However, there is a conceptual variety that implies problems of inconsistent measurement, of defining relationships of SDM and outcome measures, and of comparisons across different studies. This article presents the results of a literature search of psychometric instruments measuring aspects of decision-making. Altogether 18 scales were found. The majority covers the patients' perspective and relates to preferences for information and participation, decisional conflict, self-efficacy as well as to the evaluation of decision-making process and outcomes. The scales differ widely in their extent of validation. Although this review is not exhaustive, it presents a variety of available decision-making instruments. Yet, many of them still need to show their psychometric quality for other settings in further studies.

Savings sharing: rewarding staff for responsible decision-making.

PubMed

Jones, Debi

2005-04-01

Shortages of professional nurses create a "buyer's market" in which nurses accept temporary assignments for the highest rates and offer little additional time to the primary employer. Use of temporary personnel use salary dollars at an inordinate rate while offering little continuity or support for the organization's standards. Methods for placing decision-making in the hands of the nurses are needed along with a reward system for establishing a pattern of sound decision-making. The author describes a savings sharing program that is gaining credibility in one organization for addressing both objectives.

Shared decision-making.

PubMed

Godolphin, William

2009-01-01

Shared decision-making has been called the crux of patient-centred care and identified as a key part of change for improved quality and safety in healthcare. However, it rarely happens, is hard to do and is not taught - for many reasons. Talking with patients about options is not embedded in the attitudes or communication skills training of most healthcare professionals. Information tools such as patient decision aids, personal health records and the Internet will help to shift this state, as will policy that drives patient and public involvement in healthcare delivery and training.

Shared decision making: empowering the bedside nurse.

PubMed

Slack, Stephanie M; Boguslawski, Jean M; Eickhoff, Rachel M; Klein, Kristi A; Pepin, Teresa M; Schrandt, Kevin; Wise, Carrie A; Zylstra, Jody A

2005-12-01

Shared decision making is a process that has empowered specialty nurses at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, to solve a practice concern. Staff nurses recognized a lack of concise, collated information available that described what nurses need to know when caring for patients receiving chemotherapy. Many aspects of the administration process were knowledge and experience based and not easily retrievable. The Hematology/Oncology/Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Practice Committee identified this as a significant practice issue. Ideas were brainstormed regarding how to make the information available to nursing colleagues. The Chemotherapy Yellow Pages is a resource that was developed to facilitate the rapid retrieval of pertinent information for bedside nurses. The content of this article outlines a'model of shared decision making and the processes used to address and resolve the practice concern.

The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD study): protocol of a cluster randomized trial.

PubMed

LeBlanc, Annie; Ruud, Kari L; Branda, Megan E; Tiedje, Kristina; Boehmer, Kasey R; Pencille, Laurie J; Van Houten, Holly; Matthews, Marc; Shah, Nilay D; May, Carl R; Yawn, Barbara P; Montori, Victor M

2012-05-28

Shared decision making contributes to high quality healthcare by promoting a patient-centered approach. Patient involvement in selecting the components of a diabetes medication program that best match the patient's values and preferences may also enhance medication adherence and improve outcomes. Decision aids are tools designed to involve patients in shared decision making, but their adoption in practice has been limited. In this study, we propose to obtain a preliminary estimate of the impact of patient decision aids vs. usual care on measures of patient involvement in decision making, diabetes care processes, medication adherence, glycemic and cardiovascular risk factor control, and resource utilization. In addition, we propose to identify, describe, and explain factors that promote or inhibit the routine embedding of decision aids in practice. We will be conducting a mixed-methods study comprised of a cluster-randomized, practical, multicentered trial enrolling clinicians and their patients (n = 240) with type 2 diabetes from rural and suburban primary care practices (n = 8), with an embedded qualitative study to examine factors that influence the incorporation of decision aids into routine practice. The intervention will consist of the use of a decision aid (Statin Choice and Aspirin Choice, or Diabetes Medication Choice) during the clinical encounter. The qualitative study will include analysis of video recordings of clinical encounters and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participating patients, clinicians, and clinic support staff, in both trial arms. Upon completion of this trial, we will have new knowledge about the effectiveness of diabetes decision aids in these practices. We will also better understand the factors that promote or inhibit the successful implementation and normalization of medication choice decision aids in the care of chronic patients in primary care practices. NCT00388050.

Patient involvement in the decision-making process improves satisfaction and quality of life in postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

PubMed

Ashraf, Azra A; Colakoglu, Salih; Nguyen, John T; Anastasopulos, Alexandra J; Ibrahim, Ahmed M S; Yueh, Janet H; Lin, Samuel J; Tobias, Adam M; Lee, Bernard T

2013-09-01

The patient-physician relationship has evolved from the paternalistic, physician-dominant model to the shared-decision-making and informed-consumerist model. The level of patient involvement in this decision-making process can potentially influence patient satisfaction and quality of life. In this study, patient-physician decision models are evaluated in patients undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction. All women who underwent breast reconstruction at an academic hospital from 1999-2007 were identified. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were mailed questionnaires at a minimum of 1 y postoperatively with questions about decision making, satisfaction, and quality of life. There were 707 women eligible for our study and 465 completed surveys (68% response rate). Patients were divided into one of three groups: paternalistic (n = 18), informed-consumerist (n = 307), shared (n = 140). There were differences in overall general satisfaction (P = 0.034), specifically comparing the informed group to the paternalistic group (66.7% versus 38.9%, P = 0.020) and the shared to the paternalistic group (69.3% versus 38.9%, P = 0.016). There were no differences in aesthetic satisfaction. There were differences found in the SF-12 physical component summary score across all groups (P = 0.033), and a difference was found between the informed and paternalistic groups (P < 0.05). There were no differences in the mental component score (P = 0.42). Women undergoing breast reconstruction predominantly used the informed model of decision making. Patients who adopted a more active role, whether using an informed or shared approach, had higher general patient satisfaction and physical component summary scores compared with patients whose decision making was paternalistic. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

What makes it so difficult for nurses to coach patients in shared decision making? A process evaluation.

PubMed

Lenzen, Stephanie Anna; Daniëls, Ramon; van Bokhoven, Marloes Amantia; van der Weijden, Trudy; Beurskens, Anna

2018-04-01

Primary care nurses play a crucial role in coaching patients in shared decision making about goals and actions. This presents a challenge to practice nurses, who are frequently used to protocol-based working routines. Therefore, an approach was developed to support nurses to coach patients in shared decision making. To investigate how the approach was implemented and experienced by practice nurses and patients. A process evaluation was conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Fifteen female practice nurses (aged between 28 and 55 years), working with people suffering from diabetes, COPD, asthma and/or cardiovascular diseases, participated. Nurses were asked to apply the approach to their chronically ill patients and to recruit patients (n = 10) willing to participate in an interview or an audio-recording of a consultation (n = 13); patients (13 women, 10 men) were aged between 41 and 88 years and suffered from diabetes, COPD or cardiovascular diseases. The approach involved a framework for shared decision making about goals and actions, a tool to explore the patient perspective, a patient profiles model and a training course. Interviews (n = 15) with nurses, a focus group with nurses (n = 9) and interviews with patients (n = 10) were conducted. Nurses filled in a questionnaire about their work routine before, during and after the training course. They were asked to deliver audiotapes of their consultations (n = 13). Overall, nurses felt that the approach supported them to coach patients in shared decision making. Nurses had become more aware of their own attitudes and learning needs and reported to have had more in-depth discussions with patients. The on-the-job coaching was experienced as valuable. However, nurses struggled to integrate the approach in routine care. They experienced the approach as different to their protocol-based routines and expressed the importance of receiving support and the need for integration of the approach into the family physician practice. This study shows that changing practice nurses' role from medical experts to coaches in shared decision making is very complex and requires paying attention to skills and attitudes, as well as to contextual factors. Our results indicate that more time and training might be needed for this role transition. Moreover, it might be worthwhile to focus on organizational learning, in order to increase an organization's capacity to change work routines in a collaborative process. Future research into the development and evaluation of health coaching approaches, focusing on shared decision making, is necessary. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Clinical Decision Making and Mental Health Service Use Among Persons With Severe Mental Illness Across Europe.

PubMed

Cosh, Suzanne; Zenter, Nadja; Ay, Esra-Sultan; Loos, Sabine; Slade, Mike; De Rosa, Corrado; Luciano, Mario; Berecz, Roland; Glaub, Theodora; Munk-Jørgensen, Povl; Krogsgaard Bording, Malene; Rössler, Wulf; Kawohl, Wolfram; Puschner, Bernd

2017-09-01

The study explored relationships between preferences for and experiences of clinical decision making (CDM) with service use among persons with severe mental illness. Data from a prospective observational study in six European countries were examined. Associations of baseline staff-rated (N=213) and patient-rated (N=588) preferred and experienced decision making with service use were examined at baseline by using binomial regressions and at 12-month follow-up by using multilevel models. A preference by patients and staff for active patient involvement in decision making, rather than shared or passive decision making, was associated with longer hospital admissions and higher costs at baseline and with increases in admissions over 12 months (p=.043). Low patient-rated satisfaction with an experienced clinical decision was also related to increased costs over the study period (p=.005). A preference for shared decision making may reduce health care costs by reducing inpatient admissions. Patient satisfaction with decisions was a predictor of costs, and clinicians should maximize patient satisfaction with CDM.

Sterilization surgery - making a decision

MedlinePlus

... medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002138.htm Sterilization surgery - making a decision To use the sharing features on this page, ... about all the options available to you before making the decision to have a sterilization procedure. Alternative Names Deciding ...

Academic Libraries, Information Sources, and Shared Decision Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

McClure, Charles R.

1980-01-01

Analyzes the relationship of academic librarians' contact with information sources and their involvement in library decision making. Findings suggest that individuals rich in information sources are most closely linked to the decision-making process. (RAA)

Pairing Physician Education With Patient Activation to Improve Shared Decisions in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

PubMed Central

Wilkes, Michael S.; Day, Frank C.; Srinivasan, Malathi; Griffin, Erin; Tancredi, Daniel J.; Rainwater, Julie A.; Kravitz, Richard L.; Bell, Douglas S.; Hoffman, Jerome R.

2013-01-01

BACKGROUND Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician’s final recommendations. METHODS Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients’ reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients’ reported shared decision making and the physician’s recommendation for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS Patients’ ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests. CONCLUSIONS Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to significant changes in all aspects of physician attitudes and behaviors that we studied, interventions that involved physicians did have a large effect on their attitudes toward screening and in the discussions they had with patients, including their being more likely than control physicians to engage in prostate cancer screening discussions and more likely to be neutral in their final recommendations. PMID:23835818

Promoting Physical Activity Through the Shared Use of School Recreational Spaces: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association

PubMed Central

Young, Deborah R.; Spengler, John O.; Frost, Natasha; Evenson, Kelly R.; Vincent, Jeffrey M.; Whitsel, Laurie

2014-01-01

Most Americans are not sufficiently physically active, even though regular physical activity improves health and reduces the risk of many chronic diseases. Those living in rural, non-White, and lower-income communities often have insufficient access to places to be active, which can contribute to their lower level of physical activity. The shared use of school recreational facilities can provide safe and affordable places for communities. Studies suggest that challenges to shared use include additional cost, liability protection, communication among constituencies interested in sharing space, and decision-making about scheduling and space allocation. This American Heart Association policy statement has provided recommendations for federal, state, and local decision-makers to support and expand opportunities for physical activity in communities through the shared use of school spaces. PMID:24134355

Promoting physical activity through the shared use of school recreational spaces: a policy statement from the American Heart Association.

PubMed

Young, Deborah R; Spengler, John O; Frost, Natasha; Evenson, Kelly R; Vincent, Jeffrey M; Whitsel, Laurie

2014-09-01

Most Americans are not sufficiently physically active, even though regular physical activity improves health and reduces the risk of many chronic diseases. Those living in rural, non-White, and lower-income communities often have insufficient access to places to be active, which can contribute to their lower level of physical activity. The shared use of school recreational facilities can provide safe and affordable places for communities. Studies suggest that challenges to shared use include additional cost, liability protection, communication among constituencies interested in sharing space, and decision-making about scheduling and space allocation. This American Heart Association policy statement has provided recommendations for federal, state, and local decision-makers to support and expand opportunities for physical activity in communities through the shared use of school spaces.

Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions.

PubMed

Duncan, Edward; Best, Catherine; Hagen, Suzanne

2010-01-20

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life course. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual, their family and society. Increasingly partnership models of mental health care have been advocated and enshrined in international healthcare policy. Shared decision making is one such partnership approach. Shared decision making is a form of patient-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision. This is advocated on the basis that patients have a right to self-determination and also in the expectation that it will increase treatment adherence. To assess the effects of provider-, consumer- or carer-directed shared decision making interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, on a range of outcomes including: patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and health service outcomes. We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1980 to November 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to November 2008), CINAHL (1982 to November 2008), British Nursing Index and Archive (1985 to November 2008) and SIGLE (1890 to September 2005 (database end date)). We also searched online trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials (q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs); and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of interventions to increase shared decision making in people with mental health conditions (by DSM or ICD-10 criteria). Data on recruitment methods, eligibility criteria, sample characteristics, interventions, outcome measures, participant flow and outcome data from each study were extracted by one author and checked by another. Data are presented in a narrative synthesis. We included two separate German studies involving a total of 518 participants. One study was undertaken in the inpatient treatment of schizophrenia and the other in the treatment of people newly diagnosed with depression in primary care. Regarding the primary outcomes, one study reported statistically significant increases in patient satisfaction, the other study did not. There was no evidence of effect on clinical outcomes or hospital readmission rates in either study. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an indication that interventions to increase shared decision making increased doctor facilitation of patient involvement in decision making, and did not increase consultation times. Nor did the interventions increase patient compliance with treatment plans. Neither study reported any harms of the intervention. Definite conclusions cannot be drawn, however, on the basis of these two studies. No firm conclusions can be drawn at present about the effects of shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. There is no evidence of harm, but there is an urgent need for further research in this area.

Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities.

PubMed

Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Valade, Diane; Orlowski, Catherine; Draus, Catherine; Nabozny-Valerio, Barbara; Keiser, Susan

2000-09-01

OBJECTIVE: Determine feasibility of shared decision-making programmes in fee-for-service hospital systems including physicians' offices and in-patient facilities. DESIGN: Survey and participant observation. Data obtained during Phase 1 of a patient outcome study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hospitals in Michigan: one 299-bed rural regional hospital, one 650-bed urban community hospital, one 459-bed urban and suburban teaching hospital. All nurses and physicians who agreed to use the programmes participated in the evaluation (n = 34). INTERVENTION: Two shared decision-making(R) (SDP) multimedia programmes: surgical treatment choice for breast cancer and ischaemic heart disease treatment choice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) clinicians' evaluations of programme quality; (2) challenges in hospital settings; and (3) patient referral rates. RESULTS: SDP programmes were judged to be clear, accurate and about the right length and amount of information. Programmes were judged to be informative and appropriate for patients to see before making a decision. Clinicians were neutral about patients' desire to participate in treatment decision-making. Referral volume to SDPs was lower than expected: 24 patients in 7 months across three hospitals. Implementation challenges centred on time pressures in patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Productivity and time pressure in US health care severely constrain shared decision-making programme implementation. Physician referral may not be a reliable mechanism for patient access. Possible innovations include: (1) incorporation into the informed consent process; (2) provider or payer negotiated requirement in the routine hospital procedure to use the SDP as a quality indicator; and (3) payer reimbursement to professional providers who make SDP programmes available to patients.

A Mobile Phone App to Support Young People in Making Shared Decisions in Therapy (Power Up): Study Protocol

PubMed Central

Martin, Kate; Webber, Helen; Craven, Michael P; Hollis, Chris; Deighton, Jessica; Law, Roslyn; Fonagy, Peter; Wolpert, Miranda

2017-01-01

Background Evidence suggests that young people want to be active participants in their care and involved in decisions about their treatment. However, there is a lack of digital shared decision-making tools available to support young people in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Objective The primary aim of this paper is to present the protocol of a feasibility trial for Power Up, a mobile phone app to empower young people in CAMHS to make their voices heard and participate in decisions around their care. Methods In the development phase, 30 young people, parents, and clinicians will take part in interviews and focus groups to elicit opinions on an early version of the app. In the feasibility testing phase, 60 young people from across 7 to 10 London CAMHS sites will take part in a trial looking at the feasibility and acceptability of measuring the impact of Power Up on shared decision making. Results Data collection for the development phase ended in December 2016. Data collection for the feasibility testing phase will end in December 2017. Conclusions Findings will inform the planning of a cluster controlled trial and contribute to the development and implementation of a shared decision-making app to be integrated into CAMHS. Trial Registration ISRCTN77194423; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN77194423 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6MINP0). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987608; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987608 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6PNBZM) PMID:29084708

Learning about water resource sharing through game play

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Ewen, Tracy; Seibert, Jan

2016-10-01

Games are an optimal way to teach about water resource sharing, as they allow real-world scenarios to be enacted. Both students and professionals learning about water resource management can benefit from playing games, through the process of understanding both the complexity of sharing of resources between different groups and decision outcomes. Here we address how games can be used to teach about water resource sharing, through both playing and developing water games. An evaluation of using the web-based game Irrigania in the classroom setting, supported by feedback from several educators who have used Irrigania to teach about the sustainable use of water resources, and decision making, at university and high school levels, finds Irrigania to be an effective and easy tool to incorporate into a curriculum. The development of two water games in a course for masters students in geography is also presented as a way to teach and communicate about water resource sharing. Through game development, students learned soft skills, including critical thinking, problem solving, team work, and time management, and overall the process was found to be an effective way to learn about water resource decision outcomes. This paper concludes with a discussion of learning outcomes from both playing and developing water games.

Primary care professional's perspectives on treatment decision making for depression with African Americans and Latinos in primary care practice.

PubMed

Patel, Sapana R; Schnall, Rebecca; Little, Virna; Lewis-Fernández, Roberto; Pincus, Harold Alan

2014-12-01

Increasing interest has been shown in shared decision making (SDM) to improve mental health care communication between underserved immigrant minorities and their providers. Nonetheless, very little is known about this process. The following is a qualitative study of fifteen primary care providers at two Federally Qualified Health Centers in New York and their experience during depression treatment decision making. Respondents described a process characterized in between shared and paternalistic models of treatment decision making. Barriers to SDM included discordant models of illness, stigma, varying role expectations and decision readiness. Respondents reported strategies used to overcome barriers including understanding illness perceptions and the role of the community in the treatment process, dispelling stigma using cultural terms, orienting patients to treatment and remaining available regarding the treatment decision. Findings from this study have implications for planning SDM interventions to guide primary care providers through treatment engagement for depression.

Return-to-Play in 2017 and the Role of Shared Decision-Making in Patients with Inherited and Acquired Channelopathies and Cardiomyopathies.

PubMed

Afshar, Kia; Bunch, T Jared

2017-09-14

Shared decision-making is based upon a physician-patient encounter in which there is adequate education using aids if needed, a mutual discussion of how to assist the patient in weighing risks and benefits, and a supportive environment that allows the patient to deliberate on the clinical decision and make their own choice. This decision-making paradigm centers on the principles of autonomy and self-determination. Physical activity is a critical part of healthy lifestyle choices that helps lower risk of cardiovascular disease or the progression of it. Exercise is also a significant contributor to quality of life in many patients in additional to the health benefits. In patients with inherited or acquired cardiovascular disease, exercise may increase risk of electrical and hemodynamic instability. There is a paucity of data to guide physicians and committees that create guidelines regarding athletic and fitness participation in these patients, particularly when the patient wants to participate in those activities that are considered moderate-severe in intensity. As a consequence, the principles of shared decision-making are critical for physicians to use to help patients with cardiovascular disease make the best decision regarding fitness participation that will minimize their risk of new disease or progression of their disease and enhance their quality of life.

Nurse aide decision making in nursing homes: factors affecting empowerment.

PubMed

Chaudhuri, Tanni; Yeatts, Dale E; Cready, Cynthia M

2013-09-01

To evaluate factors affecting structural empowerment among nurse aides in nursing homes. Structural empowerment can be defined as the actual rather than perceived ability to make autonomous decisions within an organisation. Given the paucity of research on the subject, this study helps to close the gap by identifying factors that affect nurse aide empowerment, that is, decision-making among nurse aides. The data for the study come from self-administered questionnaires distributed to direct-care workers (nurse aides) in 11 nursing homes in a southern state in the USA. Ordinary least square regression models were estimated to analyse the effects of demographic predictors, personal factors (competency, emotional exhaustion and positive attitude) and structural characteristics (coworker and supervisor support, information availability and shared governance) on nurse aide decision-making. Findings suggest race among demographic predictors, emotional exhaustion among personal characteristics, and supervisor support, and shared governance among structural factors, significantly affect nurse aide decision-making. It is important to explore race as one of the central determinants of structural empowerment among nurse aides. In addition, the nature and type of emotional exhaustion that propels decision-making needs to be further examined. The study shows the importance of shared governance and supervisor support for fostering nurse aide empowerment. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Physicians Perceptions of Shared Decision-Making in Neonatal and Pediatric Critical Care.

PubMed

Richards, Claire A; Starks, Helene; O'Connor, M Rebecca; Bourget, Erica; Hays, Ross M; Doorenbos, Ardith Z

2018-04-01

Most children die in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units after decisions are made to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments. These decisions can be challenging when there are different views about the child's best interest and when there is a lack of clarity about how best to also consider the interests of the family. To understand how neonatal and pediatric critical care physicians balance and integrate the interests of the child and family in decisions about life-sustaining treatments. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 physicians from neonatal, pediatric, and cardiothoracic intensive care units in a single quaternary care pediatric hospital. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. We identified 3 main themes: (1) beliefs about child and family interests; (2) disagreement about the child's best interest; and (3) decision-making strategies, including limiting options, being directive, staying neutral, and allowing parents to come to their own conclusions. Physicians described challenges to implementing shared decision-making including unequal power and authority, clinical uncertainty, and complexity of balancing child and family interests. They acknowledged determining the level of engagement in shared decision-making with parents (vs routine engagement) based on their perceptions of the best interests of the child and parent. Due to power imbalances, families' values and preferences may not be integrated in decisions or families may be excluded from discussions about goals of care. We suggest that a systematic approach to identify parental preferences and needs for decisional roles and information may reduce variability in parental involvement.

[Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in oncology: Patient perceptions].

PubMed

Ortega-Moreno, M; Padilla-Garrido, N; Huelva-López, L; Aguado-Correa, F; Bayo-Calero, J; Bayo-Lozano, E

To determine, from the point of view of the oncological patient, who made the decision about their treatment, as well as the major barriers and facilitators that enabled Shared Decision Making to be implemented. A cross-sectional, descriptive, sand association study using a self-report questionnaire to selected cancer patients, with casual sampling in different oncology clinics and random time periods. A total of 108 patients provided analysable data. The information was collected on sociodemographic and clinical variables, who made the decision about treatment, and level of agreement or disagreement with various barriers and facilitators. More than one-third (38.1%) of patients claimed to have participated in shared decision making with their doctor. Barriers such as, time, the difficulty of understanding, the paternalism, lack of fluid communication, and having preliminary and often erroneous information influenced the involvement in decision-making. However, to have or not have sufficient tools to aid decision making or the patient's interest to participate had no effect. As regards facilitators, physician motivation, their perception of improvement, and the interest of the patient had a positive influence. The exception was the possibility of financial incentives to doctors. The little, or no participation perceived by cancer patients in decisions about their health makes it necessary to introduce improvements in the health care model to overcome barriers and promote a more participatory attitude in the patient. Copyright © 2017 SECA. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Shared decision making in Australia in 2017.

PubMed

Trevena, Lyndal; Shepherd, Heather L; Bonner, Carissa; Jansen, Jesse; Cust, Anne E; Leask, Julie; Shadbolt, Narelle; Del Mar, Chris; McCaffery, Kirsten; Hoffmann, Tammy

2017-06-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is now firmly established within national clinical standards for accrediting hospitals, day procedure services, public dental services and medical education in Australia, with plans to align general practice, aged care and disability service. Implementation of these standards and training of health professionals is a key challenge for the Australian health sector at this time. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance has also increased, with a major focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care. Tools to support shared decision making are increasingly used but there is a need for more systemic approaches to their development, cultural adaptation and implementation. Sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up-to-date with the best available evidence will be important for the future. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Adoption of clinical decision support systems in a developing country: Antecedents and outcomes of physician's threat to perceived professional autonomy.

PubMed

Esmaeilzadeh, Pouyan; Sambasivan, Murali; Kumar, Naresh; Nezakati, Hossein

2015-08-01

The basic objective of this research is to study the antecedents and outcomes of professional autonomy which is a central construct that affects physicians' intention to adopt clinical decision support systems (CDSS). The antecedents are physicians' attitude toward knowledge sharing and interactivity perception (about CDSS) and the outcomes are performance expectancy and intention to adopt CDSS. Besides, we include (1) the antecedents of attitude toward knowledge sharing-subjective norms, social factors and OCB (helping behavior) and (2) roles of physicians' involvement in decision making, computer self-efficacy and effort expectancy in our framework. Data from a stratified sample of 335 Malaysian physicians working in 12 public and private hospitals in Malaysia were collected to test the hypotheses using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The important findings of our research are: (1) factors such as perceived threat to professional autonomy, performance expectancy, and physicians' involvement in making decision about CDSS have significant impact on physicians' intention to adopt CDSS; (2) physicians' attitude toward knowledge sharing, interactivity perception and computer self-efficacy of physicians play a crucial role in influencing their perceived threat to professional autonomy; and (3) social network, shared goals and OCB (helping behavior) impact physicians' attitude toward knowledge sharing. The findings provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence physicians' intention to adopt CDSS in a developing country. The results can help hospital managers manage CDSS implementation in an effective manner. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Decision making and cancer.

PubMed

Reyna, Valerie F; Nelson, Wendy L; Han, Paul K; Pignone, Michael P

2015-01-01

We review decision making along the cancer continuum in the contemporary context of informed and shared decision making in which patients are encouraged to take a more active role in their health care. We discuss challenges to achieving informed and shared decision making, including cognitive limitations and emotional factors, but argue that understanding the mechanisms of decision making offers hope for improving decision support. Theoretical approaches to decision making that explain cognition, emotion, and their interaction are described, including classical psychophysical approaches, dual-process approaches that focus on conflicts between emotion versus cognition (or reason), and modern integrative approaches such as fuzzy-trace theory. In contrast to the earlier emphasis on rote use of numerical detail, modern approaches emphasize understanding the bottom-line gist of options (which encompasses emotion and other influences on meaning) and retrieving relevant social and moral values to apply to those gist representations. Finally, research on interventions to support better decision making in clinical settings is reviewed, drawing out implications for future research on decision making and cancer. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

Shared Decision Making in Intensive Care Units: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement

PubMed Central

Kon, Alexander A.; Davidson, Judy E.; Morrison, Wynne; Danis, Marion; White, Douglas B.

2015-01-01

Objectives Shared decision-making (SDM) is endorsed by critical care organizations, however there remains confusion about what SDM is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define SDM, recommend when SDM should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills. Methods The American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of ACCM and ATS were included in the statement. Main Results Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) Definition: Shared decision-making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make health care decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient’s values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a SDM process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their “default” approach a SDM process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies. Conclusions Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate. PMID:26509317

Talking with parents about end-of-life decisions for their children.

PubMed

de Vos, Mirjam A; Bos, Albert P; Plötz, Frans B; van Heerde, Marc; de Graaff, Bert M; Tates, Kiek; Truog, Robert D; Willems, Dick L

2015-02-01

Retrospective studies show that most parents prefer to share in decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment (LST) from their children. We do not yet know how physicians and parents communicate about these decisions and to what extent parents share in the decision-making process. We conducted a prospective exploratory study in 2 Dutch University Medical Centers. Overall, 27 physicians participated, along with 37 parents of 19 children for whom a decision to withhold or withdraw LST was being considered. Forty-seven conversations were audio recorded, ranging from 1 to 8 meetings per patient. By means of a coding instrument we quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed physicians' and parents' communicative behaviors. On average, physicians spoke 67% of the time, parents 30%, and nurses 3%. All physicians focused primarily on providing medical information, explaining their preferred course of action, and informing parents about the decision being reached by the team. Only in 2 cases were parents asked to share in the decision-making. Despite their intense emotions, most parents made great effort to actively participate in the conversation. They did this by asking for clarifications, offering their preferences, and reacting to the decision being proposed (mostly by expressing their assent). In the few cases where parents strongly preferred LST to be continued, the physicians either gave parents more time or revised the decision. We conclude that parents are able to handle a more active role than they are currently being given. Parents' greatest concern is that their child might suffer. Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Research Using In Vivo Simulation of Meta-Organizational Shared Decision-making (SDM). Task 4: Modeling of Communication and Decision Functions within a Shared Decision-making (SDM) Framework

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-12-01

la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale 2011, Abstract...modélisation des fonctions de communication et de prise de décision dans le cadre de la prise de décision partagée (PDP) du volet de travail « Recherche par... la simulation in-vivo sur la prise de décision partagée des méta-organisations ». Cette composante du programme

High deductible health plans: does cost sharing stimulate increased consumer sophistication?

PubMed

Gupta, Neal; Polsky, Daniel

2015-06-01

To determine whether increased cost sharing in health insurance plans induces higher levels of consumer sophistication in a non-elderly population. This analysis is based on the collection of survey and demographic data collected from enrollees in the RAND health insurance experiment (HIE). During the RAND HIE, enrollees were randomly assigned to different levels of cost sharing (0, 25, 50 and 95%). The study population compromises about 2000 people enrolled in the RAND HIE, between the years 1974 and 1982. Effects on health-care decision making were measured using the results of a standardized questionnaire, administered at the beginning and end of the experiment. Points of enquiry included whether or not enrollees' (i) recognized the need for second opinions (ii) questioned the effectiveness of certain therapies and (iii) researched the background/skill of their medical providers. Consumer sophistication was also measured for regular health-care consumers, as indicated by the presence of a chronic disease. We found no statically significant changes (P < 0.05) in the health-care decision-making strategies between individuals randomized to high cost sharing plans and low cost sharing plans. Furthermore, we did not find a stronger effect for patients with a chronic disease. The evidence from the RAND HIE does not support the hypothesis that a higher level of cost sharing incentivizes the development of consumer sophistication. As a result, cost sharing alone will not promote individuals to become more selective in their health-care decision-making. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Treatment decision-making in the medical encounter: comparing the attitudes of French surgeons and their patients in breast cancer care.

PubMed

Nguyen, Florence; Moumjid, Nora; Charles, Cathy; Gafni, Amiram; Whelan, Tim; Carrère, Marie-Odile

2014-02-01

To explore attitudes of French surgeons and their patients towards treatment decision-making (TDM) in the medical encounter. Surgeons involved in early stage breast cancer and their patients treated in a French cancer care network received a cross-sectional survey questionnaire containing examples of four different approaches to TDM: paternalistic, "some sharing", informed TDM and, shared TDM. Surgeons' interaction styles were clearly distributed among paternalistic, shared and mixed. The paternalistic approach seemed to be associated with private rather than public practice and with less professional experience. Patients reported a rather low level of participation in TDM, varying by socio-demographic characteristics. One third of patients were dissatisfied with the way their treatment decision had been made. Most surgeons reported adopting the "some sharing" approach. However, one patient out of three reported that they would have liked to participate more in the TDM process. Surgeons need to ask patients what their preferences for involvement in TDM are and then think about ways to accommodate both their own and patients' preferences regarding the TDM process to be used in each encounter. In addition, decision aids could be offered to surgeons to help them discuss treatment options with their patients. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Myoglobin translational diffusion in rat myocardium and its implication on intracellular oxygen transport.

PubMed

Lin, Ping-Chang; Kreutzer, Ulrike; Jue, Thomas

2007-01-15

Current theory of respiratory control invokes a role of myoglobin (Mb)-facilitated O2 diffusion in regulating the intracellular O2 flux, provided Mb diffusion can compete effectively with free O2 diffusion. Pulsed-field gradient NMR methods have now followed gradient-dependent changes in the distinct 1H NMR gamma CH3 Val E11 signal of MbO2 in perfused rat myocardium to obtain the endogenous Mb translational diffusion coefficient (D(Mb)) of 4.24 x 10(-7) cm2 s(-1) at 22 degrees C. The D(Mb) matches precisely the value predicted by in vivo NMR rotational diffusion measurements of Mb and shows no orientation preference. Given values in the literature for the Krogh's free O2 diffusion coefficient (K0), myocardial Mb concentration and a partial pressure of O2 that half saturates Mb (P50), the analysis yields an equipoise diffusion P(O2) of 1.77 mmHg, where Mb and free O2 contribute equally to the O2 flux. In the myocardium, Mb-facilitated O2 diffusion contributes increasingly more than free O2 diffusion when the P(O2) falls below 1.77 mmHg. In skeletal muscle, the P(O2) must fall below 5.72 mmHg. Altering the Mb P50 induces modest change. Mb-facilitated diffusion has a higher poise in skeletal muscle than in myocardium. Because the basal P(O2) hovers around 10 mmHg, Mb does not have a predominant role in facilitating O2 transport in myocardium but contributes significantly only when cellular oxygen falls below the equipoise diffusion P(O2).

Ethical considerations in design of a study to evaluate a US Food and Drug Administration-approved indication: antivenom versus placebo for copperhead envenomation.

PubMed

Gerardo, Charles J; Lavonas, Eric J; McKinney, Ross E

2014-10-01

In 2000, the US Food and Drug Administration approved CroFab(®) Crotalidae Polyvalent Immune Fab, ovine (FabAV), which had received orphan drug designation, for use in patients with minimal to moderate North American crotaline envenomations including copperhead snakes. As existing evidence on the effectiveness of FabAV for this indication is limited, wide practice variation in its use exists. In order to provide more definitive clinical evidence as to the role of this treatment, a new randomized, placebo-controlled trial of FabAV specifically for copperhead bites was initiated. In light of the existing US Food and Drug Administration approval, ethical considerations of participation in this trial have been raised. We discuss the ethical principles pertinent to this randomized, placebo-controlled trial with placebo arm. We apply an accepted framework for ethical research to this trial. Due to the evidence gap in the literature, wide-ranging treatment recommendations by medical experts, and broad practice variation, clinical equipoise exists in the treatment of copperhead envenomation with FabAV. The impact of this clinical equipoise on the value and scientific validity of the trial is discussed. The trial's risk-benefit ratio is also considered. Potential risks to the patients are minimized as the protocol includes a plan for rescue therapy in the event that patients progress to severe envenomation symptoms. Overall, risks are further minimized by the inclusion of an interim analysis with stopping rules based on demonstrated efficacy should the therapy clearly prove to be beneficial. Although a post-marketing clinical study of this nature is unusual for an approved indication, this trial adheres to all ethical preconditions found in existing guidelines for clinical research involving human subjects. © The Author(s) 2014.

[Evidence-based Risk and Benefit Communication for Shared Decision Making].

PubMed

Nakayama, Takeo

2018-01-01

　Evidence-based medicine (EBM) can be defined as "the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and a patient's unique values and circumstances". However, even with the best research evidence, many uncertainties can make clinical decisions difficult. As the social requirement of respecting patient values and preferences has been increasingly recognized, shared decision making (SDM) and consensus development between patients and clinicians have attracted attention. SDM is a process by which patients and clinicians make decisions and arrive at a consensus through interactive conversations and communications. During the process of SDM, patients and clinicians share information with each other on the goals they hope to achieve and responsibilities in meeting those goals. From the clinician's standpoint, information regarding the benefits and risks of potential treatment options based on current evidence and professional experience is provided to patients. From the patient's standpoint, information on personal values, preferences, and social roles is provided to clinicians. SDM is a sort of "wisdom" in the context of making autonomous decisions in uncertain, difficult situations through interactions and cooperation between patients and clinicians. Joint development of EBM and SDM will help facilitate patient-clinician relationships and improve the quality of healthcare.

Patient decision-making preference and physician decision-making style for contraceptive method choice in an Asian culture: does concordance matter?

PubMed

Alden, Dana Latham; Merz, Miwa Yamazaki; Thi, Le Minh

2010-12-01

This study investigates preferences for patient-physician decision-making in an emerging economy with an Asian culture. A survey of 445 randomly sampled women, aged 20-40 in Hanoi, Vietnam, revealed that pre-consultation attitudes were most positive toward a "shared" decision-making approach with the physician for contraceptive method choice. However, following random assignment to one of three vignettes (passive, shared or autonomous) featuring a young Vietnamese woman reaching a contraceptive method decision with her physician, preference was highest for the "autonomous" approach. Furthermore, discordance between pre-consultation preference for decision-making style and the physician's decision-making style negatively impacted evaluations under some but not all circumstances. This study demonstrates that, despite living in a hierarchic Asian culture, active participation in contraceptive method choice is desired by many urban Vietnamese women. However, there is variation on this dimension and adjusting the physician's style to be concordant with patient preference appears important to maximizing patient satisfaction.

Error affect inoculation for a complex decision-making task.

PubMed

Tabernero, Carmen; Wood, Robert E

2009-05-01

Individuals bring knowledge, implicit theories, and goal orientations to group meetings. Group decisions arise out of the exchange of these orientations. This research explores how a trainee's exploratory and deliberate process (an incremental theory and learning goal orientation) impacts the effectiveness of individual and group decision-making processes. The effectiveness of this training program is compared with another program that included error affect inoculation (EAI). Subjects were 40 Spanish Policemen in a training course. They were distributed in two training conditions for an individual and group decision-making task. In one condition, individuals received the Self-Guided Exploration plus Deliberation Process instructions, which emphasised exploring the options and testing hypotheses. In the other condition, individuals also received instructions based on Error Affect Inoculation (EAI), which emphasised positive affective reactions to errors and mistakes when making decisions. Results show that the quality of decisions increases when the groups share their reasoning. The AIE intervention promotes sharing information, flexible initial viewpoints, and improving the quality of group decisions. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Depressive symptoms and decision-making preferences in patients with comorbid illnesses.

PubMed

Moise, Nathalie; Ye, Siqin; Alcántara, Carmela; Davidson, Karina W; Kronish, Ian

2017-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly promoted in the primary care setting, but depressive symptoms, which are associated with cognitive changes, may influence decision-making preferences. We sought to assess whether elevated depressive symptoms are associated with decision-making preference in patients with comorbid chronic illness. We enrolled 195 patients ≥18years old with uncontrolled hypertension from two urban, academic primary care clinics. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire. Clinician-directed decision-making preference was assessed according to the Control Preference Scale. The impact of depressive symptoms on decision-making preference was assessed using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, Medicaid status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, partner status, and clustering within clinicians. The mean age was 64.2years; 72% were women, 77% Hispanic, 38% Black, and 33% had elevated depressive symptoms. Overall, 35% of patients preferred clinician-directed decision-making, 19% mostly clinician-directed, 39% shared, and 7% some or little clinician-input. Patients with (vs. without) elevated depressive symptoms were more likely to prefer clinician-directed decision-making (46% versus 29%; p=0.02; AOR 2.51, 95% CI 1.30-4.85, p=0.005). Remitted depressive symptoms (vs. never depressed) were not associated with preference. Elevated depressive symptoms are associated with preference for clinician-directed decision-making. We suggest that clinicians should be aware of this effect when incorporating preference into their communication styles and take an active role in eliciting patient values and exchanging information about treatment choice, all important components of shared decision-making, particularly when patients are depressed. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Surrogate decision making: do we have to trade off accuracy and procedural satisfaction?

PubMed

Frey, Renato; Hertwig, Ralph; Herzog, Stefan M

2014-02-01

Making surrogate decisions on behalf of incapacitated patients can raise difficult questions for relatives, physicians, and society. Previous research has focused on the accuracy of surrogate decisions (i.e., the proportion of correctly inferred preferences). Less attention has been paid to the procedural satisfaction that patients' surrogates and patients attribute to specific approaches to making surrogate decisions. The objective was to investigate hypothetical patients' and surrogates' procedural satisfaction with specific approaches to making surrogate decisions and whether implementing these preferences would lead to tradeoffs between procedural satisfaction and accuracy. Study 1 investigated procedural satisfaction by assigning participants (618 in a mixed-age but relatively young online sample and 50 in an older offline sample) to the roles of hypothetical surrogates or patients. Study 2 (involving 64 real multigenerational families with a total of 253 participants) investigated accuracy using 24 medical scenarios. Hypothetical patients and surrogates had closely aligned preferences: Procedural satisfaction was highest with a patient-designated surrogate, followed by shared surrogate decision-making approaches and legally assigned surrogates. These approaches did not differ substantially in accuracy. Limitations are that participants' preferences regarding existing and novel approaches to making surrogate decisions can only be elicited under hypothetical conditions. Next to decision making by patient-designated surrogates, shared surrogate decision making is the preferred approach among patients and surrogates alike. This approach appears to impose no tradeoff between procedural satisfaction and accuracy. Therefore, shared decision making should be further studied in representative samples of the general population, and if people's preferences prove to be robust, they deserve to be weighted more strongly in legal frameworks in addition to patient-designated surrogates.

Disseminating the Results of a Depression Management Study in an Urban Alaska Native Health Care System.

PubMed

Dirks, Lisa G; Avey, Jaedon P; Hiratsuka, Vanessa Y; Dillard, Denise A; Caindec, Karen; Robinson, Renee F

2018-01-01

Increased attention to diagnostic accuracy in depression screening and management within primary care has demonstrated inadequate care when patients prematurely discontinue recommended treatments such as medication and counseling. Decision-support tools can enhance the medical decision-making process. In 2010, the Southcentral Foundation (SCF) Research Department developed a stakeholder-driven decision support tool to aid in depression management. This paper describes feedback from attendees at SCF's 2016 Alaska Native Health Research Forum (Forum) regarding a dissemination product highlighting the aforementioned study. Forum attendees participated in a small group discussion and responded to a brief survey using the audience response system. Thematic analysis was conducted on data from the small group discussion. Overall, Forum attendees responded favorably to the dissemination product. Most agreed the presentation was clear, the amount of information presented was appropriate, and that results were presented in an interesting way. Small group discussion participants provided constructive feedback about why depression-related research results should be shared; how they believed results should be best shared; who results should be shared with; when and where results should be shared; and what level of research results should be shared. The stigma associated with depression treatment may be assuaged if results are shared in a way that normalizes support for depression treatment. Community member involvement in disseminating results has potential to make information more acceptable and meaningful.

The neglected topic: presentation of cost information in patient decision AIDS.

PubMed

Blumenthal-Barby, J S; Robinson, Emily; Cantor, Scott B; Naik, Aanand D; Russell, Heidi Voelker; Volk, Robert J

2015-05-01

Costs are an important component of patients' decision making, but a comparatively underemphasized aspect of formal shared decision making. We hypothesized that decision aids also avoid discussion of costs, despite their being tools designed to facilitate shared decision making about patient-centered outcomes. We sought to define the frequency of cost-related information and identify the common modes of presenting cost and cost-related information in the 290 decision aids catalogued in the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's Decision Aid Library Inventory (DALI) system. We found that 56% (n = 161) of the decision aids mentioned cost in some way, but only 13% (n = 37) gave a specific price or range of prices. We identified 9 different ways in which cost was mentioned. The most common approach was as a "pro" of one of the treatment options (e.g., "you avoid the cost of medication"). Of the 37 decision aids that gave specific prices or ranges of prices for treatment options, only 2 were about surgery decisions despite the fact that surgery decision aids were the most common. Our findings suggest that presentation of cost information in decision aids is highly variable. Evidence-based guidelines should be developed by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. © The Author(s) 2015.

Palliative Medicine and Decision Science: The Critical Need for a Shared Agenda To Foster Informed Patient Choice in Serious Illness

PubMed Central

Kryworuchko, Jennifer; Matlock, Dan D.; Volandes, Angelo E.

2011-01-01

Abstract Assisting patients and their families in complex decision making is a foundational skill in palliative care; however, palliative care clinicians and scientists have just begun to establish an evidence base for best practice in assisting patients and families in complex decision making. Decision scientists aim to understand and clarify the concepts and techniques of shared decision making (SDM), decision support, and informed patient choice in order to ensure that patient and family perspectives shape their health care experience. Patients with serious illness and their families are faced with myriad complex decisions over the course of illness and as death approaches. If patients lose capacity, then surrogate decision makers are cast into the decision-making role. The fields of palliative care and decision science have grown in parallel. There is much to be gained in advancing the practices of complex decision making in serious illness through increased collaboration. The purpose of this article is to use a case study to highlight the broad range of difficult decisions, issues, and opportunities imposed by a life-limiting illness in order to illustrate how collaboration and a joint research agenda between palliative care and decision science researchers, theorists, and clinicians might guide best practices for patients and their families. PMID:21895453

Antibiotic and shared decision-making preferences among adolescents in Malaysia

PubMed Central

Ngadimon, Irma Wati; Islahudin, Farida; Hatah, Ernieda; Mohamed Shah, Noraida; Makmor-Bakry, Mohd

2015-01-01

Background The purpose of this study was to establish baseline information on the current level of knowledge about, attitude toward, and experience with antibiotic usage, and preferences for shared decision making among adolescents in Malaysia. Methods A cross-sectional survey, involving 1,105 respondents who were aged between 13 and 17 years and who lived in Malaysia, was conducted using a validated questionnaire. The survey assessed knowledge, attitude, and experience with regard to antibiotic usage, and adolescents’ preferences for the style of shared decision-making process. Results The majority (n=786 [71.13%]) of the respondents had a low level of knowledge, 296 (26.79%) had a moderate level of knowledge, and 23 (2.08%) had a high level of knowledge. Further, they demonstrated a slightly negative attitude mean score of 3.30±0.05 (range: 0–8 points) but a positive experience mean score of 2.90±0.029 (range: 0–4 points). There was a positive correlation between knowledge and attitude scores, with a higher knowledge level associated with a more positive attitude toward antibiotic usage (r=0.257, P<0.001). Higher knowledge scores were associated with a more negative experience with antibiotic usage (r=−0.83, P=0.006). When assessing preference in shared decision making, more adolescents preferred an active role (n=408 [37%]) compared with collaborative (n=360 [32.6%]) or passive (n=337 [30.5%]) (P=0.028) roles. Conclusion Current health care settings should involve adolescents in the decision-making process. Education packages can be introduced to improve adolescents’ knowledge of and practice of taking antibiotics, as well as to encourage their participation in decision making, in an attempt to reduce misuse of antibiotics. PMID:25999702

Improving access to shared decision-making for Hispanics/Latinos with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

PubMed Central

Davidson, Jaime A; Rosales, Aracely; Shillington, Alicia C; Bailey, Robert A; Kabir, Chris; Umpierrez, Guillermo E

2015-01-01

Purpose To describe the cultural and linguistic adaptation and Spanish translation of an English-language patient decision aid (PDA) for use in supporting shared decision-making in Hispanics/Latinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a group at a high risk for complications. Patients and methods A steering committee of endocrinologists, a primary care physician, a certified diabetes educator, and a dietician, each with extensive experience in providing care to Hispanics/Latinos was convened to assess a PDA developed for English-speaking patients with T2DM. English content was reviewed for cultural sensitivity and appropriateness for a Hispanic/Latino population. A consensus-building process and iterative version edits incorporated clinician perspectives. The content was adapted to be consistent with traditional Hispanic/Latino cultural communication precepts (eg, avoidance of hostile confrontation; value for warm interaction; respect for authority; value of family support for decisions). The PDA was translated by native-speaking individuals with diabetes expertise. Results The PDA underwent testing during cognitive interviews with ten Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM to ensure that the content is reflective of the experience, understanding, and language Hispanic/Latino patients use to describe diabetes and treatment. Content edits were made to assure a literacy level appropriate to the audience, and the PDA was produced for online video dissemination. Conclusion High-quality, well-developed tools to facilitate shared decision-making in populations with limited access to culturally sensitive information can narrow gaps and align care with individual patient preferences. A newly developed PDA is available for shared decision-making that provides culturally appropriate treatment information for inadequately controlled Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM. The impact on the overall health of patients and care management of T2DM requires further study. PMID:25995623

A Mobile Phone App to Support Young People in Making Shared Decisions in Therapy (Power Up): Study Protocol.

PubMed

Chapman, Louise; Edbrooke-Childs, Julian; Martin, Kate; Webber, Helen; Craven, Michael P; Hollis, Chris; Deighton, Jessica; Law, Roslyn; Fonagy, Peter; Wolpert, Miranda

2017-10-30

Evidence suggests that young people want to be active participants in their care and involved in decisions about their treatment. However, there is a lack of digital shared decision-making tools available to support young people in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The primary aim of this paper is to present the protocol of a feasibility trial for Power Up, a mobile phone app to empower young people in CAMHS to make their voices heard and participate in decisions around their care. In the development phase, 30 young people, parents, and clinicians will take part in interviews and focus groups to elicit opinions on an early version of the app. In the feasibility testing phase, 60 young people from across 7 to 10 London CAMHS sites will take part in a trial looking at the feasibility and acceptability of measuring the impact of Power Up on shared decision making. Data collection for the development phase ended in December 2016. Data collection for the feasibility testing phase will end in December 2017. Findings will inform the planning of a cluster controlled trial and contribute to the development and implementation of a shared decision-making app to be integrated into CAMHS. ISRCTN77194423; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN77194423 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6MINP0). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987608; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987608 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6PNBZM). ©Louise Chapman, Julian Edbrooke-Childs, Kate Martin, Helen Webber, Michael P Craven, Chris Hollis, Jessica Deighton, Roslyn Law, Peter Fonagy, Miranda Wolpert. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 30.10.2017.

Improving access to shared decision-making for Hispanics/Latinos with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

PubMed

Davidson, Jaime A; Rosales, Aracely; Shillington, Alicia C; Bailey, Robert A; Kabir, Chris; Umpierrez, Guillermo E

2015-01-01

To describe the cultural and linguistic adaptation and Spanish translation of an English-language patient decision aid (PDA) for use in supporting shared decision-making in Hispanics/Latinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a group at a high risk for complications. A steering committee of endocrinologists, a primary care physician, a certified diabetes educator, and a dietician, each with extensive experience in providing care to Hispanics/Latinos was convened to assess a PDA developed for English-speaking patients with T2DM. English content was reviewed for cultural sensitivity and appropriateness for a Hispanic/Latino population. A consensus-building process and iterative version edits incorporated clinician perspectives. The content was adapted to be consistent with traditional Hispanic/Latino cultural communication precepts (eg, avoidance of hostile confrontation; value for warm interaction; respect for authority; value of family support for decisions). The PDA was translated by native-speaking individuals with diabetes expertise. The PDA underwent testing during cognitive interviews with ten Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM to ensure that the content is reflective of the experience, understanding, and language Hispanic/Latino patients use to describe diabetes and treatment. Content edits were made to assure a literacy level appropriate to the audience, and the PDA was produced for online video dissemination. High-quality, well-developed tools to facilitate shared decision-making in populations with limited access to culturally sensitive information can narrow gaps and align care with individual patient preferences. A newly developed PDA is available for shared decision-making that provides culturally appropriate treatment information for inadequately controlled Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM. The impact on the overall health of patients and care management of T2DM requires further study.

Beyond shared decision-making: Collaboration in the age of recovery from serious mental illness.

PubMed

Treichler, Emily B H; Spaulding, William D

2017-01-01

The role that people with serious mental illness (SMI) play in making decisions about their own treatment and rehabilitation is attracting increasing attention and scrutiny. This attention is embedded in a broader social/consumer movement, the recovery movement , whose agenda includes extensive reform of the mental health system and advancing respect for the dignity and autonomy of people with SMI. Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach for enhancing consumer participation in health-care decision-making. SDM translates straightforwardly to specific clinical procedures that systematically identify domains of decision-making and guide the practitioner and consumer through making the decisions. In addition, Collaborative decision-making (CDM) is a set of guiding principles that avoids the connotations and limitations of SDM. CDM looks broadly at the range of decisions to be made in mental health care, and assigns consumers and providers equal responsibility and power in the decision-making process. It recognizes the diverse history, knowledge base, and values of each consumer by assuming patients can lead and contribute to decision-making, contributing both value-based information and technical information. This article further discusses the importance of CDM for people with SMI. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

PubMed Central

Jimbo, Masahito; Rana, Gurpreet K.; Hawley, Sarah; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Kelly-Blake, Karen; Nease, Donald E.; Ruffin, Mack T.

2013-01-01

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have given not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians’ support, must decide whether to get screened or not, which modality to use, and how often to get screened. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. We reviewed 73 decision aids on screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need for more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real world setting. Most studies used sound study design. Significant variation existed in setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over a third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted in which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision making. Little information was available on the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. We discuss the implications for future research, as well as what the clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice. PMID:23504675

TUW @ TREC Clinical Decision Support Track

DTIC Science & Technology

2014-11-01

and the ShARe/CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab [8,3] running in 2013 and 2014. Here we briefly describe the goals of the first TREC Clinical Decision...Wendy W. Chapman, David Mart́ınez, Guido Zuccon, and João R. M. Palotti. Overview of the share/clef ehealth evalu- ation lab 2014. In Information Access...Zuccon. Overview of the share/clef ehealth evaluation lab 2013. In Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization

Student Decision-Making about a Globally Familiar Socioscientific Issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Grace, Marcus; Chung Lee, Yeung; Asshoff, Roman; Wallin, Anita

2015-07-01

This paper focuses on the views of 16-17-year-old science students from England, Germany, Hong Kong and Sweden on whale hunting, and their perceptions of the views of their international counterparts. The students were all provided with the same decision-making task, discussed the issue in small groups and then presented their views on video, which were shared with their counterparts. The findings show that the decision-making task served to deepen and modify students' views across all nationalities, and the students generally valued and learned from the sharing of views with students of the same age from around the world. However, an important discovery was that the German students' opinions often ran counter to those from the other 3 locations, and the paper cautions against making broad-sweeping generalisations about students' views on socioscientific issues.

The Influence of Information Acquisition on the Complex Dynamics of Market Competition

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Guo, Zhanbing; Ma, Junhai

In this paper, we build a dynamical game model with three bounded rational players (firms) to study the influence of information on the complex dynamics of market competition, where useful information is about rival’s real decision. In this dynamical game model, one information-sharing team is composed of two firms, they acquire and share the information about their common competitor, however, they make their own decisions separately, where the amount of information acquired by this information-sharing team will determine the estimation accuracy about the rival’s real decision. Based on this dynamical game model and some creative 3D diagrams, the influence of the amount of information on the complex dynamics of market competition such as local dynamics, global dynamics and profits is studied. These results have significant theoretical and practical values to realize the influence of information.

A Framework to Improve Surgeon Communication in High-Stakes Surgical Decisions: Best Case/Worst Case.

PubMed

Taylor, Lauren J; Nabozny, Michael J; Steffens, Nicole M; Tucholka, Jennifer L; Brasel, Karen J; Johnson, Sara K; Zelenski, Amy; Rathouz, Paul J; Zhao, Qianqian; Kwekkeboom, Kristine L; Campbell, Toby C; Schwarze, Margaret L

2017-06-01

Although many older adults prefer to avoid burdensome interventions with limited ability to preserve their functional status, aggressive treatments, including surgery, are common near the end of life. Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-concordant treatment decisions and minimize unwanted care. However, communication in the acute inpatient setting is challenging. To evaluate the proof of concept of an intervention to teach surgeons to use the Best Case/Worst Case framework as a strategy to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decisions. Our prospective pre-post study was conducted from June 2014 to August 2015, and data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. The data were drawn from decision-making conversations between 32 older inpatients with an acute nonemergent surgical problem, 30 family members, and 25 surgeons at 1 tertiary care hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. A 2-hour training session to teach each study-enrolled surgeon to use the Best Case/Worst Case communication framework. We scored conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns in conversation structure, description of outcomes, and deliberation over treatment alternatives. The study participants were patients aged 68 to 95 years (n = 32), 44% of whom had 5 or more comorbid conditions; family members of patients (n = 30); and surgeons (n = 17). The median OPTION 5 score improved from 41 preintervention (interquartile range, 26-66) to 74 after Best Case/Worst Case training (interquartile range, 60-81). Before training, surgeons described the patient's problem in conjunction with an operative solution, directed deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into a treatment recommendation. After training, surgeons using Best Case/Worst Case clearly presented a choice between treatments, described a range of postoperative trajectories including functional decline, and involved patients and families in deliberation. Using the Best Case/Worst Case framework changed surgeon communication by shifting the focus of decision-making conversations from an isolated surgical problem to a discussion about treatment alternatives and outcomes. This intervention can help surgeons structure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

Ethics of End of Life Decisions in Pediatrics: A Narrative Review of the Roles of Caregivers, Shared Decision-Making, and Patient Centered Values.

PubMed

Santoro, Jonathan D; Bennett, Mariko

2018-04-26

Background: This manuscript reviews unique aspects of end of life decision-making in pediatrics. Methods: A narrative literature review of pediatric end of life issues was performed in the English language. Results: While a paternalistic approach is typically applied to children with life-limiting medical prognoses, the cognitive, language, and physical variability in this patient population is wide and worthy of review. In end of life discussions in pediatrics, the consideration of a child’s input is often not reviewed in depth, although a shared decision-making model is ideal for use, even for children with presumed limitations due to age. This narrative review of end of life decision-making in pediatric care explores nomenclature, the introduction of the concept of death, relevant historical studies, limitations to the shared decision-making model, the current state of end of life autonomy in pediatrics, and future directions and needs. Although progress is being made toward a more uniform and standardized approach to care, few non-institutional protocols exist. Complicating factors in the lack of guidelines include the unique facets of pediatric end of life care, including physical age, paternalism, the cognitive and language capacity of patients, subconscious influencers of parents, and normative values of death in pediatrics. Conclusions: Although there have been strides in end of life decision-making in pediatrics, further investigation and research is needed in this field.

Exercise prescription for non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP): a qualitative study of patients' experiences of involvement in decision making.

PubMed

Stenner, Rob; Swinkels, Annette; Mitchell, Theresa; Palmer, Shea

2016-12-01

The culture of current clinical practice calls for collaboration between therapists and patients, sharing power and responsibility. This paper reports on the findings of a qualitative study of exercise prescription for patients with NSCLBP, taking into account issues such as decision making and how this accords with patient preferences and experiences. To understand the treatment decision making experiences, information and decision support needs of patients with NSCLBP who have been offered exercise as part of their management plan. A qualitative study using a philosophical hermeneutic approach. Semi-structured interviews with eight patients (including use of brief patient vignettes) was undertaken to explore their personal experiences of receiving exercise as part of the management of their NSCLBP, and their involvement in decisions regarding their care. The findings provide a detailed insight into patients' perceptions and experiences of receiving exercise-based management strategies. Four themes were formed from the texts: (1) patients' expectations and patients' needs are not synonymous, (2) information is necessary but often not sufficient, (3) not all decisions need to be shared, and (4) wanting to be treated as an individual. Shared decision making did not appear to happen in physiotherapy clinical practice, but equally may not be what every patient wants. The overall feeling of the patients was that the therapist was dominant in structuring the interactions, leaving the patients feeling disempowered to question and contribute to the decision making. Copyright © 2015 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Treatment decision-making among breast cancer patients in Malaysia.

PubMed

Nies, Yong Hui; Islahudin, Farida; Chong, Wei Wen; Abdullah, Norlia; Ismail, Fuad; Ahmad Bustamam, Ros Suzanna; Wong, Yoke Fui; Saladina, J J; Mohamed Shah, Noraida

2017-01-01

This study investigated breast cancer patients' involvement level in the treatment decision-making process and the concordance between patients' and physician's perspectives in decision-making. A cross-sectional study was conducted involving physicians and newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from three public/teaching hospitals in Malaysia. The Control Preference Scale (CPS) was administered to patients and physicians, and the Krantz Health Opinion Survey (KHOS) was completed by the patients alone. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between sociodemographic characteristics, the patients' involvement in treatment decision-making, and patients' preference for behavioral involvement and information related to their disease. The majority of patients preferred to share decision-making with their physicians (47.5%), while the second largest group preferred being passive (42.6%) and a small number preferred being active (9.8%). However, the physicians perceived that the majority of patients preferred active decision-making (56.9%), followed by those who desired shared decision-making (32.8%), and those who preferred passive decision-making (10.3%). The overall concordance was 26.5% (54 of 204 patient-physician dyads). The median of preference for information score and behavioral involvement score was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] =3-5) and 2 (IQR =2-3), respectively. In univariate analysis, the ethnicity and educational qualification of patients were significantly associated with the patients' preferred role in the process of treatment decision-making and the patients' preference for information seeking ( p >0.05). However, only educational qualification ( p =0.004) was significantly associated with patients' preference for information seeking in multivariate analysis. Physicians failed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences in treatment decision-making. The concordance between physicians' perception and patients' perception was quite low as the physicians perceived that more than half of the patients were active in treatment decision-making. In actuality, more than half of patients perceived that they shared decision-making with their physicians.

The Tensions between Shared Governance and Advancing Educational Equity

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Castagno, Angelina E.; Hausman, Charles

2017-01-01

This article examines the relationship between shared governance and one school district's (in)ability to advance educational equity. Specifically, we consider the district's policies, discourse, and practice around equity within the context of site-based management and shared decision making. We suggest that if equity is indeed a major district…

Inconsistencies in patient perceptions and observer ratings of shared decision making: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

PubMed

Wunderlich, Tracy; Cooper, Gregory; Divine, George; Flocke, Susan; Oja-Tebbe, Nancy; Stange, Kurt; Lafata, Jennifer Elston

2010-09-01

To compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions. Study physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. 70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication. Inconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening. Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Inconsistencies in Patient Perceptions and Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making: The Case of Colorectal Cancer Screening

PubMed Central

Wunderlich, Tracy; Cooper, Gregory; Divine, George; Flocke, Susan; Oja-Tebbe, Nancy; Stange, Kurt; Lafata, Jennifer Elston

2010-01-01

Objective To compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions. Methods Study physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. Results 70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication. Conclusion Inconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening. Practice Implications Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions. PMID:20667678

Perceptions of shared decision making and decision aids among rural primary care clinicians.

PubMed

King, Valerie J; Davis, Melinda M; Gorman, Paul N; Rugge, J Bruin; Fagnan, L J

2012-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) and decision aids (DAs) increase patients' involvement in health care decisions and enhance satisfaction with their choices. Studies of SDM and DAs have primarily occurred in academic centers and large health systems, but most primary care is delivered in smaller practices, and over 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where poverty, disease prevalence, and limited access to care may increase the need for SDM and DAs. To explore perceptions and practices of rural primary care clinicians regarding SDM and DAs. Cross-sectional survey. Setting and Participants Primary care clinicians affiliated with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. Surveys were returned by 181 of 231 eligible participants (78%); 174 could be analyzed. Two-thirds of participants were physicians, 84% practiced family medicine, and 55% were male. Sixty-five percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the term shared decision making, but following definition, 97% reported that they found the approach useful for conditions with multiple treatment options. Over 90% of clinicians perceived helping patients make decisions regarding chronic pain and health behavior change as moderate/hard in difficulty. Although 69% of respondents preferred that patients play an equal role in making decisions, they estimate that this happens only 35% of the time. Time was reported as the largest barrier to engaging in SDM (63%). Respondents were receptive to using DAs to facilitate SDM in print- (95%) or web-based formats (72%), and topic preference varied by clinician specialty and decision difficulty. Rural clinicians recognized the value of SDM and were receptive to using DAs in multiple formats. Integration of DAs to facilitate SDM in routine patient care may require addressing practice operation and reimbursement.

The Power of School Culture.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Goldring, Leslie

2002-01-01

Describes six research-based traits of school culture that affect student achievement: shared vision, traditions, collaboration, shared decision-making, innovation, and communication. Draws practical implications for teachers and administrators. (Contains 17 references.) (PKP)

Core domains of shared decision-making during psychiatric visits: scientific and preference-based discussions.

PubMed

Fukui, Sadaaki; Matthias, Marianne S; Salyers, Michelle P

2015-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) is imperative to person-centered care, yet little is known about what aspects of SDM are targeted during psychiatric visits. This secondary data analysis (191 psychiatric visits with 11 providers, coded with a validated SDM coding system) revealed two factors (scientific and preference-based discussions) underlying SDM communication. Preference-based discussion occurred less. Both provider and consumer initiation of SDM elements and decision complexity were associated with greater discussions in both factors, but were more strongly associated with scientific discussion. Longer visit length correlated with only scientific discussion. Providers' understanding of core domains could facilitate engaging consumers in SDM.

Informed use of patients' records on trusted health care services.

PubMed

Sahama, Tony; Miller, Evonne

2011-01-01

Health care is an information-intensive business. Sharing information in health care processes is a smart use of data enabling informed decision-making whilst ensuring. the privacy and security of patient information. To achieve this, we propose data encryption techniques embedded Information Accountability Framework (IAF) that establishes transitions of the technological concept, thus enabling understanding of shared responsibility, accessibility, and efficient cost effective informed decisions between health care professionals and patients. The IAF results reveal possibilities of efficient informed medical decision making and minimisation of medical errors. Of achieving this will require significant cultural changes and research synergies to ensure the sustainability, acceptability and durability of the IAF.

Living with a Crucial Decision: A Qualitative Study of Parental Narratives Three Years after the Loss of Their Newborn in the NICU

PubMed Central

Caeymaex, Laurence; Speranza, Mario; Vasilescu, Caroline; Danan, Claude; Bourrat, Marie-Michèle

2011-01-01

Background The importance of involving parents in the end-of-life decision-making-process (EOL DMP) for their child in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is recognised by ethical guidelines in numerous countries. However, studies exploring parents' opinions on the type of involvement report conflicting results. This study sought to explore parents' experience of the EOL DMP for their child in the NICU. Methods The study used a retrospective longitudinal design with a qualitative analysis of parental experience 3 years after the death of their child in four NICUs in France. 53 face-to-face interviews and 80 telephone interviews were conducted with 164 individuals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore how parents perceived their role in the decision process, what they valued about physicians' attitudes in this situation and whether their long-term emotional well being varied according to their perceived role in the EOL DMP. Findings Qualitative analysis identified four types of perceived role in the DMP: shared, medical, informed parental decision, and no decision. Shared DM was the most appreciated by parents. Medical DM was experienced as positive only when it was associated with communication. Informed parental DM was associated with feelings of anxiousness and abandonment. The physicians' attitudes that were perceived as helpful in the long term were explicit sharing of responsibility, clear expression of staff preferences, and respectful care and language toward the child. Interpretation Parents find it valuable to express their opinion in the EOL DMP of their child. Nonetheless, they do need continuous emotional support and an explicit share of the responsibility for the decision. As involvement preferences and associated feelings can vary, parents should be able to decide what role they want to play. However, our study suggests that fully autonomous decisions should be misadvised in these types of tragic choices. PMID:22194873

Maximizing gait and balance: behaviors and decision-making processes of persons with multiple sclerosis and physical therapists.

PubMed

Held Bradford, Elissa; Finlayson, Marcia; White Gorman, Andrea; Wagner, Joanne

2018-05-01

To describe the behavioral decisions used by persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and physical therapists to maximize gait and balance following outpatient physical therapy. A multi-method case series with seven matched pairs (persons with MS-physical therapists). Quota sampling maximized variability among persons with MS (disease steps score range 3-6). Three of the four physical therapists were MS or neurology certified. Persons with MS completed a phone survey, follow-up interview, and standardized questionnaires. Physical therapists completed an interview. Data were collected 2-8 weeks following discharge. Content and constant comparison analyses were used for thematic development and triangulation. Core themes arose exemplifying the decision-making processes and actions of persons with MS (challenging self by pushing but respecting limits) and physical therapists (finding the right fit). One overarching theme, keeping their lived world large, or participation in valued life roles, emerged integrating both perspectives driving decision-making. Participants have a shared goal of maximizing gait and balance so persons with MS can participate in valued life roles. Understanding the differences in the behavioral decisions and optimizing skill sets in shared decision-making and self-management may enhance the therapeutic partnership and engagement in gait- and balance-enhancing behaviors. Implications for Rehabilitation Persons with MS and physical therapists have a shared goal of maximizing gait and balance so persons with MS can participate in valued activities and life roles, or more poetically, keep their lived world large. Knowledge that persons with MS aim to challenge themselves by pushing but respecting limits can provide physical therapists with greater insight in helping persons with MS resolve uncertainty, set meaningful goals, and build the routines and resilience needed for engagement in gait- and balance-enhancing behaviors. Enriching skill sets in shared decision-making, behavior change and self-management may optimize the physical therapist toolbox.

Right For Me: protocol for a cluster randomised trial of two interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods

PubMed Central

Thompson, Rachel; Manski, Ruth; Donnelly, Kyla Z; Stevens, Gabrielle; Agusti, Daniela; Banach, Michelle; Boardman, Maureen B; Brady, Pearl; Colón Bradt, Christina; Foster, Tina; Johnson, Deborah J; Li, Zhongze; Norsigian, Judy; Nothnagle, Melissa; Olson, Ardis L; Shepherd, Heather L; Stern, Lisa F; Tosteson, Tor D; Trevena, Lyndal; Upadhya, Krishna K; Elwyn, Glyn

2017-01-01

Introduction Despite the observed and theoretical advantages of shared decision-making in a range of clinical contexts, including contraceptive care, there remains a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate its adoption. This paper describes the protocol for a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of patient-targeted and provider-targeted interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Methods and analysis We will conduct a 2×2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial with four arms: (1) video+prompt card, (2) decision aids+training, (3) video+prompt card and decision aids+training and (4) usual care. The clusters will be clinics in USA that deliver contraceptive care. The participants will be people who have completed a healthcare visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, are aged 15–49 years, are able to read and write English or Spanish and have not previously participated in the study. The primary outcome will be shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of a conversation about contraception in the healthcare visit, satisfaction with the conversation about contraception, intended contraceptive method(s), intention to use a highly effective method, values concordance of the intended method(s), decision regret, contraceptive method(s) used, use of a highly effective method, use of the intended method(s), adherence, satisfaction with the method(s) used, unintended pregnancy and unwelcome pregnancy. We will collect study data via longitudinal patient surveys administered immediately after the healthcare visit, four weeks later and six months later. Ethics and dissemination We will disseminate results via presentations at scientific and professional conferences, papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals and scientific and lay reports. We will also make an anonymised copy of the final participant-level dataset available to others for research purposes. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759939. PMID:29061624

A proposal for the development of national certification standards for patient decision aids in the US.

PubMed

Elwyn, Glyn; Burstin, Helen; Barry, Michael J; Corry, Maureen P; Durand, Marie Anne; Lessler, Daniel; Saigal, Christopher

2018-04-27

Efforts to implement the use of patient decision aids to stimulate shared decision making are gaining prominence. Patient decision aids have been designed to help patients participate in making specific choices among health care options. Because these tools clearly influence decisions, poor quality, inaccurate or unbalanced presentations or misleading tools are a risk to patients. As payer interest in these tools increases, so does the risk that patients are harmed by the use of tools that are described as patient decision aids yet fail to meet established standards. To address this problem, the National Quality Forum (NQF) in the USA convened a multi-stakeholder expert panel in 2016 to propose national standards for a patient decision aid certification process. In 2017, NQF established an Action Team to foster shared decision making, and to call for a national certification process as one recommendation among others to stimulate improvement. A persistent barrier to the setup of a national patient decision aids certification process is the lack of a sustainable financial model to support the work. Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The role of depression pharmacogenetic decision support tools in shared decision making.

PubMed

Arandjelovic, Katarina; Eyre, Harris A; Lenze, Eric; Singh, Ajeet B; Berk, Michael; Bousman, Chad

2017-10-29

Patients discontinue antidepressant medications due to lack of knowledge, unrealistic expectations, and/or unacceptable side effects. Shared decision making (SDM) invites patients to play an active role in their treatment and may indirectly improve outcomes through enhanced engagement in care, adherence to treatment, and positive expectancy of medication outcomes. We believe decisional aids, such as pharmacogenetic decision support tools (PDSTs), facilitate SDM in the clinical setting. PDSTs may likewise predict drug tolerance and efficacy, and therefore adherence and effectiveness on an individual-patient level. There are several important ethical considerations to be navigated when integrating PDSTs into clinical practice. The field requires greater empirical research to demonstrate clinical utility, and the mechanisms thereof, as well as exploration of the ethical use of these technologies.

Advance care planning and proxy decision making for patients with advanced Parkinson disease.

PubMed

Kwak, Jung; Wallendal, Maggie S; Fritsch, Thomas; Leo, Gary; Hyde, Trevor

2014-03-01

To examine advance care planning practices and proxy decision making by family healthcare proxies for patients with advanced Parkinson disease (PD). Sixty-four spouses and adult children, self-designated as a/the healthcare proxy for advanced patients with PD, participated in a cross-sectional survey study. Sixty patients with PD (95%) had completed a living will, but only 38% had shared the document with a physician. Among three life-support treatments--cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), ventilator, and feeding tube--47% of patients opted for CPR, 16% for ventilator, and 20% for feeding tube. Forty-two percent of proxies did not know patients' preferences for one or more of the three life-support treatments. Only 28% of proxies reported that patients wanted hospice. Patients who shared advance directives with a physician were significantly less likely to choose CPR and a feeding tube and they were more likely to choose hospice. In a hypothetical end-of-life (EOL) scenario, the majority of proxies chose comfort care as the EOL goal of care (53%) and pain and symptom management only as the course of treatment option (72%); these proxy choices for patients, however, were not associated with patients' preferences for life support. Patients' proxies preferred a form of shared decision making with other family members and physicians. Advance care planning is effective when patients, families, and healthcare professionals together consider future needs for EOL care decisions. Further efforts are needed by healthcare professionals to provide evidence-based education about care options and facilitate advanced discussion and shared decision making by the patient and families.

A brief educational intervention to teach residents shared decision making in the intensive care unit.

PubMed

Yuen, Jacqueline K; Mehta, Sonal S; Roberts, Jordan E; Cooke, Joseph T; Reid, M Carrington

2013-05-01

Effective communication is essential for shared decision making with families of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), yet there is limited evidence on effective strategies to teach these skills. The study's objective was to pilot test an educational intervention to teach internal medicine interns skills in discussing goals of care and treatment decisions with families of critically ill patients using the shared decision making framework. The intervention consisted of a PowerPoint online module followed by a four-hour workshop implemented at a retreat for medicine interns training at an urban, academic medical center. Participants (N=33) completed post-intervention questionnaires that included self-assessed skills learned, an open-ended question on the most important learning points from the workshop, and retrospective pre- and post-workshop comfort level with ICU communication skills. Participants rated their satisfaction with the workshop. Twenty-nine interns (88%) completed the questionnaires. Important self-assessed communication skills learned reflect key components of shared decision making, which include assessing the family's understanding of the patient's condition (endorsed by 100%) and obtaining an understanding of the patient/family's perspectives, values, and goals (100%). Interns reported significant improvement in their comfort level with ICU communication skills (pre 3.26, post 3.73 on a five-point scale, p=0.004). Overall satisfaction with the intervention was high (mean 4.45 on a five-point scale). The findings suggest that a brief intervention designed to teach residents communication skills in conducting goals of care and treatment discussions in the ICU is feasible and can improve their comfort level with these conversations.

Independence and shared decision making: the role of smart home technology in empowering older adults.

PubMed

Demiris, George

2009-01-01

This study aims to explore the concepts of independence and shared decision making in the context of smart home technologies for older adults. We conducted a Delphi study with three rounds involving smart home designers, and researchers as well as community dwelling older adults. While there were differences in the way different stakeholders define these concepts, the study findings provide clear implications for the design, implementation and evaluation of smart home applications.

The Impact of Multifaceted Osteoporosis Group Education on Patients' Decision-Making regarding Treatment Options and Lifestyle Changes.

PubMed

Jensen, Annesofie L; Wind, Gitte; Langdahl, Bente Lomholt; Lomborg, Kirsten

2018-01-01

Patients with chronic diseases like osteoporosis constantly have to make decisions related to their disease. Multifaceted osteoporosis group education (GE) may support patients' decision-making. This study investigated multifaceted osteoporosis GE focusing on the impact of GE on patients' decision-making related to treatment options and lifestyle. An interpretive description design using ethnographic methods was utilized with 14 women and three men diagnosed with osteoporosis who attended multifaceted GE. Data consisted of participant observation during GE and individual interviews. Attending GE had an impact on the patients' decision-making in all educational themes. Patients decided on new ways to manage osteoporosis and made decisions regarding bone health and how to implement a lifestyle ensuring bone health. During GE, teachers and patients shared evidence-based knowledge and personal experiences and preferences, respectively, leading to a two-way exchange of information and deliberation about recommendations. Though teachers and patients explored the implications of the decisions and shared their preferences, teachers stressed that the patients ultimately had to make the decision. Teachers therefore refrained from participating in the final step of the decision-making process. Attending GE has an impact on the patients' decision-making as it can initiate patient reflection and support decision-making.

Research on Information Sharing Mechanism of Network Organization Based on Evolutionary Game

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Wang, Lin; Liu, Gaozhi

2018-02-01

This article first elaborates the concept and effect of network organization, and the ability to share information is analyzed, secondly introduces the evolutionary game theory, network organization for information sharing all kinds of limitations, establishes the evolutionary game model, analyzes the dynamic evolution of network organization of information sharing, through reasoning and evolution. The network information sharing by the initial state and two sides of the game payoff matrix of excess profits and information is the information sharing of cost and risk sharing are the influence of network organization node information sharing decision.

[Improving shared decision-making for hospital patients: Description and evaluation of a treatment intensity assessment tool].

PubMed

Amblàs-Novellas, Jordi; Casas, Sílvia; Catalán, Rosa María; Oriol-Ruscalleda, Margarita; Lucchetti, Gianni Enrico; Quer-Vall, Francesc Xavier

2016-01-01

Shared decision-making between patients and healthcare professionals is crucial to guarantee adequate coherence between patient values and preferences, caring aims and treatment intensity, which is key for the provision of patient-centred healthcare. The assessment of such interventions are essential for caring continuity purposes. To do this, reliable and easy-to-use assessment systems are required. This study describes the results of the implementation of a hospital treatment intensity assessment tool. The pre-implementation and post-implementation results were compared between two cohorts of patients assessed for one month. Some record of care was registered in 6.1% of patients in the pre-implementation group (n=673) compared to 31.6% of patients in the post-implementation group (n=832) (P<.01), with differences between services. Hospital mortality in both cohorts is 1.9%; in the pre-implementation group, 93.75% of deceased patients had treatment intensity assessment. In hospital settings, the availability of a specific tool seems to encourage very significantly shared decision-making processes between patients and healthcare professionals -multiplying by more than 5 times the treatment intensity assessment. Moreover, such tools help in the caring continuity processes between different teams and the personalisation of caring interventions to be monitored. More research is needed to continue improving shared decision-making for hospital patients. Copyright © 2015 SEGG. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.

Feasibility and acceptability of shared decision-making to promote alcohol behavior change among women Veterans: Results from focus groups.

PubMed

Abraham, Traci H; Wright, Patricia; White, Penny; Booth, Brenda M; Cucciare, Michael A

2017-01-01

Although rates of unhealthy drinking are high among women Veterans with mental health comorbidities, most women Veterans with mental comorbidities who present to primary care with unhealthy drinking do not receive alcohol-related care. Barriers to alcohol-related treatment could be reduced through patient-centered approaches to care, such as shared decision-making. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a telephone-delivered shared decision-making intervention for promoting alcohol behavior change in women Veterans with unhealthy drinking and co-morbid depression and/or probable post-traumatic stress disorder. We used 3, 2-hour focus group discussions with 19 women Veterans to identify barriers and solicit recommendations for using the intervention with women Veterans who present to primary care with unhealthy drinking and mental health comorbidities. Transcripts from the focus groups were qualitatively analyzed using template analysis. Although participants perceived that the intervention was feasible and acceptable for the targeted patient population, they identified the treatment delivery modality, length of telephone sessions, and some of the option grid content as potential barriers. Facilitators included strategies for enhancing the telephone-delivered shared decision-making sessions and diversifying the treatment options contained in the option grids. Focus group feedback resulted in preliminary adaptations to the intervention that are mindful of women Veterans' individual preferences for care and realistic in the everyday context of their busy lives.

Literature and Everyday Decisions: An Essay about the Influence of Literature on Decision-Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Parsons, Jim

Literature is an artistic expression which teaches human beings valuable lessons about life. Literature invites the reader to share decisions with the decisions of others--the characters seen in literature. Unlike science or philosophy or ethics, which make people say "I understand" and then "I see," literature, as an art,…

How shared is shared decision-making? A care-ethical view on the role of partner and family.

PubMed

van Nistelrooij, Inge; Visse, Merel; Spekkink, Ankana; de Lange, Jasmijn

2017-09-01

The aim of shared decision-making (SDM) is to provide information to patients in order to enable them to decide autonomously and freely about treatment together with the doctor, without interference, force or coercion by others. Relatives may be considered as hindering or impeding a patient's own decision. Qualitative-empirical research into lived experience of SDM of patients with cancer, however, problematises the patient's autonomy when facing terminal illness and the need to make decisions regarding treatment. Confronted with this difficulty, this contribution tries to think through patients' dependency of others, and make their autonomy more relational, drawing on care-ethical critics of a one-sided view of autonomy and on Ricoeur's view of the fundamentally intersubjective, relational self. We aim to conceptualise relatives not as a third party next to the doctor and the patient, but as co-constituents of the patient's identity and as such present in the decision-making process from the outset. What is more, partners and the family may be of inestimable help in retrieving the patient's identity in line with the past, present and possible future. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Communicating risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with an interactive decision support tool.

PubMed

Rupert, Douglas J; Squiers, Linda B; Renaud, Jeanette M; Whitehead, Nedra S; Osborn, Roger J; Furberg, Robert D; Squire, Claudia M; Tzeng, Janice P

2013-08-01

Women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) face a higher risk of earlier, more aggressive cancer. Because of HBOC's rarity, screening is recommended only for women with strong cancer family histories. However, most patients do not have accurate history available and struggle to understand genetic concepts. Cancer in the Family, an online clinical decision support tool, calculated women's HBOC risk and promoted shared patient-provider decisions about screening. A pilot evaluation (n=9 providers, n=48 patients) assessed the tool's impact on knowledge, attitudes, and screening decisions. Patients used the tool before wellness exams and completed three surveys. Providers accessed the tool during exams, completed exam checklists, and completed four surveys. Patients entered complete family histories (67%), calculated personal risk (96%), and shared risk printouts with providers (65%). HBOC knowledge increased dramatically for patients and providers, and many patients (75%) perceived tool results as valid. The tool prompted patient-provider discussions about HBOC risk and cancer family history (88%). The tool was effective in increasing knowledge, collecting family history, and sparking patient-provider discussions about HBOC screening. Interactive tools can effectively communicate personalized risk and promote shared decisions, but they are not a substitute for patient-provider discussions. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

When It Takes Two to Teach.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kaye, Cynthia; Williamson, Bonnie

1986-01-01

The authors describe their experiences job-sharing, and offer suggestions about making the decision to job-share, finding a partner, organizing teaching responsibilities and discipline, and presenting a united front to children and parents. (MT)

Do choosing wisely tools meet criteria for patient decision aids? A descriptive analysis of patient materials

PubMed Central

Légaré, France; Hébert, Jessica; Goh, Larissa; Lewis, Krystina B; Leiva Portocarrero, Maria Ester; Robitaille, Hubert; Stacey, Dawn

2016-01-01

Objectives Choosing Wisely is a remarkable physician-led campaign to reduce unnecessary or harmful health services. Some of the literature identifies Choosing Wisely as a shared decision-making approach. We evaluated the patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada to determine whether they meet the criteria for shared decision-making tools known as patient decision aids. Design Descriptive analysis of all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials. Data source In May 2015, we selected all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials from its official website. Main outcomes and measures Four team members independently extracted characteristics of the English materials using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) modified 16-item minimum criteria for qualifying and certifying patient decision aids. The research team discussed discrepancies between data extractors and reached a consensus. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Results Of the 24 patient materials assessed, 12 were about treatments, 11 were about screening and 1 was about prevention. The median score for patient materials using IPDAS criteria was 10/16 (range: 8–11) for screening topics and 6/12 (range: 6–9) for prevention and treatment topics. Commonly missed criteria were stating the decision (21/24 did not), providing balanced information on option benefits/harms (24/24 did not), citing evidence (24/24 did not) and updating policy (24/24 did not). Out of 24 patient materials, only 2 met the 6 IPDAS criteria to qualify as patient decision aids, and neither of these 2 met the 6 certifying criteria. Conclusions Patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada do not meet the IPDAS minimal qualifying or certifying criteria for patient decision aids. Modifications to the Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials would help to ensure that they qualify as patient decision aids and thus as more effective shared decision-making tools. PMID:27566638

Preferences for Shared Decision Making in Older Adult Patients With Orthopedic Hand Conditions.

PubMed

Dardas, Agnes Z; Stockburger, Christopher; Boone, Sean; An, Tonya; Calfee, Ryan P

2016-10-01

The practice of medicine is shifting from a paternalistic doctor-patient relationship to a model in which the doctor and patient collaborate to decide optimal treatment. This study aims to determine whether the older orthopedic population desires a shared decision-making approach to care and to identify patient predictors for the preferred type of approach. This cross-sectional investigation enrolled 99 patients, minimum age 65 years, at a tertiary hand specialty practice between March and June 2015. All patients completed the Control Preferences Scale, a validated system that distinguishes among patient preferences for patient-directed, collaborative, or physician-directed decision making. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses assessed associations among demographic data; clinic encounter variables such as familiarity with provider, trauma, diagnosis, and treatment decision; and the primary outcome of Control Preferences Scale preferences. A total of 81% of patients analyzed preferred a more patient-directed role in decision making; 46% of the total cohort cited a collaborative approach as their most preferred treatment approach. Sixty-seven percent cited the most physician-directed approach as their least preferred model of decision making. In addition, 49% reported that spending more time with their physician to address questions and explain the diagnosis would be most useful when making a health care decision and 73% preferred additional written informational material. Familiarity with the provider was associated with being more likely to prefer a collaborative approach. Older adult patients with symptomatic upper-extremity conditions desire more patient-directed roles in treatment decision making. Given the limited amount of reliable information obtained independently outside the office visit, our data suggest that written decision aids offer an approach to shared decision making that is most consistent with the preferences of the older orthopedic patient. This study quantifies older adults' desire to participate in decision making when choosing among treatments for hand conditions. Copyright © 2016 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Tailoring and evaluating an intervention to improve shared decision-making among seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and healthcare providers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Giguere, Anik M C; Lawani, Moulikatou Adouni; Fortier-Brochu, Émilie; Carmichael, Pierre-Hugues; Légaré, France; Kröger, Edeltraut; Witteman, Holly O; Voyer, Philippe; Caron, Danielle; Rodríguez, Charo

2018-06-25

The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia raises new challenges to ensure that healthcare decisions are informed by research evidence and reflect what is important for seniors and their caregivers. Therefore, we aim to evaluate a tailored intervention to help healthcare providers empower seniors and their caregivers in making health-related decisions. In two phases, we will: (1) design and tailor the intervention; and (2) implement and evaluate it. We will use theory and user-centered design to tailor an intervention comprising a distance professional training program on shared decision-making and five shared decision-making tools dealing with difficult decisions often faced by seniors with dementia and their caregivers. Each tool will be designed in two versions, one for clinicians and one for patients. We will recruit 49 clinicians and 27 senior/caregiver to participate in three cycles of design-evaluation-feedback of each intervention components. Besides think-aloud and interview approaches, users will also complete questionnaires based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to identify the factors most likely to influence their adoption of shared decision-making after exposure to the intervention. We will then modify the intervention by adding/enhancing behavior-change techniques targeting these factors. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this tailored intervention before/after implementation, in a two-armed, clustered randomized trial. We will enroll a convenience sample of six primary care clinics (unit of randomization) in the province of Quebec and recruit the clinicians who practice there (mostly family physicians, nurses, and social workers). These clinics will then be randomized to immediate exposure to the intervention or delayed exposure. Overall, we will recruit 180 seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers. We will evaluate the impact of the intervention on patient involvement in the decision-making process, decisional comfort, patient and caregiver personal empowerment in relation to their own healthcare, patient quality of life, caregiver burden, and decisional regret. The intervention will empower patients and their caregivers in their healthcare, by fostering their participation as partners during the decision-making process and by ensuring they make informed decisions congruent with their values and priorities. ClinicalTrials.org, NCT02956694 . Registered on 31 October 2016.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care.

PubMed

Coxeter, Peter; Del Mar, Chris B; McGregor, Leanne; Beller, Elaine M; Hoffmann, Tammy C

2015-11-12

Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available. We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients.The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this.We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively.There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms. Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death.

A shared decision-making tool for obstructive sleep apnea without tonsillar hypertrophy: A randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Bergeron, Mathieu; Duggins, Angela L; Cohen, Aliza P; Tiemeyer, Karin; Mullen, Lisa; Crisalli, Joseph; McArthur, Angela; Ishman, Stacey L

2018-04-01

Shared decision-making is a process whereby patients and clinicians jointly establish a treatment plan integrating clinical evidence and patient values and preferences. Although this approach has been successfully employed in numerous medical disciplines, often using shared decision-making tools, otolaryngologic research assessing its use is scant. Our primary objective was therefore to determine if the tools we developed reduced decisional conflict for children with obstructive sleep apnea without tonsillar hypertrophy. Prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. We enrolled consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria who were referred to our multidisciplinary upper airway center. Study patients used a shared decision-making tool whereas controls did not. Measures of decisional conflict (SURE [Sure of myself, Understanding information, Risk benefit ratio, Encouragement], CollaboRATE, and the Decisional Conflict Scale [DCS]) were obtained pre- and postvisit. We assessed 50 families (study group = 24, controls = 26). The mean age was 8.8 ± 6.6 years, 44% were female, 86% were white, and the mean obstructive apnea-hypopnea index was 12.7 ± 15.6 events/hour. The previsit mean DCS score was similar for controls (42.7) and study patients (40.8) (P = .38). The postvisit mean DCS score for controls was 13.3 and for study patients 6.1 (P = .034). Improvement in this score was greater in the study group (P = .03). At previsit evaluation, 63% of controls and 58% of study patients were unsure about their options. Postvisit, this improved to 4.1% and 0%, respectively. Families counseled regarding treatment options using shared decision-making tools had significantly less decisional conflict than those who did not use these tools. These positive outcomes suggest that clinicians should consider integrating this approach into clinical practice. 1b. Laryngoscope, 128:1007-1015, 2018. © 2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care--systematic decision aid development and study protocol.

PubMed

Yu, Catherine H; Stacey, Dawn; Sale, Joanna; Hall, Susan; Kaplan, David M; Ivers, Noah; Rezmovitz, Jeremy; Leung, Fok-Han; Shah, Baiju R; Straus, Sharon E

2014-01-22

Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice.2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness.3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity.4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis.5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach.

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care - systematic decision aid development and study protocol

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. Objectives To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice. 2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness. 3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity. 4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis. 5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Discussion Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach. PMID:24450385

Psychometric properties of the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire for shared decision-making in multiple sclerosis: item response theory modelling and confirmatory factor analysis.

PubMed

Ballesteros, Javier; Moral, Ester; Brieva, Luis; Ruiz-Beato, Elena; Prefasi, Daniel; Maurino, Jorge

2017-04-22

Shared decision-making is a cornerstone of patient-centred care. The 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) is a brief self-assessment tool for measuring patients' perceived level of involvement in decision-making related to their own treatment and care. Information related to the psychometric properties of the SDM-Q-9 for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of the items composing the SDM-Q-9 and its dimensional structure in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. A non-interventional, cross-sectional study in adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS was conducted in 17 MS units throughout Spain. A nonparametric item response theory (IRT) analysis was used to assess the latent construct and dimensional structure underlying the observed responses. A parametric IRT model, General Partial Credit Model, was fitted to obtain estimates of the relationship between the latent construct and item characteristics. The unidimensionality of the SDM-Q-9 instrument was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis. A total of 221 patients were studied (mean age = 42.1 ± 9.9 years, 68.3% female). Median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 2.5 ± 1.5. Most patients reported taking part in each step of the decision-making process. Internal reliability of the instrument was high (Cronbach's α = 0.91) and the overall scale scalability score was 0.57, indicative of a strong scale. All items, except for the item 1, showed scalability indices higher than 0.30. Four items (items 6 through to 9) conveyed more than half of the SDM-Q-9 overall information (67.3%). The SDM-Q-9 was a good fit for a unidimensional latent structure (comparative fit index = 0.98, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.07). All freely estimated parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.001). All items presented standardized parameter estimates with salient loadings (>0.40) with the exception of item 1 which presented the lowest loading (0.26). Items 6 through to 8 were the most relevant items for shared decision-making. The SDM-Q-9 presents appropriate psychometric properties and is therefore useful for assessing different aspects of shared decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Nurse manager perspective of staff participation in unit level shared governance.

PubMed

Cox Sullivan, Sheila; Norris, Mitzi R; Brown, Lana M; Scott, Karen J

2017-11-01

To examine the nurse manager perspective surrounding implementation of unit level shared governance in one Veterans Health Administration facility. Nursing shared governance is a formal model allowing nursing staff decision-making input into clinical practice, quality improvement, evidence-based practice and staff professional development. Unit level shared governance is a management process where decision authority is delegated to nursing staff at the unit level. Convenience sampling was used to recruit ten nurse managers who participated in face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis and constant comparison techniques. Demographic data were described using descriptive statistics. The participants included seven female and three male nurse managers with seven Caucasian and three African American. Participant quotes were clustered to identify sub-themes that were then grouped into four global themes to describe unit level shared governance. The global themes were: (1) motivation, (2) demotivation, (3) recommendations for success, and (4) outcomes. These research findings resonate with previous studies that shared governance may be associated with increased nurse empowerment, self-management, engagement, and satisfaction. These findings reflect the need for nurse managers to promote and recognize staff participation in unit level shared governance. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Decision-making without a brain: how an amoeboid organism solves the two-armed bandit.

PubMed

Reid, Chris R; MacDonald, Hannelore; Mann, Richard P; Marshall, James A R; Latty, Tanya; Garnier, Simon

2016-06-01

Several recent studies hint at shared patterns in decision-making between taxonomically distant organisms, yet few studies demonstrate and dissect mechanisms of decision-making in simpler organisms. We examine decision-making in the unicellular slime mould Physarum polycephalum using a classical decision problem adapted from human and animal decision-making studies: the two-armed bandit problem. This problem has previously only been used to study organisms with brains, yet here we demonstrate that a brainless unicellular organism compares the relative qualities of multiple options, integrates over repeated samplings to perform well in random environments, and combines information on reward frequency and magnitude in order to make correct and adaptive decisions. We extend our inquiry by using Bayesian model selection to determine the most likely algorithm used by the cell when making decisions. We deduce that this algorithm centres around a tendency to exploit environments in proportion to their reward experienced through past sampling. The algorithm is intermediate in computational complexity between simple, reactionary heuristics and calculation-intensive optimal performance algorithms, yet it has very good relative performance. Our study provides insight into ancestral mechanisms of decision-making and suggests that fundamental principles of decision-making, information processing and even cognition are shared among diverse biological systems. © 2016 The Authors.

What are the decision-making preferences of patients in vascular surgery? A mixed-methods study.

PubMed

Santema, T B Katrien; Stoffer, E Anniek; Kunneman, Marleen; Koelemay, Mark J W; Ubbink, Dirk T

2017-02-10

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as the preferred method of choosing a suitable treatment option. However, patient involvement in treatment decision-making is not yet common practice in the field of vascular surgery. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to explore patients' decision-making preferences and to investigate which facilitators and barriers patients perceive as important for the application of SDM in vascular surgery. Patients were invited to participate after visiting the vascular surgical outpatient clinic of an Academic Medical Center in the Netherlands. A treatment decision was made during the consultation for an abdominal aortic aneurysm or peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Patients filled in a number of questionnaires (quantitative part) and a random subgroup of patients participated in an in-depth interview (qualitative part). A total of 67 patients participated in this study. 58 per cent of them (n=39) indicated that they preferred a shared role in decision-making. In more than half of the patients (55%; n=37) their preferred role was in disagreement with what they had experienced. 31 per cent of the patients (n=21) preferred a more active role in the decision-making process than they had experienced. Patients indicated a good patient-doctor relationship as an important facilitator for the application of SDM. The vast majority of vascular surgical patients preferred, but did not experience a shared role in the decision-making process, although the concept of SDM was insufficiently clear to some patients. This emphasises the importance of explaining the concept of SDM and implementing it in the clinical encounter. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Communication practices in physician decision-making for an unstable critically ill patient with end-stage cancer.

PubMed

Mohan, Deepika; Alexander, Stewart C; Garrigues, Sarah K; Arnold, Robert M; Barnato, Amber E

2010-08-01

Shared decision-making has become the standard of care for most medical treatments. However, little is known about physician communication practices in the decision making for unstable critically ill patients with known end-stage disease. To describe communication practices of physicians making treatment decisions for unstable critically ill patients with end-stage cancer, using the framework of shared decision-making. Analysis of audiotaped encounters between physicians and a standardized patient, in a high-fidelity simulation scenario, to identify best practice communication behaviors. The simulation depicted a 78-year-old man with metastatic gastric cancer, life-threatening hypoxia, and stable preferences to avoid intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation. Blinded coders assessed the encounters for verbal communication behaviors associated with handling emotions and discussion of end-of-life goals. We calculated a score for skill at handling emotions (0-6) and at discussing end of life goals (0-16). Twenty-seven hospital-based physicians. Independent variables included physician demographics and communication behaviors. We used treatment decisions (ICU admission and initiation of palliation) as a proxy for accurate identification of patient preferences. Eight physicians admitted the patient to the ICU, and 16 initiated palliation. Physicians varied, but on average demonstrated low skill at handling emotions (mean, 0.7) and moderate skill at discussing end-of-life goals (mean, 7.4). We found that skill at discussing end-of-life goals was associated with initiation of palliation (p = 0.04). It is possible to analyze the decision making of physicians managing unstable critically ill patients with end-stage cancer using the framework of shared decision-making.

Research Using In Vivo Simulation of Meta-Organizational Shared Decision Making (SDM). Task 3: Testing the Shared Decision Making Framework in Vivo

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-12-01

developed to address the two main research questions (see Annex A). Exact wording of the questions varied during interviews to accommodate the...centre at DMS 3rd floor. All electronic files (including digital audio and video recordings) with participant data are being encrypted and password...locked filing cabinet at the University of Ottawa. Electronic files will remain encrypted, password protected and stored on a server to which only the

On the scene: St Mary's Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

PubMed

Baker, Christine; Beglinger, Joan Ellis; Derosa, Jody; Griffin, Carla; Laham, Mary; Leonard, Mary Kay; Vanderkolk, Caprice

2009-01-01

In this article, we discuss Shared Governance as the foundation of our nursing professional practice model. Through the use of case examples and reflections from our management team, we demonstrate how this accountability-based practice model promotes excellence through developing, connecting, and engaging people, clarifying and communicating goals, using data to make decisions, and even shaping our organizational response to a critical incident. We close with a look to our future as our hospital embraces whole-system shared decision making.

Perspectives of decision-making in requests for euthanasia: a qualitative research among patients, relatives and treating physicians in the Netherlands.

PubMed

Dees, Marianne K; Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra J; Dekkers, Wim J; Elwyn, Glyn; Vissers, Kris C; van Weel, Chris

2013-01-01

Euthanasia has been legally performed in the Netherlands since 2002. Respect for patient's autonomy is the underpinning ethical principal. However, patients have no right to euthanasia, and physicians have no obligation to provide it. Although over 3000 cases are conducted per year in the Netherlands, there is little known about how decision-making occurs and no guidance to support this difficult aspect of clinical practice. To explore the decision-making process in cases where patients request euthanasia and understand the different themes relevant to optimise this decision-making process. A qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with patients making explicit requests for euthanasia, most-involved relative(s) and treating physician. Thirty-two cases, 31 relatives and 28 treating physicians. Settings were patients' and relatives' homes and physicians' offices. Five main themes emerged: (1) initiation of sharing views and values about euthanasia, (2) building relationships as part of the negotiation, (3) fulfilling legal requirements, (4) detailed work of preparing and performing euthanasia and (5) aftercare and closing. A patient's request for euthanasia entails a complex process that demands emotional work by all participants. It is characterised by an intensive period of sharing information, relationship building and negotiation in order to reach agreement. We hypothesise that making decisions about euthanasia demands a proactive approach towards participants' preferences and values regarding end of life, towards the needs of relatives, towards the burden placed on physicians and a careful attention to shared decision-making. Future research should address the communicational skills professionals require for such complex decision-making.

Communication and Decision-Making About End-of-Life Care in the Intensive Care Unit.

PubMed

Brooks, Laura Anne; Manias, Elizabeth; Nicholson, Patricia

2017-07-01

Clinicians in the intensive care unit commonly face decisions involving withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, which present many clinical and ethical challenges. Communication and shared decision-making are key aspects relating to the transition from active treatment to end-of-life care. To explore the experiences and perspectives of nurses and physicians when initiating end-of-life care in the intensive care unit. The study was conducted in a 24-bed intensive care unit in Melbourne, Australia. An interpretative, qualitative inquiry was used, with focus groups as the data collection method. Intensive care nurses and physicians were recruited to participate in a discipline-specific focus group. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic data analysis. Five focus groups were conducted; 17 nurses and 11 physicians participated. The key aspects discussed included communication and shared decision-making. Themes related to communication included the timing of end-of-life care discussions and conducting difficult conversations. Implementation and multidisciplinary acceptance of end-of-life care plans and collaborative decisions involving patients and families were themes related to shared decision-making. Effective communication and decision-making practices regarding initiating end-of-life care in the intensive care unit are important. Multidisciplinary implementation and acceptance of end-of-life care plans in the intensive care unit need improvement. Clear organizational processes that support the introduction of nurse and physician end-of-life care leaders are essential to optimize outcomes for patients, family members, and clinicians. ©2017 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.

Shared Decision Making with Collective Bargaining.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Steimel, Eric L.

This paper examines the changing role of school leaders, in light of the current trend toward participative decision making. Executive Order 12871 mandates the formation of a partnership between unions and management, which will result in teachers playing an active role in decision making. Leaders, particularly leaders of Department of Defense…

A Tale of English Polytechnic Lecturers' Decision Making

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Abdullah, Suhaily; Majid, Faizah Abd

2016-01-01

Teacher decision making involves a selection of options that leads to thinking processes, underlying teaching in language classroom contexts. Due to this, as a small part of an on-going postgraduate research, this exploratory case study shares the initial findings on the lecturers' decision-making effects on their classroom orientation. Four…

Assessing Decision Making in Young Adult Romantic Relationships

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vennum, Amber; Fincham, Frank D.

2011-01-01

Romantic relationships among young adults are rich with ambiguity and without a clear, universal progression emphasizing the need for active decision making. Lack of active decision making in romantic relationships can lead to increases in constraints (e.g. pregnancy, shared living space or finances) that promote the continuation of relationships…

Predictors of Rehabilitation Intervention Decisions in Adults with Acquired Hearing Impairment

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Laplante-Levesque, Ariane; Hickson, Louise; Worrall, Linda

2011-01-01

Purpose: This study investigated the predictors of rehabilitation intervention decisions in middle-age and older adults with acquired hearing impairment seeking help for the first time. Method: Using shared decision making, 139 participants were offered intervention options: hearing aids, communication programs (group or individual), and no…

Desire for autonomy in health care decisions: a general population survey.

PubMed

Cullati, Stéphane; Courvoisier, Delphine S; Charvet-Bérard, Agathe I; Perneger, Thomas V

2011-04-01

To examine factors associated with desire for autonomy in health care decisions in the general population. Mailed survey of 2348 residents of Geneva, Switzerland. Participants answered questions on a scale measuring their desire for autonomy in health care decisions. The scale was scored between 0 (lowest desire for autonomy) and 100 (highest desire for autonomy). On average the respondents favoured shared or active involvement in medical decisions (mean score 62.0, SD 20.9), but attitudes varied considerably. In the multivariate model, factors associated with a higher desire for autonomy included female gender, younger age, higher education, living alone, reporting an excellent global health and - a new observation compared to previous studies - having made several medical decisions in the past 6 months. The attitudes of the general public appear to be consistent with the model of shared decision making. However, people vary considerably in their desire for autonomy. An explicit assessment of each individual's desire for autonomy may improve the decision-making process. Such an assessment should be repeated regularly, as familiarity with medical decisions may increase the desire for autonomy. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cancer Counseling of Low-Income Limited English Proficient Latina Women Using Medical Interpreters: Implications for Shared Decision-Making.

PubMed

Kamara, Daniella; Weil, Jon; Youngblom, Janey; Guerra, Claudia; Joseph, Galen

2018-02-01

In cancer genetic counseling (CGC), communication across language and culture challenges the model of practice based on shared decision-making. To date, little research has examined the decision-making process of low-income, limited English proficiency (LEP) patients in CGC. This study identified communication patterns in CGC sessions with this population and assessed how these patterns facilitate or inhibit the decision-making process during the sessions. We analyzed 24 audio recordings of CGC sessions conducted in Spanish via telephone interpreters at two public hospitals. Patients were referred for risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; all were offered genetic testing. Audio files were coded by two bilingual English-Spanish researchers and analyzed using conventional content analysis through an iterative process. The 24 sessions included 13 patients, 6 counselors, and 18 interpreters. Qualitative data analyses identified three key domains - Challenges Posed by Hypothetical Explanations, Misinterpretation by the Medical Interpreter, and Communication Facilitators - that reflect communication patterns and their impact on the counselor's ability to facilitate shared decision-making. Overall, we found an absence of patient participation in the decision-making process. Our data suggest that when counseling LEP Latina patients via medical interpreter, prioritizing information with direct utility for the patient and organizing information into short- and long-term goals may reduce information overload and improve comprehension for patient and interpreter. Further research is needed to test the proposed counseling strategies with this population and to assess how applicable our findings are to other populations.

To Trust or Not to Trust: Social Decision Making in Post-institutionalized, Internationally Adopted Youth

PubMed Central

Pitula, Clio E.; Wenner, Jennifer A.; Gunnar, Megan R.; Thomas, Kathleen M.

2015-01-01

Chronic parental maltreatment has been associated with lower levels of interpersonal trust, and depriving environments have been shown to predict shortsighted, risk-averse decision-making. The present study examined whether a circumscribed period of adverse care occurring only early in life was associated with biases in trust behavior. Fifty-three post-institutionalized (PI) youth, adopted internationally on average by one year of age, and 33 never-institutionalized, non-adopted youth (M age = 12.9 years) played a trust game. Participants decided whether or not to share coins with a different anonymous peer in each trial with the potential to receive a larger number of coins in return. Trials were presented in blocks that varied in the degree to which the peers behaved in a trustworthy (reciprocal) or untrustworthy (non-reciprocal) manner. A comparison condition consisted of a computerized lottery with the same choices and probabilistic risk as the peer trials. Non-adopted comparison youth showed a tendency to share more with peers than to invest in the lottery and tended to maintain their level of sharing across trials despite experiencing trials in which peers failed to reciprocate. In contrast, PI children, particularly those who were adopted over a year of age, shared less with peers than they invested in the lottery and quickly adapted their sharing behavior to peers' responses. These results suggest that PI youth were more mistrusting, more sensitive to both defection and reciprocation, and potentially more accurate in their trusting decisions than comparison youth. Results support the presence of a sensitive period for the development of trust in others, whereby conditions early in life may set long-term biases in decision-making. PMID:27089448

To trust or not to trust: social decision-making in post-institutionalized, internationally adopted youth.

PubMed

Pitula, Clio E; Wenner, Jennifer A; Gunnar, Megan R; Thomas, Kathleen M

2017-05-01

Chronic parental maltreatment has been associated with lower levels of interpersonal trust, and depriving environments have been shown to predict short-sighted, risk-averse decision-making. The present study examined whether a circumscribed period of adverse care occurring only early in life was associated with biases in trust behavior. Fifty-three post-institutionalized (PI) youth, adopted internationally on average by 1 year of age, and 33 never-institutionalized, non-adopted youth (M age  = 12.9 years) played a trust game. Participants decided whether or not to share coins with a different anonymous peer in each trial with the potential to receive a larger number of coins in return. Trials were presented in blocks that varied in the degree to which the peers behaved in a trustworthy (reciprocal) or untrustworthy (non-reciprocal) manner. A comparison condition consisted of a computerized lottery with the same choices and probabilistic risk as the peer trials. Non-adopted comparison youth showed a tendency to share more with peers than to invest in the lottery and tended to maintain their level of sharing across trials despite experiencing trials in which peers failed to reciprocate. In contrast, PI children, particularly those who were adopted over 1 year of age, shared less with peers than they invested in the lottery and quickly adapted their sharing behavior to peers' responses. These results suggest that PI youth were more mistrusting, more sensitive to both defection and reciprocation, and potentially more accurate in their trusting decisions than comparison youth. Results support the presence of a sensitive period for the development of trust in others, whereby conditions early in life may set long-term biases in decision-making. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments-time to begin improving quality.

PubMed

Elf, Marie; Fröst, Peter; Lindahl, Göran; Wijk, Helle

2015-03-21

Successful implementation of new methods and models of healthcare to achieve better patient outcomes and safe, person-centered care is dependent on the physical environment of the healthcare architecture in which the healthcare is provided. Thus, decisions concerning healthcare architecture are critical because it affects people and work processes for many years and requires a long-term financial commitment from society. In this paper, we describe and suggest several strategies (critical factors) to promote shared-decision making when planning and designing new healthcare environments. This paper discusses challenges and hindrances observed in the literature and from the authors extensive experiences in the field of planning and designing healthcare environments. An overview is presented of the challenges and new approaches for a process that involves the mutual exchange of knowledge among various stakeholders. Additionally, design approaches that balance the influence of specific and local requirements with general knowledge and evidence that should be encouraged are discussed. We suggest a shared-decision making and collaborative planning and design process between representatives from healthcare, construction sector and architecture based on evidence and end-users' perspectives. If carefully and systematically applied, this approach will support and develop a framework for creating high quality healthcare environments.

Team Leadership and Cancer End-of-Life Decision Making.

PubMed

Waldfogel, Julie M; Battle, Dena J; Rosen, Michael; Knight, Louise; Saiki, Catherine B; Nesbit, Suzanne A; Cooper, Rhonda S; Browner, Ilene S; Hoofring, Laura H; Billing, Lynn S; Dy, Sydney M

2016-11-01

End-of-life decision making in cancer can be a complicated process. Patients and families encounter multiple providers throughout their cancer care. When the efforts of these providers are not well coordinated in teams, opportunities for high-quality, longitudinal goals of care discussions can be missed. This article reviews the case of a 55-year-old man with lung cancer, illustrating the barriers and missed opportunities for end-of-life decision making in his care through the lens of team leadership, a key principle in the science of teams. The challenges demonstrated in this case reflect the importance of the four functions of team leadership: information search and structuring, information use in problem solving, managing personnel resources, and managing material resources. Engaging in shared leadership of these four functions can help care providers improve their interactions with patients and families concerning end-of-life care decision making. This shared leadership can also produce a cohesive care plan that benefits from the expertise of the range of available providers while reflecting patient needs and preferences. Clinicians and researchers should consider the roles of team leadership functions and shared leadership in improving patient care when developing and studying models of cancer care delivery.

Information and decision-making needs among people with affective disorders - results of an online survey.

PubMed

Liebherz, Sarah; Tlach, Lisa; Härter, Martin; Dirmaier, Jörg

2015-01-01

Patient decision aids are one possibility for enabling and encouraging patients to participate in medical decisions. This paper aims to describe patients' information and decision-making needs as a prerequisite for the development of high-quality, web-based patient decision aids for affective disorders. We conducted an online cross-sectional survey by using a self-administered questionnaire including items on Internet use, online health information needs, role in decision making, and important treatment decisions, performing descriptive and comparative statistical analyses. A total of 210 people with bipolar disorder/mania as well as 112 people with unipolar depression participated in the survey. Both groups specified general information search as their most relevant information need and decisions on treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) as well as decisions on pharmacological treatment as the most difficult treatment decisions. For participants with unipolar depression, decisions concerning psychotherapeutic treatment were also especially difficult. Most participants of both groups preferred shared decisions but experienced less shared decisions than desired. Our results show the importance of information for patients with affective disorders, with a focus on pharmacological treatment and on the different treatment settings, and highlight patients' requirements to be involved in the decision-making process. Since our sample reported a chronic course of disease, we do not know if our results are applicable for newly diagnosed patients. Further studies should consider how the reported needs could be addressed in health care practice.

Consumer Outcomes After Implementing CommonGround as an Approach to Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Salyers, Michelle P; Fukui, Sadaaki; Bonfils, Kelsey A; Firmin, Ruth L; Luther, Lauren; Goscha, Rick; Rapp, Charles A; Holter, Mark C

2017-03-01

The authors examined consumer outcomes before and after implementing CommonGround, a computer-based shared decision-making program. Consumers with severe mental illness (N=167) were interviewed prior to implementation and 12 and 18 months later to assess changes in active treatment involvement, symptoms, and recovery-related attitudes. Providers also rated consumers on level of treatment involvement. Most consumers used CommonGround at least once (67%), but few used the program regularly. Mixed-effects regression analyses showed improvement in self-reported symptoms and recovery attitudes. Self-reported treatment involvement did not change; however, for a subset of consumers with the same providers over time (N=83), the providers rated consumers as more active in treatment. This study adds to the growing literature on tools to support shared decision making, showing the potential benefits of CommonGround for improving recovery outcomes. More work is needed to better engage consumers in CommonGround and to test the approach with more rigorous methods.

The impact of the distance-dependent promotional effect on the promotion cost sharing decision

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Sheen, Gwo-Ji; Wang, Shih-Yen; Yeh, Yingchieh

2016-02-01

This paper considers the promotion cost sharing decision between a supplier and a retailer. The customer demand is affected by both national and local promotional effects while the local promotional effect on a customer is dependent on the distance between the retailer and this customer. We propose a continuous approximation approach to modelling the sum of the customer demand in the whole market area served by the retailer. A model is provided to help managers decide on the retail price, the local advertising expenditure, the national advertising expenditure, and the supplier participation rate, with consideration of the influence of distance on the promotional effect. We also find that the supplier's promotion cost sharing rate increases as the market size increases or the influence of distance on the promotional effect decreases. A numerical example is given to show that the nature of distance-dependent promotional effect has a significant impact on the decisions and profits.

Encouraging information sharing to boost the name-your-own-price auction

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Chen, Yahong; Li, Jinlin; Huang, He; Ran, Lun; Hu, Yusheng

2017-08-01

During a name-your-own-price (NYOP) auction, buyers can learn a lot of knowledge from their socially connected peers. Such social learning process makes them become more active to attend the auction and also helps them make decisions on what price to submit. Combining an information diffusion model and a belief decision model, we explore three effects of bidders' information sharing on the buyers' behaviors and the seller profit. The results indicate that information sharing significantly increases the NYOP popularity and the seller profit. When enlarging the quality or quantity of information sharing, or increasing the spreading efficiency of the network topology, the number of attenders and the seller profit are increased significantly. However, the spread of information may make bidders be more likely to bid higher and consequently lose surplus. In addition, the different but interdependent influence of the successful information and failure information are discussed in this work.

Use of a 17-Gene Prognostic Assay in Contemporary Urologic Practice: Results of an Interim Analysis in an Observational Cohort.

PubMed

Eure, Gregg; Germany, Raymond; Given, Robert; Lu, Ruixiao; Shindel, Alan W; Rothney, Megan; Glowacki, Richard; Henderson, Jonathan; Richardson, Tim; Goldfischer, Evan; Febbo, Phillip G; Denes, Bela S

2017-09-01

To study the impact of genomic testing in shared decision making for men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Patients with clinically low-risk PCa were enrolled in a prospective, multi-institutional study of a validated 17-gene tissue-based reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay (Genomic Prostate Score [GPS]). In this paper we report on outcomes in the first 297 patients enrolled in the study with valid 17-gene assay results and decision-change data. The primary end points were shared decision on initial management and persistence on active surveillance (AS) at 1 year post diagnosis. AS utilization and persistence were compared with similar end points in a group of patients who did not have genomic testing (baseline cohort). Secondary end points included perceived utility of the assay and patient decisional conflict before and after testing. One-year results were available on 258 patients. Shift between initial recommendation and shared decision occurred in 23% of patients. Utilization of AS was higher in the GPS-tested cohort than in the untested baseline cohort (62% vs 40%). The proportion of men who selected and persisted on AS at 1 year was 55% and 34% in the GPS and baseline cohorts, respectively. Physicians reported that GPS was useful in 90% of cases. Mean decisional conflict scores declined in patients after GPS testing. Patients who received GPS testing were more likely to select and persist on AS for initial management compared with a matched baseline group. These data indicate that GPS help guide shared decisions in clinically low-risk PCa. Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

ISBP: Understanding the Security Rule of Users' Information-Sharing Behaviors in Partnership

PubMed Central

Wu, Hongchen; Wang, Xinjun

2016-01-01

The rapid growth of social network data has given rise to high security awareness among users, especially when they exchange and share their personal information. However, because users have different feelings about sharing their information, they are often puzzled about who their partners for exchanging information can be and what information they can share. Is it possible to assist users in forming a partnership network in which they can exchange and share information with little worry? We propose a modified information sharing behavior prediction (ISBP) model that can help in understanding the underlying rules by which users share their information with partners in light of three common aspects: what types of items users are likely to share, what characteristics of users make them likely to share information, and what features of users’ sharing behavior are easy to predict. This model is applied with machine learning techniques in WEKA to predict users’ decisions pertaining to information sharing behavior and form them into trustable partnership networks by learning their features. In the experiment section, by using two real-life datasets consisting of citizens’ sharing behavior, we identify the effect of highly sensitive requests on sharing behavior adjacent to individual variables: the younger participants’ partners are more difficult to predict than those of the older participants, whereas the partners of people who are not computer majors are easier to predict than those of people who are computer majors. Based on these findings, we believe that it is necessary and feasible to offer users personalized suggestions on information sharing decisions, and this is pioneering work that could benefit college researchers focusing on user-centric strategies and website owners who want to collect more user information without raising their privacy awareness or losing their trustworthiness. PMID:26950064

ISBP: Understanding the Security Rule of Users' Information-Sharing Behaviors in Partnership.

PubMed

Wu, Hongchen; Wang, Xinjun

2016-01-01

The rapid growth of social network data has given rise to high security awareness among users, especially when they exchange and share their personal information. However, because users have different feelings about sharing their information, they are often puzzled about who their partners for exchanging information can be and what information they can share. Is it possible to assist users in forming a partnership network in which they can exchange and share information with little worry? We propose a modified information sharing behavior prediction (ISBP) model that can help in understanding the underlying rules by which users share their information with partners in light of three common aspects: what types of items users are likely to share, what characteristics of users make them likely to share information, and what features of users' sharing behavior are easy to predict. This model is applied with machine learning techniques in WEKA to predict users' decisions pertaining to information sharing behavior and form them into trustable partnership networks by learning their features. In the experiment section, by using two real-life datasets consisting of citizens' sharing behavior, we identify the effect of highly sensitive requests on sharing behavior adjacent to individual variables: the younger participants' partners are more difficult to predict than those of the older participants, whereas the partners of people who are not computer majors are easier to predict than those of people who are computer majors. Based on these findings, we believe that it is necessary and feasible to offer users personalized suggestions on information sharing decisions, and this is pioneering work that could benefit college researchers focusing on user-centric strategies and website owners who want to collect more user information without raising their privacy awareness or losing their trustworthiness.

Shared decision making in the safety net: where do we go from here?

PubMed

Bouma, Angelique B; Tiedje, Kristina; Poplau, Sara; Boehm, Deborah H; Shah, Nilay D; Commers, Matthew J; Linzer, Mark; Montori, Victor M

2014-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process between clinicians and patients in which both share information, deliberate together, and make clinical decisions. Clinics serving safety net patients face special challenges, including fewer resources and more challenging work environments. The use of SDM within safety net institutions has not been well studied. We recruited a convenience sample of 15 safety net primary care clinicians (13 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners). Each answered a 9-item SDM questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview. From the transcribed interviews and questionnaire data, we identified themes and suggestions for introducing SDM into a safety net environment. Clinicians reported only partially fulfilling the central components of SDM (sharing information, deliberating, and decision making). Most clinicians expressed interest in SDM by stating that they "selected a treatment option together" with patients (8 of 15 in strong or complete agreement), but only a minority (3 of 15) "thoroughly weighed the different treatment options" together with patients. Clinicians attributed this gap to many barriers, including time pressure, overwhelming visit content, patient preferences, and lack of available resources. All clinicians believed that lack of time made it difficult to practice SDM. To increase use of SDM in the safety net, efficient SDM interventions designed for this environment, team care, and patient engagement in SDM will need further development. Future studies should focus on adapting SDM to safety net settings and determine whether SDM can reduce health care disparities.

Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy.

PubMed

Kim, W C; Mauborgne, R

1997-01-01

Unlike the traditional factors of production--land, labor, and capital--knowledge is a resource that can't be forced out of people. But creating and sharing knowledge is essential to fostering innovation, the key challenge of the knowledge-based economy. To create a climate in which employees volunteer their creativity and expertise, managers need to look beyond the traditional tools at their disposal. They need to build trust. The authors have studied the links between trust, idea sharing, and corporate performance for more than a decade. They have explored the question of why managers of local subsidiaries so often fail to share information with executives at headquarters. They have studied the dynamics of idea sharing in product development teams, joint ventures, supplier partnerships, and corporate transformations. They offer an explanation for why people resist change even when it would benefit them directly. In every case, the decisive factor was what the authors call fair process--fairness in the way a company makes and executes decisions. The elements of fair process are simple: Engage people's input in decisions that directly affect them. Explain why decisions are made the way they are. Make clear what will be expected of employees after the changes are made. Fair process may sound like a soft issue, but it is crucial to building trust and unlocking ideas. Without it, people are apt to withhold their full cooperation and their creativity. The results are costly: ideas that never see daylight and initiatives that are never seized.

High Levels of Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret When Making Decisions About Biologics.

PubMed

Lipstein, Ellen A; Lovell, Daniel J; Denson, Lee A; Kim, Sandra C; Spencer, Charles; Ittenbach, Richard F; Britto, Maria T

2016-12-01

The aim of the study was to understand the association between parents' perceptions of the decision process and the decision outcomes in decisions about the use of biologics in pediatric chronic conditions. We mailed surveys to parents of children with inflammatory bowel disease or juvenile idiopathic arthritis who had started treatment with biologics in the prior 2 years and were treated at either of 2 children's hospitals. The survey included measures of the decision process, including decision control and physician engagement, and decision outcomes, including conflict and regret. We used means and frequencies to assess the response distributions. General linear models were used to test the associations between decision process and decision outcomes. We had 201 respondents (response rate 54.9%). Approximately 47.0% reported using shared decision making. Each physician engagement behavior was experienced by the majority of parents, with the highest percentage reporting that their child's physician used language they understood and listened to them. Approximately 48.5% of parents had decisional conflict scores of 25 or greater, indicating high levels of conflict. Approximately 28.2% had no regret, 31.8% had mild regret, and the remaining 40.0% had moderate to severe regret. Shared decision making was not associated with improved decisional conflict, but physician engagement behaviors were associated with both decisional conflict and regret. Improving decision outcomes will require more than just focusing on who parents perceive as controlling the final decision. Developing interventions that facilitate specific physician engagement behaviors may decrease parents' distress around decision making and improve decision outcomes.

A moral compass for management decision making: a healthcare CEO's reflections.

PubMed

Donnellan, John J

2013-01-01

Ethical behavior is good for business in any organization. In healthcare, it results in better patient care, a more committed and satisfied staff, more efficient care delivery, and increased market share. But it requires leaders who have a broad view of the role that ethics programs--and an effective, sustained ethical culture--play. Ethical organizations have integrated and shared ethical values and practices, an effective ethics infrastructure, ongoing ethics education for staff at every level, ethical and morally courageous leaders, and a culture that is consistent with the organization's values. The mission, vision, and values statements of these organizations have been successfully translated into a set of shared values--a moral compass that guides behavior and decision making.

South Huntington's Evolution to Shared Decision Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Domenech, Daniel A.

School administrative decisions must be based on a broad range of input; the power of group thinking is required to ensure that the best decisions are made. The necessary transition from the old, closed autocratic administrative decisionmaking system to a new, open democratic organization requires not a radical leap, but a gradual transition. The…

The Effect of Shared Decision-Making on the Improvement in Teachers' Job Development

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Chi Keung, Cheng

2008-01-01

Background: Teacher Participation in decision-making is one of the recommendations of school-based management and one of the key characteristics of an effective school. Although teacher participation in decision making is claimed to be correlated with their affective outcome, few researchers have been attempted to verify the predictive…

Principals' Perceptions of Community and Staff Involvement in Shared Decision Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brown, David W.; And Others

1996-01-01

Survey of 217 Maine principals revealed that respondents perceived their staff as moderately to highly involved in decision making, viewed the community as informed but not actively involved in decision making, and desired greater involvement from staff and parents. Principal gender and school level did not affect desired levels of involvement.…

The state of shared decision making in Malaysia.

PubMed

Lee, Yew Kong; Ng, Chirk Jenn

2017-06-01

Shared decision making (SDM) activities in Malaysia began around 2010. Although the concept is not widespread, there are opportunities to implement SDM in both the public and private healthcare sectors. Malaysia has a multicultural society and cultural components (such as language differences, medical paternalism, strong family involvement, religious beliefs and complementary medicine) influence medical decision making. In terms of policy, the Ministry of Health has increasingly mentioned patient-centered care as a component of healthcare delivery while the Malaysian Medical Council's guidelines on doctors' duties mentioned collaborative partnerships as a goal of doctor-patient relationships. Current research on SDM comprises baseline surveys of decisional role preferences, development and implementation of locally developed patient decision aids, and conducting of SDM training workshops. Most of this research is carried out by public research universities. In summary, the current state of SDM in Malaysia is still at its infancy. However, there are increasing recognition and efforts from the academic institutions and Ministry of Health to conduct research in SDM, develop patient decision support tools and initiate national discussion on patient involvement in decision making. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Decision Support and Shared Decision Making About Active Surveillance Versus Active Treatment Among Men Diagnosed with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: a Pilot Study.

PubMed

Myers, Ronald E; Leader, Amy E; Censits, Jean Hoffman; Trabulsi, Edouard J; Keith, Scott W; Petrich, Anett M; Quinn, Anna M; Den, Robert B; Hurwitz, Mark D; Lallas, Costas D; Hegarty, Sarah E; Dicker, Adam P; Zeigler-Johnson, Charnita M; Giri, Veda N; Ayaz, Hasan; Gomella, Leonard G

2018-02-01

This study aimed to explore the effects of a decision support intervention (DSI) and shared decision making (SDM) on knowledge, perceptions about treatment, and treatment choice among men diagnosed with localized low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). At a multidisciplinary clinic visit, 30 consenting men with localized low-risk PCa completed a baseline survey, had a nurse-mediated online DS session to clarify preference for active surveillance (AS) or active treatment (AT), and met with clinicians for SDM. Participants also completed a follow-up survey at 30 days. We assessed change in treatment knowledge, decisional conflict, and perceptions and identified predictors of AS. At follow-up, participants exhibited increased knowledge (p < 0.001), decreased decisional conflict (p < 0.001), and more favorable perceptions of AS (p = 0.001). Furthermore, 25 of the 30 participants (83 %) initiated AS. Increased family and clinician support predicted this choice (p < 0.001). DSI/SDM prepared patients to make an informed decision. Perceived support of the decision facilitated patient choice of AS.

The Effect of Screen-to-Screen Versus Face-to-Face Consultation on Doctor-Patient Communication: An Experimental Study with Simulated Patients

PubMed Central

Tates, Kiek; Kanters, Saskia; Nieboer, Theodoor E; Gerritse, Maria BE

2017-01-01

Background Despite the emergence of Web-based patient-provider contact, it is still unclear how the quality of Web-based doctor-patient interactions differs from face-to-face interactions. Objective This study aimed to examine (1) the impact of a consultation medium on doctors’ and patients’ communicative behavior in terms of information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and shared decision making and (2) the mediating role of doctors’ and patients’ communicative behavior on satisfaction with both types of consultation medium. Methods Doctor-patient consultations on pelvic organ prolapse were simulated, both in a face-to-face and in a screen-to-screen (video) setting. Twelve medical interns and 6 simulated patients prepared 4 different written scenarios and were randomized to perform a total of 48 consultations. Effects of the consultations were measured by questionnaires that participants filled out directly after the consultation. Results With respect to patient-related outcomes, satisfaction, perceived information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and perceived shared decision making showed no significant differences between face-to-face and screen-to-screen consultations. Patients’ attitude toward Web-based communication (b=−.249, P=.02 and patients’ perceived time and attention (b=.271, P=.03) significantly predicted patients’ perceived interpersonal relationship building. Patients’ perceived shared decision making was positively related to their satisfaction with the consultation (b=.254, P=.005). Overall, patients experienced significantly greater shared decision making with a female doctor (mean 4.21, SD 0.49) than with a male doctor (mean 3.66 [SD 0.73]; b=.401, P=.009). Doctor-related outcomes showed no significant differences in satisfaction, perceived information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and perceived shared decision making between the conditions. There was a positive relationship between perceived information exchange and doctors’ satisfaction with the consultation (b=.533, P<.001). Furthermore, doctors’ perceived interpersonal relationship building was positively related to doctors’ satisfaction with the consultation (b=.331, P=.003). Conclusions In this study, the quality of doctor-patient communication, as indicated by information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and shared decision making, did not differ significantly between Web-based and face-to-face consultations. Doctors and simulated patients were equally satisfied with both types of consultation medium, and no differences were found in the manner in which participants perceived communicative behavior during these consultations. The findings suggest that worries about a negative impact of Web-based video consultation on the quality of patient-provider consultations seem unwarranted as they offer the same interaction quality and satisfaction level as regular face-to-face consultations. PMID:29263017

Cloud-Based Data Sharing Connects Emergency Managers

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

2014-01-01

Under an SBIR contract with Stennis Space Center, Baltimore-based StormCenter Communications Inc. developed an improved interoperable platform for sharing geospatial data over the Internet in real time-information that is critical for decision makers in emergency situations.

Culture and medical decision making: Healthcare consumer perspectives in Japan and the United States.

PubMed

Alden, Dana L; Friend, John M; Lee, Angela Y; de Vries, Marieke; Osawa, Ryosuke; Chen, Qimei

2015-12-01

Two studies identified core value influences on medical decision-making processes across and within cultures. In Study 1, Japanese and American adults reported desired levels of medical decision-making influence across conditions that varied in seriousness. Cultural antecedents (interdependence, independence, and power distance) were also measured. In Study 2, American adults reviewed a colorectal cancer screening decision aid. Decision preparedness was measured along with interdependence, independence, and desire for medical information. In Study 1, higher interdependence predicted stronger desire for decision-making information in both countries, but was significantly stronger in Japan. The path from information desire to decision-making influence desire was significant only in Japan. The independence path to desire for decision-making influence was significant only in the United States. Power distance effects negatively predicted desire for decision-making influence only in the United States. For Study 2, high (low) interdependents and women (men) in the United States felt that a colorectal cancer screening decision aid helped prepare them more (less) for a medical consultation. Low interdependent men were at significantly higher risk for low decision preparedness. Study 1 suggests that Japanese participants may tend to view medical decision-making influence as an interdependent, information sharing exchange, whereas American respondents may be more interested in power sharing that emphasizes greater independence. Study 2 demonstrates the need to assess value influences on medical decision-making processes within and across cultures and suggests that individually tailored versions of decision aids may optimize decision preparedness. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Evolution of Structural Empowerment: Moving From Shared to Professional Governance.

PubMed

Clavelle, Joanne T; Porter O'Grady, Tim; Weston, Marla J; Verran, Joyce A

2016-06-01

The aim of this study is to describe the maturation of the concept of shared governance to professional governance as a framework for structural empowerment. An analysis of the literature and concept clarification of structural empowerment and shared governance demonstrate that the concept and attributes of shared governance have evolved toward professional governance. A comprehensive, deductive literature review and concept clarification of structural empowerment, shared governance, and related constructs was completed. The concept and practice of shared governance has matured to a concept of professional governance with the attributes of accountability, professional obligation, collateral relationships, and effective decision-making.

Right For Me: protocol for a cluster randomised trial of two interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods.

PubMed

Thompson, Rachel; Manski, Ruth; Donnelly, Kyla Z; Stevens, Gabrielle; Agusti, Daniela; Banach, Michelle; Boardman, Maureen B; Brady, Pearl; Colón Bradt, Christina; Foster, Tina; Johnson, Deborah J; Li, Zhongze; Norsigian, Judy; Nothnagle, Melissa; Olson, Ardis L; Shepherd, Heather L; Stern, Lisa F; Tosteson, Tor D; Trevena, Lyndal; Upadhya, Krishna K; Elwyn, Glyn

2017-10-22

Despite the observed and theoretical advantages of shared decision-making in a range of clinical contexts, including contraceptive care, there remains a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate its adoption. This paper describes the protocol for a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of patient-targeted and provider-targeted interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. We will conduct a 2×2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial with four arms: (1) video+prompt card, (2) decision aids+training, (3) video+prompt card and decision aids+training and (4) usual care. The clusters will be clinics in USA that deliver contraceptive care. The participants will be people who have completed a healthcare visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, are aged 15-49 years, are able to read and write English or Spanish and have not previously participated in the study. The primary outcome will be shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of a conversation about contraception in the healthcare visit, satisfaction with the conversation about contraception, intended contraceptive method(s), intention to use a highly effective method, values concordance of the intended method(s), decision regret, contraceptive method(s) used, use of a highly effective method, use of the intended method(s), adherence, satisfaction with the method(s) used, unintended pregnancy and unwelcome pregnancy. We will collect study data via longitudinal patient surveys administered immediately after the healthcare visit, four weeks later and six months later. We will disseminate results via presentations at scientific and professional conferences, papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals and scientific and lay reports. We will also make an anonymised copy of the final participant-level dataset available to others for research purposes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759939. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Starting or changing therapy - a prospective study exploring antiretroviral decision-making.

PubMed

Fehr, J S; Nicca, D; Sendi, P; Wolf, E; Wagels, T; Kiss, A; Bregenzer, T; Vernazza, P; Jäger, H; Spirig, R; Battegay, M

2005-08-01

When to start or change antiretroviral treatment against HIV infection is of major importance. Patients' readiness is considered a major factor influencing such treatment decisions, in particular because no objective, absolute time point when to start antiretroviral therapy exists. We aimed at evaluating patients' readiness to start or change antiretroviral therapy (ART). HIV-infected patients starting or changing ART between July 2002 and February 2003, treating physicians and nurses participated in this prospective, observational multicenter study. We assessed shared decision-making including qualitative aspects, expected treatment decisions and treatment status after 3 months. 75 patients were included. Of 34 patients for whom starting ART was considered, 27 (79%) indicated that they were willing to start treatment. After 3 months, 21 of 27 (78%) actually started therapy, six did not. Patients with depression were less likely to be ready for ART (p < 0.05). Of 41 patients for whom changing ART was considered, 35 (85%) indicated that they were willing to change treatment. Of the latter 35 patients, 33 (94%) finally changed ART within 3 months. Physicians and nurses were too optimistic in predicting the start or change of ART. The main reason to start or change ART was the sole recommendation of the physician (52% in those starting, 61% in those changing ART). Patients mainly judged the decision as shared and were very satisfied (71%) with the process. Qualitative findings revealed the importance of a dialectic decisionmaking, described with two categories: "dealing with oneself and others"' and "understanding and being understood." Patients mainly shared the decision made during consultation. Although physicians have an essential role concerning ART, patients, physicians, and nurses all contribute to the decision. Qualitative findings indicate the importance for health-care providers to include patients' expertise and contributions.

Assessment of patients' and caregivers' informational and decisional needs for left ventricular assist device placement: Implications for informed consent and shared decision-making.

PubMed

Blumenthal-Barby, Jennifer S; Kostick, Kristin M; Delgado, Estevan D; Volk, Robert J; Kaplan, Holland M; Wilhelms, L A; McCurdy, Sheryl A; Estep, Jerry D; Loebe, Matthias; Bruce, Courtenay R

2015-09-01

Several organizations have underscored the crucial need for patient-centered decision tools to enhance shared decision-making in advanced heart failure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the decision-making process and informational and decisional needs of patients and their caregivers regarding left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. In-depth, structured interviews with LVAD patients, candidates and caregivers (spouse, family members) (n = 45) were conducted. We also administered a Decisional Regret Scale. Participants reported LVAD decision-making to be quick and reflexive (n = 30), and deferred heavily to clinicians (n = 22). They did not perceive themselves as having a real choice (n = 28). The 2 most prevalent informational domains that participants identified were lifestyle issues (23 items), followed by technical (drive-line, battery) issues (14 items). Participants easily and clearly identified their values: life extension; family; and mobility. Participants reported the need to meet other patients and caregivers before device placement (n = 31), and to have an involved caregiver (n = 28) to synthesize information. Some participants demonstrated a lack of clarity regarding transplant probability: 9 of 15 patients described themselves as on a transplant trajectory, yet 7 of these were destination therapy patients. Finally, we found that decisional regret scores were low (1.307). Informed consent and shared-decision making should: (a) help patients offered highly invasive technologies for life-threatening disease get past the initial "anything to avoid thinking about death" reaction and make a more informed decision; (b) clarify transplant status; and (c) focus on lifestyle and technical issues, as patients have the most informational needs in these domains. Copyright © 2015 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Every Voice Counts: Holding a Shared Leadership Event To Make Decisions Together.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Strauss, Jessica

Shared leadership is a process empowering parents to exercise their civil rights, build leadership skills, and guide the design of policy positions and programs meant to improve their lives and the well-being of their children. Based on principles of family support practice, this book describes how to plan and host a 1- to 3-day shared leadership…

The Cognitive Processes Used in Team Collaboration During Asynchronous, Distributed Decision Making

DTIC Science & Technology

2004-06-01

Transfer Conventions (IPtcp) IP: Solution Alternatives (IPsa) KB: Collaborative Knowledge (KBck) KB: Shared Understanding ( KBsu ) KB: Domain...Gill.” KBsu : Knowledge Building (shared understanding) = using facts to justify a solution. “I think Eddie did it because he was hard of hearing...KB: Collaborative Knowledge (KBck) KB: Shared Understanding ( KBsu ) KB: Domain Expertise (IPde) * * ** ** ** = significant Results 15

Employer health insurance and local labor market conditions.

PubMed

Marquis, M S; Long, S H

2001-01-01

Theory suggests that an employer's decisions about the amount of health insurance included in the compensation package may be influenced by the practices of other employers in the market. We test the role of local market conditions on decisions of small employers to offer insurance and their dollar contribution to premiums using data from two large national surveys of employers. These employers are more likely to offer insurance and to make greater contributions in communities with tighter labor markets, less concentrated labor purchasers, greater union penetration, and a greater share of workers in big business and a small share in regulated industries. However, our data do not support the notion that marginal tax rates affect employers' offer decision or contributions.

The Empathetic School

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Tomlinson, Carol Ann; Murphy, Michael

2018-01-01

Carol Ann Tomlinson and Michael Murphy explore how educators can create an empathetic school--"a place where our central and shared goal was to understand the experiences and perspectives of those who share our space and making decisions based on what would serve them best."

System Dynamics Modeling for Supply Chain Information Sharing

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Feng, Yang

In this paper, we try to use the method of system dynamics to model supply chain information sharing. Firstly, we determine the model boundaries, establish system dynamics model of supply chain before information sharing, analyze the model's simulation results under different changed parameters and suggest improvement proposal. Then, we establish system dynamics model of supply chain information sharing and make comparison and analysis on the two model's simulation results, to show the importance of information sharing in supply chain management. We wish that all these simulations would provide scientific supports for enterprise decision-making.

Passing the Bubble: Cognitive Efficiency of Augmented Video for Collaborative Transfer of Situational Understanding

DTIC Science & Technology

2003-01-01

media factors affecting: • Shared Understanding – explicit and operational knowledge • Decision-Making – what information format best helps decision...Passing the Bubble: Cognitive Efficiency of Augmented Video for Collaborative Transfer of Situational Understanding Collaboration and Knowledge ...operational knowledge ? • Informed Decision-Making – what information format is best to pass the bubble to a decision-maker 1/14/2003 ONR David Kirsh

Development and field testing of a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision making in contraceptive counseling.

PubMed

Dehlendorf, Christine; Fitzpatrick, Judith; Steinauer, Jody; Swiader, Lawrence; Grumbach, Kevin; Hall, Cara; Kuppermann, Miriam

2017-07-01

We developed and formatively evaluated a tablet-based decision support tool for use by women prior to a contraceptive counseling visit to help them engage in shared decision making regarding method selection. Drawing upon formative work around women's preferences for contraceptive counseling and conceptual understanding of health care decision making, we iteratively developed a storyboard and then digital prototypes, based on best practices for decision support tool development. Pilot testing using both quantitative and qualitative data and cognitive testing was conducted. We obtained feedback from patient and provider advisory groups throughout the development process. Ninety-six percent of women who used the tool in pilot testing reported that it helped them choose a method, and qualitative interviews indicated acceptability of the tool's content and presentation. Compared to the control group, women who used the tool demonstrated trends toward increased likelihood of complete satisfaction with their method. Participant responses to cognitive testing were used in tool refinement. Our decision support tool appears acceptable to women in the family planning setting. Formative evaluation of the tool supports its utility among patients making contraceptive decisions, which can be further evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

‘They leave at least believing they had a part in the discussion’: Understanding decision aid use and patient–clinician decision-making through qualitative research

PubMed Central

Tiedje, Kristina; Shippee, Nathan D.; Johnson, Anna M.; Flynn, Priscilla M.; Finnie, Dawn M.; Liesinger, Juliette T.; May, Carl R.; Olson, Marianne E.; Ridgeway, Jennifer L.; Shah, Nilay D.; Yawn, Barbara P.; Montori, Victor M.

2013-01-01

Objective This study explores how patient decision aids (DAs) for antihyperglycemic agents and statins, designed for use during clinical consultations, are embedded into practice, examining how patients and clinicians understand and experience DAs in primary care visits. Methods We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with patients (n = 22) and primary care clinicians (n = 19), and videorecorded consultations (n = 44). Two researchers coded all transcripts. Inductive analyses guided by grounded theory led to the identification of themes. Video and interview data were compared and organized by themes. Results DAs used during consultations became flexible artifacts, incorporated into existing decision making roles for clinicians (experts, authority figures, persuaders, advisors) and patients (drivers of healthcare, learners, partners). DAs were applied to different decision making steps (deliberation, bargaining, convincing, case assessment), and introduced into an existing knowledge context (participants’ literacy regarding shared decision-making (SDM) and DAs). Conclusion DAs’ flexible use during consultations effectively provided space for discussion, even when SDM was not achieved. DAs can be used within any decision-making model. Practice implications Clinician training in DA use and SDM practice may be needed to facilitate DA implementation and promote more ideal-type forms of sharing in decision making. PMID:23598292

[Shared decision making in breast cancer. Womens' attitudes].

PubMed

Martín-Fernández, Roberto; Abt-Sacks, Analía; Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth; Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro

2013-01-01

The patient autonomy and the greater role for women with breast cancer in the decisions about their health are recent issues in healthcare. The objective of this work is to identify and characterize the elements that influence them in treatment decisions. A phenomenological type qualitative study. Theoretical Sampling included 70 women diagnosed with breast cancer. 45 semi structured interviews and 3 focus groups were performed between October 2009 and July 2010 in 15 regions of Spain. The analysis was based on the principles of grounded theory with the support of Atlas.ti v6.1. Patients are likely to take an active or passive role regarding decision-making depending on different variables such as their age, the information available, their self-assessment as capable agents to make decisions and the relative importance given to physical appearance. As the disease progresses, it can cause a change in women attitude, from an initially passive attitude to a more active role. The attitude of health professionals concerning shared decision-making and the information they offer determines patient participation while the family plays an essential role as a support or reinforcement of decisions made by patients. The patients' attitude regarding the decision-making of patients is very variable, becoming increasingly important the emotional status, the level of information available and the influence of the context.

A qualitative study on a decision aid for breast cancer screening: Views from women and health professionals.

PubMed

Toledo-Chávarri, A; Rué, M; Codern-Bové, N; Carles-Lavila, M; Perestelo-Pérez, L; Pérez-Lacasta, M J; Feijoo-Cid, M

2017-05-01

This qualitative study evaluates a decision aid that includes the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening and analyses women's perception of the information received and healthcare professionals' perceptions of the convenience of providing it. Seven focus groups of women aged 40-69 years (n = 39) and two groups of healthcare professionals (n = 23) were conducted in Catalonia and the Canary Islands. The focus groups consisted of guided discussions regarding decision-making about breast cancer screening, and acceptability and feasibility of the decision aid. A content analysis was performed. Women positively value receiving information regarding the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. Several women had difficulties understanding some concepts, especially those regarding overdiagnosis. Women preferred to share the decisions on screening with healthcare professionals. The professionals noted the lack of inclusion of some harms and benefits in the decision aid, and proposed improving the clarity of the statistical information. The information on overdiagnosis generates confusion among women and controversy among professionals. Faced with the new information presented by the decision aid, the majority of women prefer shared decision-making; however, its feasibility might be limited by a lack of knowledge and attitudes of rejection from healthcare professionals. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Moving toward comprehensive acute heart failure risk assessment in the emergency department: the importance of self-care and shared decision making.

PubMed

Collins, Sean P; Storrow, Alan B

2013-08-01

Nearly 700,000 emergency department (ED) visits were due to acute heart failure (AHF) in 2009. Most visits result in a hospital admission and account for the largest proportion of a projected $70 billion to be spent on heart failure care by 2030. ED-based risk prediction tools in AHF rarely impact disposition decision making. This is a major factor contributing to the 80% admission rate for ED patients with AHF, which has remained unchanged over the last several years. Self-care behaviors such as symptom monitoring, medication taking, dietary adherence, and exercise have been associated with decreased hospital readmissions, yet self-care remains largely unaddressed in ED patients with AHF and thus represents a significant lost opportunity to improve patient care and decrease ED visits and hospitalizations. Furthermore, shared decision making encourages collaborative interaction between patients, caregivers, and providers to drive a care path based on mutual agreement. The observation that “difficult decisions now will simplify difficult decisions later” has particular relevance to the ED, given this is the venue for many such issues. We hypothesize patients as complex and heterogeneous as ED patients with AHF may need both an objective evaluation of physiologic risk as well as an evaluation of barriers to ideal self-care, along with strategies to overcome these barriers. Combining physician gestalt, physiologic risk prediction instruments, an evaluation of self-care, and an information exchange between patient and provider using shared decision making may provide the critical inertia necessary to discharge patients home after a brief ED evaluation.

Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Respecting Patient Autonomy When Seconds Count.

PubMed

Hess, Erik P; Grudzen, Corita R; Thomson, Richard; Raja, Ali S; Carpenter, Christopher R

2015-07-01

Shared decision-making (SDM), a collaborative process in which patients and providers make health care decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values and preferences, is being increasingly advocated as the optimal approach to decision-making for many health care decisions. The rapidly paced and often chaotic environment of the emergency department (ED), however, is a unique clinical setting that offers many practical and contextual challenges. Despite these challenges, in a recent survey emergency physicians reported there to be more than one reasonable management option for over 50% of their patients and that they take an SDM approach in 58% of such patients. SDM has also been selected as the topic on which to develop a future research agenda at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, "Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda" (http://www.saem.org/annual-meeting/education/2016-aem-consensus-conference). In this paper the authors describe the conceptual model of SDM as originally conceived by Charles and Gafni and highlight aspects of the model relevant to the practice of emergency medicine. In addition, through the use of vignettes from the authors' clinical practices, the applicability of SDM to contemporary EM practice is illustrated and the ethical and pragmatic implications of taking an SDM approach are explored. It is hoped that this document will be read in advance of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, to facilitate group discussions at the conference. © 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Deliberation favours social efficiency by making people disregard their relative shares: evidence from USA and India

PubMed Central

Corgnet, Brice; Espín, Antonio M.; Hernán-González, Roberto

2017-01-01

Groups make decisions on both the production and the distribution of resources. These decisions typically involve a tension between increasing the total level of group resources (i.e. social efficiency) and distributing these resources among group members (i.e. individuals' relative shares). This is the case because the redistribution process may destroy part of the resources, thus resulting in socially inefficient allocations. Here we apply a dual-process approach to understand the cognitive underpinnings of this fundamental tension. We conducted a set of experiments to examine the extent to which different allocation decisions respond to intuition or deliberation. In a newly developed approach, we assess intuition and deliberation at both the trait level (using the Cognitive Reflection Test, henceforth CRT) and the state level (through the experimental manipulation of response times). To test for robustness, experiments were conducted in two countries: the USA and India. Despite absolute-level differences across countries, in both locations we show that: (i) time pressure and low CRT scores are associated with individuals' concerns for their relative shares and (ii) time delay and high CRT scores are associated with individuals' concerns for social efficiency. These findings demonstrate that deliberation favours social efficiency by overriding individuals' intuitive tendency to focus on relative shares. PMID:28386421

[Shared decision making in patients with diabetes mellitus].

PubMed

Serrano, Valentina; Larrea-Mantilla, Laura; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, René; Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela; Málaga, Germán; Hargraves, Ian; Montori, Víctor M

2017-05-01

Patients with diabetes mellitus often have several medical problems and carry a burden imposed by their illness and treatment. Health care often ignores the values, preferences and context of patients, leading to treatments that do not fit into patients’ overwhelmed lives. Shared Decision Making (SDM) emerges as a way to answer the question: “What’s best for the patient?”. SDM promotes an empathic conversation between patients and clinicians that integrates the best evidence available with their values, preferences and context. We discuss three SDM approaches for patients with diabetes: one focused on sharing information, another on making choices, and a third one on helping patients and clinicians to talk about how to address the problems of living with diabetes and its comorbidities. Despite the benefits demonstrated in studies conducted in the U.S. and Europe, the implementation of SDM continues to be a challenge. In Latin America, healthcare and socio-economic conditions render the implementation of SDM more challenging. Research aimed to respond to this challenge is necessary. Meanwhile, clinicians can practice SDM by sharing evidence-based information, giving voice to patients’ values and preferences in making choices, and creating empathic conversations aimed at decisions aligned with patients’ context, dreams, goals, and life expectations.

More Heads Are Better than One: School-Based Decision-Making in Varied School Environments

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mokoena, Sello; Machaisa, Rebotile

2018-01-01

In this multi-case qualitative study the degree to which school-based decision-making (SBDM) is understood and conceptualised by the members of school governing bodies (SGBs)--educators, chairpersons of SGBs, principals, and learner representative councils-as well the extent to which decisions were shared among the various groups represented on…

The Use of Art in the Medical Decision-Making Process of Oncology Patients

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Czamanski-Cohen, Johanna

2012-01-01

The introduction of written informed consent in the 1970s created expectations of shared decision making between doctors and patients that has led to decisional conflict for some patients. This study utilized a collaborative, intrinsic case study approach to the decision-making process of oncology patients who participated in an open art therapy…

Evacuate or Shelter-in-place? The Role of Corporate Memory and Political Environment in Hospital-evacuation Decision Making.

PubMed

Ricci, Karen A; Griffin, Anne R; Heslin, Kevin C; Kranke, Derrick; Dobalian, Aram

2015-06-01

Hospital-evacuation decisions are rarely straightforward in protracted advance-warning events. Previous work provides little insight into the decision-making process around evacuation. This study was conducted to identify factors that most heavily influenced the decisions to evacuate the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New York Harbor Healthcare System's (NYHHS; New York USA) Manhattan Campus before Hurricane Irene in 2011 and before Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Semi-structured interviews with 11 senior leaders were conducted on the processes and factors that influenced the evacuation decisions prior to each event. The most influential factor in the decision to evacuate the Manhattan Campus before Hurricane Irene was New York City's (NYC's) hospital-evacuation mandate. As a federal facility, the Manhattan VA medical center (VAMC) was exempt from the city's order, but decision makers felt compelled to comply. In the case of Superstorm Sandy, corporate memory of a similar 1992 storm that crippled the Manhattan facility drove the decision to evacuate before the storm hit. Results suggest that hospital-evacuation decisions are confounded by political considerations and are influenced by past disaster experience. Greater shared situational awareness among at-risk hospitals, along with a more coordinated approach to evacuation decision making, could reduce pressure on hospitals to make these high-stakes decisions. Systematic mechanisms for collecting, documenting, and sharing lessons learned from past disasters are sorely needed at the institutional, local, and national levels.

Key stakeholders' perceptions of the acceptability and usefulness of a tablet-based tool to improve communication and shared decision making in ICUs.

PubMed

Ernecoff, Natalie C; Witteman, Holly O; Chon, Kristen; Chen, Yanquan Iris; Buddadhumaruk, Praewpannarai; Chiarchiaro, Jared; Shotsberger, Kaitlin J; Shields, Anne-Marie; Myers, Brad A; Hough, Catherine L; Carson, Shannon S; Lo, Bernard; Matthay, Michael A; Anderson, Wendy G; Peterson, Michael W; Steingrub, Jay S; Arnold, Robert M; White, Douglas B

2016-06-01

Although barriers to shared decision making in intensive care units are well documented, there are currently no easily scaled interventions to overcome these problems. We sought to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the acceptability, usefulness, and design suggestions for a tablet-based tool to support communication and shared decision making in ICUs. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 58 key stakeholders (30 surrogates and 28 ICU care providers). Interviews explored stakeholders' perceptions about the acceptability of a tablet-based tool to support communication and shared decision making, including the usefulness of modules focused on orienting families to the ICU, educating them about the surrogate's role, completing a question prompt list, eliciting patient values, educating about treatment options, eliciting perceptions about prognosis, and providing psychosocial support resources. The interviewer also elicited stakeholders' design suggestions for such a tool. We used constant comparative methods to identify key themes that arose during the interviews. Overall, 95% (55/58) of participants perceived the proposed tool to be acceptable, with 98% (57/58) of interviewees finding six or more of the seven content domains acceptable. Stakeholders identified several potential benefits of the tool including that it would help families prepare for the surrogate role and for family meetings as well as give surrogates time and a framework to think about the patient's values and treatment options. Key design suggestions included: conceptualize the tool as a supplement to rather than a substitute for surrogate-clinician communication; make the tool flexible with respect to how, where, and when surrogates can access the tool; incorporate interactive exercises; use video and narration to minimize the cognitive load of the intervention; and build an extremely simple user interface to maximize usefulness for individuals with low computer literacy. There is broad support among stakeholders for the use of a tablet-based tool to improve communication and shared decision making in ICUs. Eliciting the perspectives of key stakeholders early in the design process yielded important insights to create a tool tailored to the needs of surrogates and care providers in ICUs. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Determinants of unlawful file sharing: a scoping review.

PubMed

Watson, Steven James; Zizzo, Daniel John; Fleming, Piers

2015-01-01

We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required.

Determinants of Unlawful File Sharing: A Scoping Review

PubMed Central

Watson, Steven James; Zizzo, Daniel John; Fleming, Piers

2015-01-01

We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required. PMID:26030384

Shared Decision Making at the Limit of Viability: A Blueprint for Physician Action

PubMed Central

2016-01-01

Objective To document interactions during the antenatal consultation between parents and neonatologist that parents linked to their satisfaction with their participation in shared decision making for their infant at risk of being born at the limit of viability. Methods This multiple-case ethnomethodological qualitative research study, included mothers admitted for a threatened premature delivery between 200/7 and 266/7 weeks gestation, the father, and the staff neonatologist conducting the clinical antenatal consultation. Content analysis of an audiotaped post-antenatal consultation interview with parents obtained their satisfaction scores as well as their comments on physician actions that facilitated their desired participation. Results Five cases, each called a “system—infant at risk”, included 10 parents and 6 neonatologists. From the interviews emerged a blueprint for action by physicians, including communication strategies that parents say facilitated their participation in decision making; such as building trustworthy physician-parent relationships, providing "balanced" information, offering choices, and allowing time to think. Conclusion Parent descriptions indicate that the opportunity to participate to their satisfaction in the clinical antenatal consultation depends on how the physician interacts with them. Practice implications The parent-identified communication strategies facilitate shared decision making regarding treatment in the best interest of the infant at risk to be born at the limit of viability. PMID:27893823

Rivaroxaban or Aspirin for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism.

PubMed

Weitz, Jeffrey I; Lensing, Anthonie W A; Prins, Martin H; Bauersachs, Rupert; Beyer-Westendorf, Jan; Bounameaux, Henri; Brighton, Timothy A; Cohen, Alexander T; Davidson, Bruce L; Decousus, Hervé; Freitas, Maria C S; Holberg, Gerlind; Kakkar, Ajay K; Haskell, Lloyd; van Bellen, Bonno; Pap, Akos F; Berkowitz, Scott D; Verhamme, Peter; Wells, Philip S; Prandoni, Paolo

2017-03-30

Although many patients with venous thromboembolism require extended treatment, it is uncertain whether it is better to use full- or lower-intensity anticoagulation therapy or aspirin. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, we assigned 3396 patients with venous thromboembolism to receive either once-daily rivaroxaban (at doses of 20 mg or 10 mg) or 100 mg of aspirin. All the study patients had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and were in equipoise regarding the need for continued anticoagulation. Study drugs were administered for up to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent fatal or nonfatal venous thromboembolism, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding. A total of 3365 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses (median treatment duration, 351 days). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 17 of 1107 patients (1.5%) receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban and in 13 of 1127 patients (1.2%) receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, as compared with 50 of 1131 patients (4.4%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio for 20 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.59; hazard ratio for 10 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.47; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the group receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban, 0.4% in the group receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, and 0.3% in the aspirin group; the rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.7%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all three groups. Among patients with venous thromboembolism in equipoise for continued anticoagulation, the risk of a recurrent event was significantly lower with rivaroxaban at either a treatment dose (20 mg) or a prophylactic dose (10 mg) than with aspirin, without a significant increase in bleeding rates. (Funded by Bayer Pharmaceuticals; EINSTEIN CHOICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02064439 .).

The relationship between role preferences in decision-making and level of psychological distress in patients with head and neck cancer.

PubMed

Jabbour, Joe; Dhillon, Haryana M; Shepherd, Heather L; Sundaresan, Puma; Milross, Chris; Clark, Jonathan R

2018-05-28

Is there a relationship between decision-making preferences and psychological distress? Patients who had received treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) at four institutions within NSW, Australia were invited to complete a single questionnaire. Five hundred and ninety-seven patients completed the questionnaire. The majority of patients (308, 54%) preferred shared decision making. Significant predictors of a preference towards active decision making were education level (OR 2.1 for tertiary, p < 0.001), primary cancer site (OR 1.9 for thyroid compared to salivary gland, p = 0.024) and gender (OR 1.4 for female, p = 0.028). Mean psychological distress score on Kessler 6 (K6) was 9 (Range: 0-28). Significant predictors of psychological distress were age (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001), primary site (p < 0.01), and decision preference (p < 0.01). HNC patients who are either tertiary educated or female are more likely to prefer active involvement in decision-making. Psychological distress is more likely in patients actively involved in decision making, younger patients, and in females. Patients experienced paternalistic decision-making, but most preferred active or a shared approached. Clinicians need to be aware of potential for psychological distress in active decision-makers and refer patients for psychosocial support. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.

How does trust affect patient preferences for participation in decision-making?

PubMed

Kraetschmer, Nancy; Sharpe, Natasha; Urowitz, Sara; Deber, Raisa B

2004-12-01

Does trust in physicians aid or hinder patient autonomy? We examine the relationship between trust in the recipient's doctor, and desire for a participative role in decisions about medical treatment. We conducted a cross-sectional survey in an urban Canadian teaching hospital. A total of 606 respondents in three clinics (breast cancer, prostate cancer, fracture) completed questionnaires. The instrument included the Problem Solving Decision Making (PSDM) Scale, which used two vignettes (current health condition, chest pain) to categorize respondents by preferred role, and the Trust-in-Physician Scale. Few respondents preferred an autonomous role (2.9% for the current health condition vignette and 1.2% for the chest pain vignette); most preferred shared decision-making (DM) (67.3% current health condition; 48.7% chest pain) or a passive role (29.6% current health condition; 50.1% chest pain). Trust-in-physician yielded 6.3% with blind trust, 36.1% with high trust, 48.6% moderate trust and 9.0% low trust. As hypothesized, autonomous patients had relatively low levels of trust, passive respondents were more likely to have blind trust, while shared respondents had high but not excessive trust. Trust had a significant influence on preferred role even after controlling for the demographic factors such as sex, age and education. Very few respondents wish an autonomous role; those who do tend to have lower trust in their providers. Familiarity with a clinical condition increases desire for a shared (as opposed to passive) role. Shared DM often accompanies, and may require, a trusting patient-physician relationship.

Evaluation of a Shared Decision-Making Intervention on the Utilization of Evidence-Based Psychotherapy in a VA Outpatient PTSD Clinic.

PubMed

Hessinger, Jonathan D; London, Melissa J; Baer, Sheila M

2017-03-13

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has continued to emphasize the availability, access, and utilization of high quality mental health care particularly in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While dissemination and availability of evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) have only increased, treatment engagement and utilization have continued to be oft-noted challenges. Administrators, researchers, and individual clinicians have continued to develop and explore novel systemic and individualized interventions to address these issues. Pilot studies utilizing shared decision-making models to aid in veteran treatment selection have demonstrated the impact this approach may have on selection of and engagement in EBPs for PTSD. Based on these promising studies, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient PTSD clinic began to implement a shared-decision making intervention as part of a clinic redesign. In seeking to evaluate the impact of this intervention, archival clinical data from 1,056 veterans were reviewed by the authors for rates of treatment selection, EBP initiation, session attendance, and EBP completion. Time elapsed from consult until EBP initiation was also computed by the authors. These variables were then compared on the basis of whether the veteran received the shared-decision making intervention. Veterans who received the intervention were more likely to select and thus initiate an EBP for PTSD sooner than veterans who did not receive this intervention. Veterans, whether receiving the intervention or not, did not differ in therapy session attendance and completion. Implications of these findings and directions for future study are further discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Sharing mates and nest boxes is associated with female "friendship" in European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris.

PubMed

Henry, Laurence; Bourguet, Cécile; Coulon, Marion; Aubry, Christine; Hausberger, Martine

2013-02-01

Breeding decisions in birds involve both mate and nest choice, and there is increasing evidence that social influences may modulate individual choices. Female preferences may be affected by other females' preferences and mutual choice cannot always be excluded, which makes the whole pattern more complex than assumed by most sexual selection models. Social transmission may be facilitated by particular social bonds, therefore prebreeding social networks may influence later mate choices. The other case where females share mate or resources is polygyny, generally viewed to only benefit males. If mutual benefits may arise then mechanisms should evolve to reduce the reproductive cost for females such as to reduce the cost of aggression by sharing their mate with a preferred same-sex social partner. We tested the hypothesis that females' mating decisions may be influenced by the prebreeding social network and that social partner relations established prior to breeding may share decisions (mate/sites) in a facultatively polygynous species, the European starling. Two experiments were designed to test the relative importance of male or nest by following the whole dynamics of the breeding cycle from the prebreeding period until mate and nest selection. In both cases socially isolated females tended to be excluded from breeding, while prebreeding social partners tended to share mates and to nest in close proximity, mate copying leading in some case to polygyny. The final pattern resulted both from female "likes and dislikes" and male preferences for some females. Aggressive interactions between females were rare. Vocal sharing between females may have been a clue for males as to the degree of social integration of these females. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved