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

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

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

Knowledge sharing to facilitate regulatory decision-making in regard to alternatives to animal testing: Report of an EPAA workshop.

PubMed

Ramirez, Tzutzuy; Beken, Sonja; Chlebus, Magda; Ellis, Graham; Griesinger, Claudius; De Jonghe, Sandra; Manou, Irene; Mehling, Annette; Reisinger, Kerstin; Rossi, Laura H; van Benthem, Jan; van der Laan, Jan Willem; Weissenhorn, Renate; Sauer, Ursula G

2015-10-01

The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) convened a workshop Knowledge sharing to facilitate regulatory decision-making. Fifty invited participants from the European Commission, national and European agencies and bodies, different industry sectors (chemicals, cosmetics, fragrances, pharmaceuticals, vaccines), and animal protection organizations attended the workshop. Four case studies exemplarily revealed which procedures are in place to obtain regulatory acceptance of new test methods in different sectors. Breakout groups discussed the status quo identifying the following facilitators for regulatory acceptance of alternatives to animal testing: Networking and communication (including cross-sector collaboration, international cooperation and harmonization); involvement of regulatory agencies from the initial stages of test method development on; certainty on prerequisites for test method acceptance including the establishment of specific criteria for regulatory acceptance. Data sharing and intellectual property issues affect many aspects of test method development, validation and regulatory acceptance. In principle, all activities should address replacement, reduction and refinement methods (albeit animal testing is generally prohibited in the cosmetics sector). Provision of financial resources and education support all activities aiming at facilitating the acceptance and use of alternatives to animal testing. Overall, workshop participants recommended building confidence in new methodologies by applying and gaining experience with them. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

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.

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

Use of a web-based survey to facilitate shared decision making for patients eligible for cancer screening.

PubMed

Brackett, Charles D; Kearing, Stephen

2015-04-01

Our aim was to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) during preventive visits by utilizing a web-based survey system to offer colorectal cancer (CRC) and prostate cancer screening decision aids (DAs) to appropriately identified patients prior to the visit. Patients completed a web-based questionnaire before their preventive medicine appointment. Age- and gender-appropriate patients completed additional questions to determine eligibility for CRC or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Eligible patients were offered a choice of video or print DA, and completed questions assessing their knowledge, values, and preferences regarding the screening decision. Responses were summarized and fed forward to clinician and patient reports. Overall, 11,493 CRC and 4,384 PSA questionnaires were completed. Patient responses were used to identify those eligible for cancer-screening DAs: 2,187 (19 %) for CRC and 2,962 (68 %) for PSA; 15 % of eligible patients requested a DA. Many patients declined a DA because they indicated they "already know enough to make their decision" (34 % for CRC, 46 % for PSA). A web-based questionnaire provides an efficient means to identify patients eligible for cancer screening decisions and to offer them DAs before an appointment. Pre-visit use of DAs along with reports giving feedback to patients and clinicians provides an opportunity for SDM to occur at the visit.

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.

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.

A systematic review of decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision-making in chronic illnesses: a review protocol.

PubMed

Wieringa, Thomas H; Kunneman, Marleen; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene; Montori, Victor M; de Wit, Maartje; Smets, Ellen M A; Schoonmade, Linda J; Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela; Snoek, Frank J

2017-08-07

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians and patients work side-by-side to decide together on the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six key elements of SDM can be distinguished: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences and making the decision. Decision aids (DAs) are tools that facilitate SDM. The impact of DAs for chronic illnesses on SDM, clinical and patient reported outcomes remains uncertain. We will perform a systematic review aiming to describe (a) which SDM elements are incorporated in DAs for adult patients with chronic conditions and (b) the effects of DA use on SDM, clinical and patient reported outcomes. This manuscript reports on the protocol for this systematic review. The following databases will be searched for relevant articles: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO, from their inception to October 2016. We will ascertain ongoing research by querying experts and searching trial registries. To enhance feasibility, we will limit the review to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients with chronic cardiovascular and/or respiratory diseases and/or diabetes. SDM elements incorporated in DAs, DA effects and DA itself will be described. This study will characterize DAs for chronic illness and will provide an overview of their effects on SDM, clinical and patient reported outcomes. We anticipate this review will bring to light knowledge gaps and inform further research into the design and use of DAs for patients with chronic conditions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .

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 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.

Shared decision-making in epilepsy management.

PubMed

Pickrell, W O; Elwyn, G; Smith, P E M

2015-06-01

Policy makers, clinicians, and patients increasingly recognize the need for greater patient involvement in clinical decision-making. Shared decision-making helps address these concerns by providing a framework for clinicians and patients to make decisions together using the best evidence. Shared decision-making is applicable to situations where several acceptable options exist (clinical equipoise). Such situations occur commonly in epilepsy, for example, in decisions regarding the choice of medication, treatment in pregnancy, and medication withdrawal. A talk model is a way of implementing shared decision-making during consultations, and decision aids are useful tools to assist in the process. Although there is limited evidence available for shared decision-making in epilepsy, there are several benefits of shared decision-making in general including improved decision quality, more informed choices, and better treatment concordance. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mapping Perceptions of Lupus Medication Decision-Making Facilitators: The Importance of Patient Context.

PubMed

Qu, Haiyan; Shewchuk, Richard M; Alarcón, Graciela; Fraenkel, Liana; Leong, Amye; Dall'Era, Maria; Yazdany, Jinoos; Singh, Jasvinder A

2016-12-01

Numerous factors can impede or facilitate patients' medication decision-making and adherence to physicians' recommendations. Little is known about how patients and physicians jointly view issues that affect the decision-making process. Our objective was to derive an empirical framework of patient-identified facilitators to lupus medication decision-making from key stakeholders (including 15 physicians, 5 patients/patient advocates, and 8 medical professionals) using a patient-centered cognitive mapping approach. We used nominal group patient panels to identify facilitators to lupus treatment decision-making. Stakeholders independently sorted the identified facilitators (n = 98) based on their similarities and rated the importance of each facilitator in patient decision-making. Data were analyzed using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. A cognitive map was derived that represents an empirical framework of facilitators for lupus treatment decisions from multiple stakeholders' perspectives. The facilitator clusters were 1) hope for a normal/healthy life, 2) understand benefits and effectiveness of taking medications, 3) desire to minimize side effects, 4) medication-related data, 5) medication effectiveness for "me," 6) family focus, 7) confidence in physician, 8) medication research, 9) reassurance about medication, and 10) medication economics. Consideration of how different stakeholders perceive the relative importance of lupus medication decision-making clusters is an important step toward improving patient-physician communication and effective shared decision-making. The empirically derived framework of medication decision-making facilitators can be used as a guide to develop a lupus decision aid that focuses on improving physician-patient communication. © 2016, American College of Rheumatology.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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…

Option Grids to facilitate shared decision making for patients with Osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a single site, efficacy trial.

PubMed

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

2014-04-07

Despite policy interest, an ethical imperative, and evidence of the benefits of patient decision support tools, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) in day-to-day clinical practice remains slow and is inhibited by barriers that include culture and attitudes; resources and time pressures. Patient decision support tools often require high levels of health and computer literacy. Option Grids are one-page evidence-based summaries of the available condition-specific treatment options, listing patients' frequently asked questions. They are designed to be sufficiently brief and accessible enough to support a better dialogue between patients and clinicians during routine consultations. This paper describes a study to assess whether an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA of the knee) facilitates SDM, and explores the use of Option Grids by patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy. This will be a stepped wedge exploratory trial involving 72 patients with OA of the knee referred from primary medical care to a specialist musculoskeletal service in Oldham. Six physiotherapists will sequentially join the trial and consult with six patients using usual care procedures. After a period of brief training in using the Option Grid, the same six physiotherapists will consult with six further patients using an Option Grid in the consultation. The primary outcome will be efficacy of the Option Grid in facilitating SDM as measured by observational scores using the OPTION scale. Comparisons will be made between patients who have received the Option Grid and those who received usual care. A Decision Quality Measure (DQM) will assess quality of decision making. The health literacy of patients will be measured using the REALM-R instrument. Consultations will be observed and audio-recorded. Interviews will be conducted with the physiotherapists, patients and any interpreters present to explore their views of using the Option Grid. Option Grids offer a

Shared learning in general practice--facilitators and barriers.

PubMed

van de Mortel, Thea; Silberberg, Peter; Ahern, Christine

2013-03-01

Capacity for teaching in general practice clinics is limited. Shared learning sessions are one form of vertically integrated teaching that may ameliorate capacity constraints. This study sought to understand the perceptions of general practitioner supervisors, learners and practice staff of the facilitators of shared learning in general practice clinics. Using a grounded theory approach, semistructured interviews were conducted and analysed to generate a theory about the topic. Thirty-five stakeholders from nine general practices participated. Facilitators of shared learning included enabling factors such as small group facilitation skills, space, administrative support and technological resources; reinforcing factors such as targeted funding, and predisposing factors such as participant attributes. Views from multiple stakeholders suggest that the implementation of shared learning in general practice clinics would be supported by an ecological approach that addresses all these factors.

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…

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

PubMed

Kane, Heather L; Halpern, Michael T; Squiers, Linda B; Treiman, Katherine A; McCormack, Lauren A

2014-01-01

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice. © 2014 American Cancer Society, Inc.

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.

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

[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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Shortcomings in Information Sharing Facilitates Transnational Organized Crime

DTIC Science & Technology

2017-06-09

SHORTCOMINGS IN INFORMATION SHARING FACILITATES TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S...JUN 2017 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Shortcomings in Information Sharing Facilitates Transnational Organized Crime 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b...NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ATTN: ATZL-SWD-GD Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027

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.

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.

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.

[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.

'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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

[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.

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

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.

Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions.

PubMed

Duncan, Edward; Best, Catherine; Hagen, Suzanne

2010-01-20

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.

Caring and Sharing: Becoming a Peer Facilitator.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Myrick, Robert D.; Erney, Tom

This book contains information and skill-building activities designed to train adolescents as peer facilitators. The first chapter describes peer facilitation and provides an overview of the book. The second chapter discusses principles, concepts, and ideas to help better understand how people learn, make decisions, change, and develop their own…

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…

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.

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.

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.

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,…

A Liberation Health Approach to Examining Challenges and Facilitators of Peer-to-Peer Human Milk Sharing.

PubMed

McCloskey, Rebecca J; Karandikar, Sharvari

2018-04-01

Human milk sharing between peers is a common and growing practice. Although human milk has been unequivocally established as the ideal food source for infants, much stigma surrounds the practice of human milk sharing. Furthermore, there is little research examining peer-to-peer human milk sharing. Research Aim: We used the liberation health social work model to examine the experiences of mothers who have received donated human milk from a peer. Research questions were as follows: (a) What challenges do recipient mothers experience in peer-to-peer human milk sharing? (b) What supports do recipient mothers identify in peer-to-peer human milk sharing? Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with mothers ( N = 20) in the United States and Canada who were recipients of peer-to-peer human milk sharing. Researchers independently reviewed transcripts and completed open, axial, and selective coding. The authors discussed conflicts in theme identification until agreement was reached. Challenges to peer-to-peer human milk sharing were (a) substantial effort required to secure human milk; (b) institutional barriers; (c) milk bank specific barriers; and (d) lack of societal awareness and acceptance of human milk sharing. Facilitators included (a) informed decision making and transparency and (b) support from healthcare professionals. Despite risks and barriers, participants continued to pursue peer-to-peer human milk sharing. Informed by a liberation health framework, healthcare professionals-rather than universally discouraging human milk sharing between peers-should facilitate open dialogue with parents about the pros and cons of this practice and about screening recommendations to promote safety and mitigate risk.

Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study.

PubMed

Giguere, Anik M C; Labrecque, Michel; Haynes, R Brian; Grad, Roland; Pluye, Pierre; Légaré, France; Cauchon, Michel; Greenway, Matthew; Carmichael, Pierre-Hugues

2014-10-05

Decision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice. We used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information. One hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54% of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40%, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89% expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6±1.2, scale 1-7, with 7 being "high"), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P<0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

Decision Facilitator for Launch Operations using Intelligent Agents

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Thirumalainambi, Rajkumar; Bardina, Jorge

2005-01-01

Launch operations require millions of micro-decisions which contribute to the macro decision of 'Go/No-Go' for a launch. Knowledge workers"(such as managers and technical professionals) need information in a timely precise manner as it can greatly affect mission success. The intelligent agent (web search agent) uses the words of a hypertext markup language document which is connected through the internet. The intelligent agent's actions are to determine if its goal of seeking a website containing a specified target (e.g., keyword or phrase), has been met. There are few parameters that should be defined for the keyword search like "Go" and "No-Go". Instead of visiting launch and range decision making servers individually, the decision facilitator constantly connects to all servers, accumulating decisions so the final decision can be decided in a timely manner. The facilitator agent uses the singleton design pattern, which ensures that only a single instance of the facilitator agent exists at one time. Negotiations could proceed between many agents resulting in a final decision. This paper describes details of intelligent agents and their interaction to derive an unified decision support system.

Structured representation for core elements of common clinical decision support interventions to facilitate knowledge sharing.

PubMed

Zhou, Li; Hongsermeier, Tonya; Boxwala, Aziz; Lewis, Janet; Kawamoto, Kensaku; Maviglia, Saverio; Gentile, Douglas; Teich, Jonathan M; Rocha, Roberto; Bell, Douglas; Middleton, Blackford

2013-01-01

At present, there are no widely accepted, standard approaches for representing computer-based clinical decision support (CDS) intervention types and their structural components. This study aimed to identify key requirements for the representation of five widely utilized CDS intervention types: alerts and reminders, order sets, infobuttons, documentation templates/forms, and relevant data presentation. An XML schema was proposed for representing these interventions and their core structural elements (e.g., general metadata, applicable clinical scenarios, CDS inputs, CDS outputs, and CDS logic) in a shareable manner. The schema was validated by building CDS artifacts for 22 different interventions, targeted toward guidelines and clinical conditions called for in the 2011 Meaningful Use criteria. Custom style sheets were developed to render the XML files in human-readable form. The CDS knowledge artifacts were shared via a public web portal. Our experience also identifies gaps in existing standards and informs future development of standards for CDS knowledge representation and sharing.

Web-services-based spatial decision support system to facilitate nuclear waste siting

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Huang, L. Xinglai; Sheng, Grant

2006-10-01

The availability of spatial web services enables data sharing among managers, decision and policy makers and other stakeholders in much simpler ways than before and subsequently has created completely new opportunities in the process of spatial decision making. Though generally designed for a certain problem domain, web-services-based spatial decision support systems (WSDSS) can provide a flexible problem-solving environment to explore the decision problem, understand and refine problem definition, and generate and evaluate multiple alternatives for decision. This paper presents a new framework for the development of a web-services-based spatial decision support system. The WSDSS is comprised of distributed web services that either have their own functions or provide different geospatial data and may reside in different computers and locations. WSDSS includes six key components, namely: database management system, catalog, analysis functions and models, GIS viewers and editors, report generators, and graphical user interfaces. In this study, the architecture of a web-services-based spatial decision support system to facilitate nuclear waste siting is described as an example. The theoretical, conceptual and methodological challenges and issues associated with developing web services-based spatial decision support system are described.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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

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…

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

A qualitative analysis of implementing shared decision making in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in the United Kingdom: Stages and facilitators.

PubMed

Abrines-Jaume, Neus; Midgley, Nick; Hopkins, Katy; Hoffman, Jasmine; Martin, Kate; Law, Duncan; Wolpert, Miranda

2016-01-01

To explore the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), and identify clinician-determined facilitators to SDM. Professionals from four UK CAMHS tried a range of tools to support SDM. They reflected on their experiences using plan-do-study-act log books. A total of 23 professionals completed 307 logs, which were transcribed and analysed using Framework Analysis in Atlas.Ti. Three states of implementation (apprehension, feeling clunky, and integration) and three aspects of clinician behavior or approach (effort, trust, and flexibility) were identified. Implementation of SDM in CAMHS requires key positive clinician behaviors, including preparedness to put in effort, trust in young people, and use of the approach flexibly. Implementation of SDM in CAMHS is effortful, and while tools may help support SDM, clinicians need to be allowed to use the tools flexibly to allow them to move from a state of apprehension through a sense of feeling "clunky" to integration in practice. © The Author(s) 2014.

Shared decision making in the management of children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia.

PubMed

Beck, Carolyn E; Boydell, Katherine M; Stasiulis, Elaine; Blanchette, Victor S; Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary; Birken, Catherine S; Breakey, Vicky R; Parkin, Patricia C

2014-10-01

This study aimed to examine the treatment decision-making process for children hospitalized with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Using focus groups, we studied children with ITP, parents of children with ITP, and health care professionals, inquiring about participants' experience with decision support and decision making in newly diagnosed ITP. Data were examined using thematic analysis. Themes that emerged from children were feelings of "anxiety, fear, and confusion"; the need to "understand information"; and "treatment choice," the experience of which was age dependent. For parents, "anxiety, fear, and confusion" was a dominant theme; "treatment choice" revealed that participants felt directed toward intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) for initial treatment. For health care professionals, "comfort level" highlighted factors contributing to professionals' comfort with offering options; "assumptions" were made about parental desire for participation in shared decision making (SDM) and parental acceptance of treatment options; "providing information" was informative regarding modes of facilitating SDM; and "treatment choice" revealed a discrepancy between current practice (directed toward IVIG) and the ideal of SDM. At our center, families of children with newly diagnosed ITP are not experiencing SDM. Our findings support the implementation of SDM to facilitate patient-centered care for the management of pediatric ITP.

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.

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 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

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…

To Share or Not to Share: Malaysian Healthcare Professionals' Views on Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Making Roles.

PubMed

Lee, Yew Kong; Lee, Ping Yein; Cheong, Ai Theng; Ng, Chirk Jenn; Abdullah, Khatijah Lim; Ong, Teng Aik; Razack, Azad Hassan Abdul

2015-01-01

To explore the views of Malaysian healthcare professionals (HCPs) on stakeholders' decision making roles in localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with HCPs treating PCa. Data was analysed using a thematic approach. Four in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted between December 2012 and March 2013 using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. The participants comprised private urologists (n = 4), government urologists (n = 6), urology trainees (n = 6), government policy maker (n = 1) and oncologists (n = 3). HCP perceptions of the roles of the three parties involved (HCPs, patients, family) included: HCP as the main decision maker, HCP as a guide to patients' decision making, HCP as a facilitator to family involvement, patients as main decision maker and patient prefers HCP to decide. HCPs preferred to share the decision with patients due to equipoise between prostate treatment options. Family culture was important as family members often decided on the patient's treatment due to Malaysia's close-knit family culture. A range of decision making roles were reported by HCPs. It is thus important that stakeholder roles are clarified during PCa treatment decisions. HCPs need to cultivate an awareness of sociocultural norms and family dynamics when supporting non-Western patients in making decisions about PCa.

To Share or Not to Share: Malaysian Healthcare Professionals' Views on Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Making Roles

PubMed Central

Lee, Yew Kong; Lee, Ping Yein; Cheong, Ai Theng; Ng, Chirk Jenn; Abdullah, Khatijah Lim; Ong, Teng Aik; Razack, Azad Hassan Abdul

2015-01-01

Aim To explore the views of Malaysian healthcare professionals (HCPs) on stakeholders’ decision making roles in localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. Methods Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with HCPs treating PCa. Data was analysed using a thematic approach. Four in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted between December 2012 and March 2013 using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. Findings The participants comprised private urologists (n = 4), government urologists (n = 6), urology trainees (n = 6), government policy maker (n = 1) and oncologists (n = 3). HCP perceptions of the roles of the three parties involved (HCPs, patients, family) included: HCP as the main decision maker, HCP as a guide to patients’ decision making, HCP as a facilitator to family involvement, patients as main decision maker and patient prefers HCP to decide. HCPs preferred to share the decision with patients due to equipoise between prostate treatment options. Family culture was important as family members often decided on the patient’s treatment due to Malaysia’s close-knit family culture. Conclusions A range of decision making roles were reported by HCPs. It is thus important that stakeholder roles are clarified during PCa treatment decisions. HCPs need to cultivate an awareness of sociocultural norms and family dynamics when supporting non-Western patients in making decisions about PCa. PMID:26559947

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.

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/

Online patient information on Vagus Nerve Stimulation: How reliable is it for facilitating shared decision making?

PubMed

Ved, Ronak; Cobbold, Naomi; Igbagiri, Kueni; Willis, Mark; Leach, Paul; Zaben, Malik

2017-08-01

This study evaluates the quality of information available on the internet for carers of children with epilepsy considering treatment with Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS). Selected key phrases were entered into two popular search engines (Google™, Yahoo™). These phrases were: "Vagus nerve stimulator", alone and in combination with "childhood epilepsy", "paediatric epilepsy" and "epilepsy in childhood"; "VNS", and "VNS epilepsy". The first 50 hits per search were then screened. Of 600 identified sites, duplicated (262), irrelevant (230) and inaccessible (15) results were excluded. 93 websites were identified for evaluation using the DISCERN instrument, an online validation tool for patient information websites. The mean DISCERN score of all analysed websites was 39/80 (49%; SD 13.5). This equates to Fair to borderline Poor global quality, (Excellent=80-63; Good=62-51; Fair=50-39; Poor=38-27; Very poor=26-15). None of the analysed sites obtained an Excellent quality rating. 13% (12) obtained a Good score, 40% (37) obtained an Average score, 35% (33) obtained a Poor score, and 12% (11) obtained a Very poor score. The cohort of websites scored particularly poorly on assessment of whether reliable, holistic information was presented, for instance provision of reliable sources, (28%, SD 18) and discussion of alternative treatments, (30%, SD 14). To facilitate patient-centred shared decision-making, high quality information needs to be available for patients and families considering VNS. This study identifies that such information is difficult to locate on the internet. There is a need to develop focussed and reliable online patient resources for VNS. Copyright © 2017 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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 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 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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Facilitators and constraints at each stage of the migration decision process.

PubMed

Kley, Stefanie

2017-10-01

Behavioural models of migration emphasize the importance of migration decision-making for the explanation of subsequent behaviour. But empirical migration research regularly finds considerable gaps between those who intend to migrate and those who actually realize their intention. This paper applies the Theory of Planned Behaviour, enriched by the Rubicon model, to test specific hypotheses about distinct effects of facilitators and constraints on specific stages of migration decision-making and behaviour. The data come from a tailor-made panel survey based on random samples of people drawn from two German cities in 2006-07. The results show that in conventional models the effects of facilitators and constraints on migration decision-making are likely to be underestimated. Splitting the process of migration decision-making into a pre-decisional and a pre-actional phase helps to avoid bias in the estimated effects of facilitators and constraints on both migration decision-making and migration behaviour.

Involvement of people with dementia in making decisions about their lives: a qualitative study that appraises shared decision-making concerning daycare

PubMed Central

Groen-van de Ven, Leontine; Smits, Carolien; de Graaff, Fuusje; Span, Marijke; Eefsting, Jan; Jukema, Jan; Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra

2017-01-01

Objective To explore how people with dementia, their informal caregivers and their professionals participate in decision making about daycare and to develop a typology of participation trajectories. Design A qualitative study with a prospective, multiperspective design, based on 244 semistructured interviews, conducted during three interview rounds over the course of a year. Analysis was by means of content analysis and typology construction. Setting Community settings and nursing homes in the Netherlands. Participants 19 people with dementia, 36 of their informal caregivers and 38 of their professionals (including nurses, daycare employees and case managers). Results The participants’ responses related to three critical points in the decision-making trajectory about daycare: (1) the initial positive or negative expectations of daycare; (2) negotiation about trying out daycare by promoting, resisting or attuning to others; and (3) trying daycare, which resulted in positive or negative reactions from people with dementia and led to a decision. The ways in which care networks proceeded through these three critical points resulted in a typology of participation trajectories, including (1) working together positively toward daycare, (2) bringing conflicting perspectives together toward trying daycare and (3) not reaching commitment to try daycare. Conclusion Shared decision making with people with dementia is possible and requires and adapted process of decision making. Our results show that initial preferences based on information alone may change when people with dementia experience daycare. It is important to have a try-out period so that people with dementia can experience daycare without having to decide whether to continue it. Whereas shared decision making in general aims at moving from initial preferences to informed preferences, professionals should focus more on moving from initial preferences to experienced preferences for people with dementia

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

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.

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

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.…

The Association of Patient Chronic Disease Burden and Self-Management Requirements With Shared Decision Making in Primary Care Visits

PubMed Central

Drum, Melinda; Cooper, Lisa A.

2014-01-01

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is associated with positive health outcomes and may be particularly relevant for patients with chronic disease. Objectives: To investigate whether (1) patients with chronic diseases, particularly those requiring self-management, are more likely to engage in SDM behaviors than patients without chronic diseases and (2) patients with chronic diseases are more likely to have their physicians engage them in SDM. Design: A cross-sectional study of patients who were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial to improve patient–physician communication. Participants: Adult patients with hypertension at community health clinics in Baltimore, Maryland. Approach: We used multivariable regression models to examine the associations of the following predictor variables: (1) chronic disease burden and (2) diseases requiring self-management with the following outcome variables measuring SDM components: (1) patient information sharing, (2) patient decision making, and (3) physician SDM facilitation. Key Results: Patients with greater chronic disease burden and more diseases requiring self-management reported more information sharing (β = .07, P = .03 and β = .12, P = .046, respectively) and decision making (β = .06, P = .02 and β = .21, P < .001) as did patients who reported poor general health. Physician facilitation of SDM was not associated with chronic disease burden or with diseases requiring self-management but was associated with higher patient income. Conclusions: Patients with chronic diseases, particularly those requiring self-management, may be more likely to engage in SDM behaviors, but physicians may not be more likely to engage such patients in SDM. Targeting patients with chronic disease for SDM may improve health outcomes among the chronically ill, particularly among vulnerable patients (eg, minorities, low-income patients) who suffer disproportionately from such conditions. PMID:26640812

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Involved, inputting or informing: "Shared" decision making in adult mental health care.

PubMed

Bradley, Eleanor; Green, Debra

2018-02-01

A diagnosis of serious mental illness can impact on the whole family. Families informally provide significant amounts of care but are disproportionately at risk of carer burden when compared to those supporting people with other long-term conditions. Shared decision making (SDM) is an ethical model of health communication associated with positive health outcomes; however, there has been little research to evaluate how routinely family is invited to participate in SDM, or what this looks like in practice. This UK study aimed to better understand how the family caregivers of those diagnosed with SMI are currently involved in decision making, particularly decisions about treatment options including prescribed medication. Objectives were to Explore the extent to which family members wish to be involved in decisions about prescribed medication Determine how and when professionals engage family in these decisions Identify barriers and facilitators associated with the engagement of family in decisions about treatment. Open-ended questions were sent to professionals and family members to elicit written responses. Qualitative responses were analysed thematically. Themes included the definition of involvement and "rules of engagement." Staff members are gatekeepers for family involvement, and the process is not democratic. Family and staff ascribe practical, rather than recovery-oriented roles to family, with pre-occupation around notions of adherence. Staff members need support, training and education to apply SDM. Time to exchange information is vital but practically difficult. Negotiated teams, comprising of staff, service users, family, peers as applicable, with ascribed roles and responsibilities could support SDM. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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…

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.

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.

Shared decision-making using personal health record technology: a scoping review at the crossroads.

PubMed

Davis, Selena; Roudsari, Abdul; Raworth, Rebecca; Courtney, Karen L; MacKay, Lee

2017-07-01

This scoping review aims to determine the size and scope of the published literature on shared decision-making (SDM) using personal health record (PHR) technology and to map the literature in terms of system design and outcomes. Literature from Medline, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Engineering Village, and Web of Science (2005-2015) using the search terms "personal health records," "shared decision making," "patient-provider communication," "decision aid," and "decision support" was included. Articles ( n  = 38) addressed the efficacy or effectiveness of PHRs for SDM in engaging patients in self-care and decision-making or ways patients can be supported in SDM via PHR. Analysis resulted in an integrated SDM-PHR conceptual framework. An increased interest in SDM via PHR is apparent, with 55% of articles published within last 3 years. Sixty percent of the literature originates from the United States. Twenty-six articles address a particular clinical condition, with 10 focused on diabetes, and one-third offer empirical evidence of patient outcomes. The tethered and standalone PHR architectural types were most studied, while the interconnected PHR type was the focus of more recently published methodological approaches and discussion articles. The study reveals a scarcity of rigorous research on SDM via PHR. Research has focused on one or a few of the SDM elements and not on the intended complete process. Just as PHR technology designed on an interconnected architecture has the potential to facilitate SDM, integrating the SDM process into PHR technology has the potential to drive PHR value. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Prostate Cancer Patients' Understanding of the Gleason Scoring System: Implications for Shared Decision-Making.

PubMed

Tagai, Erin K; Miller, Suzanne M; Kutikov, Alexander; Diefenbach, Michael A; Gor, Ronak A; Al-Saleem, Tahseen; Chen, David Y T; Fleszar, Sara; Roy, Gem

2018-01-15

The Gleason scoring system is a key component of a prostate cancer diagnosis, since it indicates disease aggressiveness. It also serves as a risk communication tool that facilitates shared treatment decision-making. However, the system is highly complex and therefore difficult to communicate: factors which have been shown to undermine well-informed and high-quality shared treatment decision-making. To systematically explore prostate cancer patients' understanding of the Gleason scoring system (GSS), we assessed knowledge and perceived importance among men who had completed treatment (N = 50). Patients were administered a survey that assessed patient knowledge and patients' perceived importance of the GSS, as well as demographics, medical factors (e.g., Gleason score at diagnosis), and health literacy. Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify associations with patient knowledge and perceived importance of the GSS. The sample was generally well-educated (48% with a bachelor's degree or higher) and health literate (M = 12.9, SD = 2.2, range = 3-15). Despite this, patient knowledge of the GSS was low (M = 1.8, SD = 1.4, range = 1-4). Patients' understanding of the importance of the GSS was moderate (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0, range = 0-4) and was positively associated with GSS knowledge (p < .01). Additionally, GSS knowledge was negatively associated with years since biopsy (p < .05). Age and health literacy were positively associated with patients' perceived importance of the GSS (p < .05), but not with GSS knowledge. Patient knowledge is thus less than optimal and would benefit from enhanced communication to maximize shared treatment decision-making. Future studies are needed to explore the potential utility of a simplified Gleason grading system and improved patient-provider communication.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Patient Preferences regarding Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Findings from a multi-site survey.

PubMed

Schoenfeld, Elizabeth M; Kanzaria, Hemal K; Quigley, Denise D; Marie, Peter St; Nayyar, Nikita; Sabbagh, Sarah H; Gress, Kyle L; Probst, Marc A

2018-06-13

As Shared Decision-Making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale (CPS) and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision-making in the ED, while 8-15% preferred to leave decision-making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision-making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. We found the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients

Shared decision making for psychiatric medication management: beyond the micro-social.

PubMed

Morant, Nicola; Kaminskiy, Emma; Ramon, Shulamit

2016-10-01

Mental health care has lagged behind other health-care domains in developing and applying shared decision making (SDM) for treatment decisions. This is despite compatibilities with ideals of modern mental health care such as self-management and recovery-oriented practice, and growing policy-level interest. Psychiatric medication is a mainstay of mental health treatment, but there are known problems with prescribing practices, and service users report feeling uninvolved in medication decisions and concerned about adverse effects. SDM has potential to produce better tailoring of psychiatric medication to individuals' needs. This conceptual review argues that several aspects of mental health care that differ from other health-care contexts (e.g. forms of coercion, questions about service users' insight and disempowerment) may impact on processes and possibilities for SDM. It is therefore problematic to uncritically import models of SDM developed in other health-care contexts. We argue that decision making for psychiatric medication is better understood in a broader way that moves beyond the micro-social focus of a medical consultation. Contextualizing specific medication-related consultations within longer term relationships, and broader service systems enables recognition of the multiple processes, actors and agendas that shape how psychiatric medication is prescribed, managed and used, and which may facilitate or impede SDM. A broad conceptualization of decision making for psychiatric medication that moves beyond the micro-social can account for why SDM in this domain remains a rarity. It has both conceptual and practical utility for evaluating research evidence, identifying future research priorities and highlighting fruitful ways of developing and implementing SDM in mental health care. © 2015 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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.

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…

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.

Involvement of people with dementia in making decisions about their lives: a qualitative study that appraises shared decision-making concerning daycare.

PubMed

Groen-van de Ven, Leontine; Smits, Carolien; de Graaff, Fuusje; Span, Marijke; Eefsting, Jan; Jukema, Jan; Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra

2017-11-12

To explore how people with dementia, their informal caregivers and their professionals participate in decision making about daycare and to develop a typology of participation trajectories. A qualitative study with a prospective, multiperspective design, based on 244 semistructured interviews, conducted during three interview rounds over the course of a year. Analysis was by means of content analysis and typology construction. Community settings and nursing homes in the Netherlands. 19 people with dementia, 36 of their informal caregivers and 38 of their professionals (including nurses, daycare employees and case managers). The participants' responses related to three critical points in the decision-making trajectory about daycare: (1) the initial positive or negative expectations of daycare; (2) negotiation about trying out daycare by promoting, resisting or attuning to others; and (3) trying daycare, which resulted in positive or negative reactions from people with dementia and led to a decision. The ways in which care networks proceeded through these three critical points resulted in a typology of participation trajectories, including (1) working together positively toward daycare, (2) bringing conflicting perspectives together toward trying daycare and (3) not reaching commitment to try daycare. Shared decision making with people with dementia is possible and requires and adapted process of decision making. Our results show that initial preferences based on information alone may change when people with dementia experience daycare. It is important to have a try-out period so that people with dementia can experience daycare without having to decide whether to continue it. Whereas shared decision making in general aims at moving from initial preferences to informed preferences, professionals should focus more on moving from initial preferences to experienced preferences for people with dementia. Professionals can play a crucial role in facilitating the

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

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,…

[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

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.

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

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.

Addressing Barriers to Shared Decision Making Among Latino LGBTQ Patients and Healthcare Providers in Clinical Settings.

PubMed

Baig, Arshiya A; Lopez, Fanny Y; DeMeester, Rachel H; Jia, Justin L; Peek, Monica E; Vela, Monica B

2016-10-01

Effective shared decision making (SDM) between patients and healthcare providers has been positively associated with health outcomes. However, little is known about the SDM process between Latino patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ), and their healthcare providers. Our review of the literature identified unique aspects of Latino LGBTQ persons' culture, health beliefs, and experiences that may affect their ability to engage in SDM with their healthcare providers. Further research needs to examine Latino LGBTQ patient-provider experiences with SDM and develop tools that can better facilitate SDM in this patient population.

Addressing Barriers to Shared Decision Making Among Latino LGBTQ Patients and Healthcare Providers in Clinical Settings

PubMed Central

Lopez, Fanny Y.; DeMeester, Rachel H.; Jia, Justin L.; Peek, Monica E.; Vela, Monica B.

2016-01-01

Abstract Effective shared decision making (SDM) between patients and healthcare providers has been positively associated with health outcomes. However, little is known about the SDM process between Latino patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ), and their healthcare providers. Our review of the literature identified unique aspects of Latino LGBTQ persons’ culture, health beliefs, and experiences that may affect their ability to engage in SDM with their healthcare providers. Further research needs to examine Latino LGBTQ patient–provider experiences with SDM and develop tools that can better facilitate SDM in this patient population. PMID:27617356

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

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.

[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.

How can surgeons facilitate resident intraoperative decision-making?

PubMed

Hill, Katherine A; Dasari, Mohini; Littleton, Eliza B; Hamad, Giselle G

2017-10-01

Cognitive skills such as decision-making are critical to developing operative autonomy. We explored resident decision-making using a recollection of specific examples, from the attending surgeon and resident, after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In a separate semi-structured interview, the attending and resident both answered five questions, regarding the resident's operative roles and decisions, ways the attending helped, times when the attending operated, and the effect of the relationship between attending and resident. Themes were extracted using inductive methods. Thirty interviews were completed after 15 cases. Facilitators of decision-making included dialogue, safe struggle, and appreciation for retraction. Aberrant case characteristics, anatomic uncertainties, and time pressures provided barriers. Attending-resident mismatches included descriptions of transitioning control to the attending. Reciprocal dialogue, including concept-driven feedback, is helpful during intraoperative teaching. Unanticipated findings impede resident decision-making, and we describe differences in understanding transfers of operative control. Given these factors, we suggest that pre-operative discussions may be beneficial. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

Stakeholders apply the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to facilitate coverage decisions.

PubMed

Dahm, Philipp; Oxman, Andrew D; Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Guyatt, Gordon H; Murad, M Hassan; Amato, Laura; Parmelli, Elena; Davoli, Marina; Morgan, Rebecca L; Mustafa, Reem A; Sultan, Shahnaz; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Akl, Elie A; Schünemann, Holger J

2017-06-01

Coverage decisions are complex and require the consideration of many factors. A well-defined, transparent process could improve decision-making and facilitate decision-maker accountability. We surveyed key US-based stakeholders regarding their current approaches for coverage decisions. Then, we held a workshop to test an evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework for coverage based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. A total of 42 individuals (including 19 US stakeholders as well as international health policymakers and GRADE working group members) attended the workshop. Of the 19 stakeholders, 14 (74%) completed the survey before the workshop. Almost all of their organizations (13 of 14; 93%) used systematic reviews for coverage decision-making; few (2 of 14; 14%) developed their own evidence synthesis; a majority (9 of 14; 64%) rated the certainty of evidence (using various systems); almost all (13 of 14; 93%) denied formal consideration of resource use; and half (7 of 14; 50%) reported explicit criteria for decision-making. At the workshop, stakeholders successfully applied the EtD framework to four case studies and provided narrative feedback, which centered on contextual factors affecting coverage decisions in the United States, the need for reliable data on subgroups of patients, and the challenge of decision-making without formal consideration of resource use. Stakeholders successfully applied the EtD framework to four case studies and highlighted contextual factors affecting coverage decisions and affirmed its value. Their input informed the further development of a revised EtD framework, now publicly available (http://gradepro.org/). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Minorities with lupus nephritis and medications: a study of facilitators to medication decision-making.

PubMed

Singh, Jasvinder A; Qu, Haiyan; Yazdany, Jinoos; Chatham, Winn; Shewchuk, Richard

2015-12-17

Medication decision-making poses a challenge for a significant proportion of patients. This is an even more challenging for patients who have complex, rare, immune conditions that affect them at a young age and are associated with the use of life-long treatment, perceived by some as having significant risk of side effects and toxicity. The aim of our study was to examine the perspectives of women with lupus nephritis on facilitators to medication decision-making. We used the nominal group technique (NGT), a structured formative process to elicit patient perspectives. An NGT expert moderated eight patient group meetings. Participants (n = 52) responded to the question "What sorts of things make it easier for people to decide to take the medicines that doctors prescribe for treating their lupus kidney disease?" Patients nominated, discussed, and prioritized facilitators to medication decisional processes. Fifty-two women with lupus nephritis participated in eight NGT meetings (27 African-American, 13 Hispanic, and 12 Caucasian). Average age was 40.6 years (standard deviation (SD) = 13.3), and disease duration was 11.8 years (SD = 8.3); 36.5 % obtained at least a college education, and 55.8 % had difficulty in reading health materials. Patients generated 280 decision-making facilitators (range of 26 to 42 per panel). Of these, 102 (36 %) facilitators were perceived by patients as having relatively more influence in decision-making processes than others. Prioritized facilitators included effective patient-physician communication regarding benefits/harms, patient desire to live a normal life and improve quality of life, concern for their dependents, experiencing benefits and few/infrequent/no harms with lupus medications, and their affordability. Relative to African-Americans, Caucasian and Hispanic patients endorsed a smaller percentage of facilitators as influential. Level of agreement with which patients within panels independently agreed in their

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.

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

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

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

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.

Experience facilitates the emergence of sharing behavior among 7.5-month-old infants

PubMed Central

Xu, Jing; Saether, Lucie; Sommerville, Jessica A.

2016-01-01

Given the centrality of prosociality in everyday social functioning, understanding the factors and mechanisms underlying the origins of prosocial development is of critical importance. This experiment investigated whether experience with reciprocal object exchanges can drive the developmental onset of sharing behavior. Seven-month-old infants took part in two laboratory visits to assess their sharing behavior and ability to release objects. During the intervening 7 −14 day period parents led infants in an intervention in which they were either encouraged to release objects into a container (bucket condition, n = 20), or share objects with the parent in the context of reciprocal object exchanges (sharing condition, n = 20). Results showed that infants in the sharing condition shared significantly more than infants in the bucket condition following the intervention, and infants in the sharing condition significantly increased their sharing behavior across the two visits. Parental empathy moderated the effect of this sharing intervention, but frequency of practice did not. These results suggest that reciprocal turn-taking in dyadic object-exchange interactions may facilitate the early emergence of sharing behavior, and this effect is mediated by parental empathy. PMID:27657650

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

Attitudes toward shared decision-making and risk communication practices in residents and their teachers.

PubMed

van der Horst, Klazine; Giger, Max; Siegrist, Michael

2011-01-01

Health professionals' attitudes toward shared decision-making (SDM) are an important facilitator of SDM, but information on these attitudes is limited. The purpose of this study is to examine attitudes, education and practices around SDM and risk communication in residents and their teachers. A questionnaire was mailed to residents in Swiss hospitals in postgraduate medical training programs assessing risk communication education and SDM. In an Internet survey, teachers of the medical training programs answered questions on SDM and risk communication practices. Data were analyzed with ANOVAs and paired samples t-tests. Significant differences in residents' and teachers' opinions regarding SDM were found between specialties and number of residents in a residency (1-3, 4-10, ≥11 residents). Teachers showed a high use of verbal risk communication. Neither residents nor teachers expressed a strong feeling that they lacked the time for decision-making. Residents were significantly more negative about the ability of patients to participate in decision-making compared to their teachers. As residents are more negative about SDM compared to teachers and teachers do not always use the preferred and best methods for risk communication, more education for teachers and residents is needed to improve communication practices in the future.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Exploring the Supervisor Role as a Facilitator of Knowledge Sharing in Teams

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

MacNeil, Christina Mary

2004-01-01

This paper explores the themes and implications, concerning the role of the supervisor as a facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams. After describing the strategic context for devolving human resource responsibilities to line managers, the paper defines and discusses the line manager/supervisor role. The barriers to learning in the workplace are…

Do continuing medical education articles foster shared decision making?

PubMed

Labrecque, Michel; Lafortune, Valérie; Lajeunesse, Judith; Lambert-Perrault, Anne-Marie; Manrique, Hermes; Blais, Johanne; Légaré, France

2010-01-01

Defined as reviews of clinical aspects of a specific health problem published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals, offered without charge, continuing medical education (CME) articles form a key strategy for translating knowledge into practice. This study assessed CME articles for mention of evidence-based information on benefits and harms of available treatment and/or preventive options that are deemed essential for shared decision making (SDM) to occur in clinical practice. Articles were selected from 5 medical journals that publish CME articles and are provided free of charge to primary-care physicians of the Province of Quebec, Canada. Two individuals independently scored each article with the use of a 10-item checklist based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. In case of discrepancy, the item score was established by team consensus. Scores were added to produce a total article score ranging from 0 (no item present) to 10 (all items present). Thirty articles (6 articles per journal) were selected. Total article scores ranged from 1 to 9, with a mean (+/- SD) of 3.1 +/- 2.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-4.3). Health conditions and treatment options were the items most frequently discussed in the articles; next came treatment benefits. Possible harms, the use of the same denominators for benefits and harms, and methods to facilitate the communication of benefits and harms to patients were almost never described. No significant differences between journals were observed. The CME articles evaluated did not include the evidence-based information necessary to foster SDM in clinical practice. Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical journals should require CME articles to include this type of information.

What motivates family physicians to participate in training programs in shared decision making?

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

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. In 2007-2008, we collected data from 39 FPs who participated in a pilot randomized trial of DECISION+. In 2010, we collected data again from 11 of those participants and from 12 new subjects. Based on the theory of planned behavior, our questionnaire assessed FPs' intentions to participate in a CPD program in SDM and evaluated FPs' attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. We also conducted 4 focus groups to explore FPs' salient beliefs. In 2010, FPs' mean intention to participate in a CPD program in SDM was relatively strong (2.6 ± 0.5 on a scale from -3 = "strongly disagree" to +3 = "strongly agree"). Affective attitude was the only factor significantly associated with intention (r = .51, p = .04). FPs identified the attractions of participating in a CPD program in SDM as (1) its interest, (2) the pleasure of learning, and (3) professional stimulation. Facilitators of their participation were (1) a relevant clinical topic, (2) an interactive program, (3) an accessible program, and (4) decision support tools. To attract FPs to a CPD program in SDM, CPD developers should make the program interesting, enjoyable, and professionally stimulating. They should choose a clinically relevant topic, ensure that the program is interactive and accessible, and include decision support tools. Copyright © 2012 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Computerized Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: Systematic Review.

PubMed

Staszewska, Anna; Zaki, Pearl; Lee, Joon

2017-10-06

Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials. Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement. Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious

[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.

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…

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.

A web-based tool to support shared decision making for people with a psychotic disorder: randomized controlled trial and process evaluation.

PubMed

van der Krieke, Lian; Emerencia, Ando C; Boonstra, Nynke; Wunderink, Lex; de Jonge, Peter; Sytema, Sjoerd

2013-10-07

Mental health policy makers encourage the development of electronic decision aids to increase patient participation in medical decision making. Evidence is needed to determine whether these decision aids are helpful in clinical practice and whether they lead to increased patient involvement and better outcomes. This study reports the outcome of a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of a Web-based intervention to facilitate shared decision making for people with psychotic disorders. The study was carried out in a Dutch mental health institution. Patients were recruited from 2 outpatient teams for patients with psychosis (N=250). Patients in the intervention condition (n=124) were provided an account to access a Web-based information and decision tool aimed to support patients in acquiring an overview of their needs and appropriate treatment options provided by their mental health care organization. Patients were given the opportunity to use the Web-based tool either on their own (at their home computer or at a computer of the service) or with the support of an assistant. Patients in the control group received care as usual (n=126). Half of the patients in the sample were patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis; the other half were patients with a chronic psychosis. Primary outcome was patient-perceived involvement in medical decision making, measured with the Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision-making Effectiveness (COMRADE). Process evaluation consisted of questionnaire-based surveys, open interviews, and researcher observation. In all, 73 patients completed the follow-up measurement and were included in the final analysis (response rate 29.2%). More than one-third (48/124, 38.7%) of the patients who were provided access to the Web-based decision aid used it, and most used its full functionality. No differences were found between the intervention and control conditions on perceived involvement in medical

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.

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.

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

Trial of an electronic decision support system to facilitate shared decision making in community mental health.

PubMed

Woltmann, Emily M; Wilkniss, Sandra M; Teachout, Alexandra; McHugo, Gregory J; Drake, Robert E

2011-01-01

Involvement of community mental health consumers in mental health decision making has been consistently associated with improvements in health outcomes. Electronic decision support systems (EDSSs) that support both consumer and provider decision making may be a sustainable way to improve dyadic communication in a field with approximately 50% workforce turnover per year. This study examined the feasibility of such a system and investigated proximal outcomes of the system's performance. A cluster randomized design was used to evaluate an EDSS at three urban community mental health sites. Case managers (N=20) were randomly assigned to the EDSS-supported planning group or to the usual care planning group. Consumers (N=80) were assigned to the same group as their case managers. User satisfaction with the care planning process was assessed for consumers and case managers (possible scores range from 1 to 5, with higher summary scores indicating more satisfaction). Recall of the care plan was assessed for consumers. Linear regression with adjustment for grouping by worker was used to assess satisfaction scores. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to examine knowledge of the care plan. Compared with case managers in the control group, those in the intervention group were significantly more satisfied with the care planning process (mean ± SD score=4.0 ± .5 versus 3.3 ± .5; adjusted p=.01). Compared with consumers in the control group, those in the intervention group had significantly greater recall of their care plans three days after the planning session (mean proportion of plan goals recalled=75% ± 28% versus 57% ± 32%; p=.02). There were no differences between the clients in the intervention and control groups regarding satisfaction. This study demonstrated that clients can build their own care plans and negotiate and revise them with their case managers using an EDSS.

Using Hypertext to Facilitate Information Sharing in Biomedical Research Groups

PubMed Central

Chaney, R. Jesse; Shipman, Frank M.; Gorry, G. Anthony

1989-01-01

As part of our effort to create an Integrated Academic Information Management System at Baylor College of Medicine, we are developing information technology to support the efforts of scientific work groups. Many of our ideas in this regard are embodied in a system called the Virtual Notebook which is intended to facilitate information sharing and management in such groups. Here we discuss the foundations of that system - a hypertext system that we have developed using a relational data base and the distributable interface the we have written in the X Window System.

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

Challenges in shared decision making in advanced cancer care: a qualitative longitudinal observational and interview study.

PubMed

Brom, Linda; De Snoo-Trimp, Janine C; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D; Widdershoven, Guy A M; Stiggelbout, Anne M; Pasman, H Roeline W

2017-02-01

Patients' preferences and expectations should be taken into account in treatment decision making in the last phase of life. Shared decision making (SDM) is regarded as a way to give the patient a central role in decision making. Little is known about how SDM is used in clinical practice in advanced cancer care. To examine whether and how the steps of SDM can be recognized in decision making about second- and third-line chemotherapy. Fourteen advanced cancer patients were followed over time using face-to-face in-depth interviews and observations of the patients' out-clinic visits. Interviews and outpatient clinic visits in which treatment options were discussed or decisions made were transcribed verbatim and analysed using open coding. Patients were satisfied with the decision-making process, but the steps of SDM were barely seen in daily practice. The creation of awareness about available treatment options by physicians was limited and not discussed in an equal way. Patients' wishes and concerns were not explicitly assessed, which led to different expectations about improved survival from subsequent lines of chemotherapy. To reach SDM in daily practice, physicians should create awareness of all treatment options, including forgoing treatment, and communicate the risk of benefit and harm. Open and honest communication is needed in which patients' expectations and concerns are discussed. Through this, the difficult process of decision making in the last phase of life can be facilitated and the focus on the best care for the specific patient is strengthened. © 2015 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Externalising the autobiographical self: sharing personal memories online facilitated memory retention.

PubMed

Wang, Qi; Lee, Dasom; Hou, Yubo

2017-07-01

Internet technology provides a new means of recalling and sharing personal memories in the digital age. What is the mnemonic consequence of posting personal memories online? Theories of transactive memory and autobiographical memory would make contrasting predictions. In the present study, college students completed a daily diary for a week, listing at the end of each day all the events that happened to them on that day. They also reported whether they posted any of the events online. Participants received a surprise memory test after the completion of the diary recording and then another test a week later. At both tests, events posted online were significantly more likely than those not posted online to be recalled. It appears that sharing memories online may provide unique opportunities for rehearsal and meaning-making that facilitate memory retention.

Optimal global value of information trials: better aligning manufacturer and decision maker interests and enabling feasible risk sharing.

PubMed

Eckermann, Simon; Willan, Andrew R

2013-05-01

Risk sharing arrangements relate to adjusting payments for new health technologies given evidence of their performance over time. Such arrangements rely on prospective information regarding the incremental net benefit of the new technology, and its use in practice. However, once the new technology has been adopted in a particular jurisdiction, randomized clinical trials within that jurisdiction are likely to be infeasible and unethical in the cases where they would be most helpful, i.e. with current evidence of positive while uncertain incremental health and net monetary benefit. Informed patients in these cases would likely be reluctant to participate in a trial, preferring instead to receive the new technology with certainty. Consequently, informing risk sharing arrangements within a jurisdiction is problematic given the infeasibility of collecting prospective trial data. To overcome such problems, we demonstrate that global trials facilitate trialling post adoption, leading to more complete and robust risk sharing arrangements that mitigate the impact of costs of reversal on expected value of information in jurisdictions who adopt while a global trial is undertaken. More generally, optimally designed global trials offer distinct advantages over locally optimal solutions for decision makers and manufacturers alike: avoiding opportunity costs of delay in jurisdictions that adopt; overcoming barriers to evidence collection; and improving levels of expected implementation. Further, the greater strength and translatability of evidence across jurisdictions inherent in optimal global trial design reduces barriers to translation across jurisdictions characteristic of local trials. Consequently, efficiently designed global trials better align the interests of decision makers and manufacturers, increasing the feasibility of risk sharing and the expected strength of evidence over local trials, up until the point that current evidence is globally sufficient.

Prior expectations facilitate metacognition for perceptual decision.

PubMed

Sherman, M T; Seth, A K; Barrett, A B; Kanai, R

2015-09-01

The influential framework of 'predictive processing' suggests that prior probabilistic expectations influence, or even constitute, perceptual contents. This notion is evidenced by the facilitation of low-level perceptual processing by expectations. However, whether expectations can facilitate high-level components of perception remains unclear. We addressed this question by considering the influence of expectations on perceptual metacognition. To isolate the effects of expectation from those of attention we used a novel factorial design: expectation was manipulated by changing the probability that a Gabor target would be presented; attention was manipulated by instructing participants to perform or ignore a concurrent visual search task. We found that, independently of attention, metacognition improved when yes/no responses were congruent with expectations of target presence/absence. Results were modeled under a novel Bayesian signal detection theoretic framework which integrates bottom-up signal propagation with top-down influences, to provide a unified description of the mechanisms underlying perceptual decision and metacognition. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Sharing Research Models: Using Software Engineering Practices for Facilitation

PubMed Central

Bryant, Stephanie P.; Solano, Eric; Cantor, Susanna; Cooley, Philip C.; Wagener, Diane K.

2011-01-01

Increasingly, researchers are turning to computational models to understand the interplay of important variables on systems’ behaviors. Although researchers may develop models that meet the needs of their investigation, application limitations—such as nonintuitive user interface features and data input specifications—may limit the sharing of these tools with other research groups. By removing these barriers, other research groups that perform related work can leverage these work products to expedite their own investigations. The use of software engineering practices can enable managed application production and shared research artifacts among multiple research groups by promoting consistent models, reducing redundant effort, encouraging rigorous peer review, and facilitating research collaborations that are supported by a common toolset. This report discusses three established software engineering practices— the iterative software development process, object-oriented methodology, and Unified Modeling Language—and the applicability of these practices to computational model development. Our efforts to modify the MIDAS TranStat application to make it more user-friendly are presented as an example of how computational models that are based on research and developed using software engineering practices can benefit a broader audience of researchers. PMID:21687780

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.

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

Sharing clinical decisions for multimorbidity case management using social network and open-source tools.

PubMed

Martínez-García, Alicia; Moreno-Conde, Alberto; Jódar-Sánchez, Francisco; Leal, Sandra; Parra, Carlos

2013-12-01

Social networks applied through Web 2.0 tools have gained importance in health domain, because they produce improvements on the communication and coordination capabilities among health professionals. This is highly relevant for multimorbidity patients care because there is a large number of health professionals in charge of patient care, and this requires to obtain clinical consensus in their decisions. Our objective is to develop a tool for collaborative work among health professionals for multimorbidity patient care. We describe the architecture to incorporate decision support functionalities in a social network tool to enable the adoption of shared decisions among health professionals from different care levels. As part of the first stage of the project, this paper describes the results obtained in a pilot study about acceptance and use of the social network component in our healthcare setting. At Virgen del Rocío University Hospital we have designed and developed the Shared Care Platform (SCP) to provide support in the continuity of care for multimorbidity patients. The SCP has two consecutively developed components: social network component, called Clinical Wall, and Clinical Decision Support (CDS) system. The Clinical Wall contains a record where health professionals are able to debate and define shared decisions. We conducted a pilot study to assess the use and acceptance of the SCP by healthcare professionals through questionnaire based on the theory of the Technology Acceptance Model. In March 2012 we released and deployed the SCP, but only with the social network component. The pilot project lasted 6 months in the hospital and 2 primary care centers. From March to September 2012 we created 16 records in the Clinical Wall, all with a high priority. A total of 10 professionals took part in the exchange of messages: 3 internists and 7 general practitioners generated 33 messages. 12 of the 16 record (75%) were answered by the destination health professionals

Communicating statin evidence to support shared decision-making.

PubMed

Barrett, Bruce; Ricco, Jason; Wallace, Margaret; Kiefer, David; Rakel, Dave

2016-04-06

The practice of clinical medicine rests on a foundation of ethical principles as well as scientific knowledge. Clinicians must artfully balance the principle of beneficence, doing what is best for patients, with autonomy, allowing patients to make their own well-informed health care decisions. The clinical communication process is complicated by varying degrees of confidence in scientific evidence regarding patient-oriented benefits, and by the fact that most medical options are associated with possible harms as well as potential benefits. Evidence-based clinical guidelines often neglect patient-oriented issues involved with the thoughtful practice of shared decision-making, where individual values, goals, and preferences should be prioritized. Guidelines on the use of statin medications for preventing cardiovascular events are a case in point. Current guidelines endorse the use of statins for people whose 10-year risk of cardiovascular events is as low as 7.5%. Previous guidelines set the 10-year risk benchmark at 20%. Meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that statins can reduce cardiovascular event rates by about 25%, bringing 10-year risk from 7.5 to 5.6%, for example, or from 20 to 15%. Whether or not these benefits should justify the use of statins for individual patients depends on how those advantages are valued in comparison with disadvantages, such as side effect risks, and with inconveniences associated with taking a pill each day and visiting clinicians and laboratories regularly. Whether or not the overall benefit-harm balance justifies the use of a medication for an individual patient cannot be determined by a guidelines committee, a health care system, or even the attending physician. Instead, it is the individual patient who has a fundamental right to decide whether or not taking a drug is worthwhile. Researchers and professional organizations should endeavor to develop shared decision-making tools that provide up-to-date best evidence in

Key principles for a national clinical decision support knowledge sharing framework: synthesis of insights from leading subject matter experts

PubMed Central

Hongsermeier, Tonya; Wright, Adam; Lewis, Janet; Bell, Douglas S; Middleton, Blackford

2013-01-01

Objective To identify key principles for establishing a national clinical decision support (CDS) knowledge sharing framework. Materials and methods As part of an initiative by the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) to establish a framework for national CDS knowledge sharing, key stakeholders were identified. Stakeholders' viewpoints were obtained through surveys and in-depth interviews, and findings and relevant insights were summarized. Based on these insights, key principles were formulated for establishing a national CDS knowledge sharing framework. Results Nineteen key stakeholders were recruited, including six executives from electronic health record system vendors, seven executives from knowledge content producers, three executives from healthcare provider organizations, and three additional experts in clinical informatics. Based on these stakeholders' insights, five key principles were identified for effectively sharing CDS knowledge nationally. These principles are (1) prioritize and support the creation and maintenance of a national CDS knowledge sharing framework; (2) facilitate the development of high-value content and tooling, preferably in an open-source manner; (3) accelerate the development or licensing of required, pragmatic standards; (4) acknowledge and address medicolegal liability concerns; and (5) establish a self-sustaining business model. Discussion Based on the principles identified, a roadmap for national CDS knowledge sharing was developed through the ONC's Advancing CDS initiative. Conclusion The study findings may serve as a useful guide for ongoing activities by the ONC and others to establish a national framework for sharing CDS knowledge and improving clinical care. PMID:22865671

Key principles for a national clinical decision support knowledge sharing framework: synthesis of insights from leading subject matter experts.

PubMed

Kawamoto, Kensaku; Hongsermeier, Tonya; Wright, Adam; Lewis, Janet; Bell, Douglas S; Middleton, Blackford

2013-01-01

To identify key principles for establishing a national clinical decision support (CDS) knowledge sharing framework. As part of an initiative by the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) to establish a framework for national CDS knowledge sharing, key stakeholders were identified. Stakeholders' viewpoints were obtained through surveys and in-depth interviews, and findings and relevant insights were summarized. Based on these insights, key principles were formulated for establishing a national CDS knowledge sharing framework. Nineteen key stakeholders were recruited, including six executives from electronic health record system vendors, seven executives from knowledge content producers, three executives from healthcare provider organizations, and three additional experts in clinical informatics. Based on these stakeholders' insights, five key principles were identified for effectively sharing CDS knowledge nationally. These principles are (1) prioritize and support the creation and maintenance of a national CDS knowledge sharing framework; (2) facilitate the development of high-value content and tooling, preferably in an open-source manner; (3) accelerate the development or licensing of required, pragmatic standards; (4) acknowledge and address medicolegal liability concerns; and (5) establish a self-sustaining business model. Based on the principles identified, a roadmap for national CDS knowledge sharing was developed through the ONC's Advancing CDS initiative. The study findings may serve as a useful guide for ongoing activities by the ONC and others to establish a national framework for sharing CDS knowledge and improving clinical care.

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.

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.

Contrasting Parents' and Pediatricians' Perspectives on Shared Decision-Making in ADHD

PubMed Central

Hughes, Cayce C.; Gafen, Angela; Guevara, James P.; Barg, Frances K.

2011-01-01

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to compare how parents and clinicians understand shared decision-making (SDM) in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a prototype for SDM in pediatrics. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 parents of children 6 to 12 years of age with ADHD (50% black and 43% college educated) and 30 primary care clinicians with varying experience. Open-ended interviews explored how pediatric clinicians and parents understood SDM in ADHD. Interviews were taped, transcribed, and then coded. Data were analyzed by using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Parents and clinicians both viewed SDM favorably. However, parents described SDM as a partnership between equals, with physicians providing medical expertise and the family contributing in-depth knowledge of the child. In contrast, clinicians understood SDM as a means to encourage families to accept clinicians' preferred treatment. These findings affected care because parents mistrusted clinicians whose presentation they perceived as biased. Both groups discussed how real-world barriers limit the consideration of evidence-based options, and they emphasized the importance of engaging professionals, family members, and/or friends in SDM. Although primary themes did not differ according to race, white parents more commonly received support from medical professionals in their social networks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite national guidelines prioritizing SDM in ADHD, challenges to implementing the process persist. Results suggest that, to support SDM in ADHD, modifications are needed at the practice and policy levels, including clinician training, incorporation of decision aids and improved strategies to facilitate communication, and efforts to ensure that evidence-based treatment is accessible. PMID:21172996

Physicians' shared decision-making behaviors in depression care.

PubMed

Young, Henry N; Bell, Robert A; Epstein, Ronald M; Feldman, Mitchell D; Kravitz, Richard L

2008-07-14

Although shared decision making (SDM) has been reported to facilitate quality care, few studies have explored the extent to which SDM is implemented in primary care and factors that influence its application. This study assesses the extent to which physicians enact SDM behaviors and describes factors associated with physicians' SDM behaviors within the context of depression care. In a secondary analysis of data from a randomized experiment, we coded 287 audiorecorded interactions between physicians and standardized patients (SPs) using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) system to assess physician SDM behaviors. We performed a series of generalized linear mixed model analyses to examine physician and patient characteristics associated with SDM behavior. The mean (SD) OPTION score was 11.4 (3.3) of 48 possible points. Older physicians (partial correlation coefficient = -0.29; beta = -0.09; P < .01) and physicians who practiced in a health maintenance organization setting (beta = -1.60; P < .01) performed fewer SDM behaviors. Longer visit duration was associated with more SDM behaviors (partial correlation coefficient = 0.31; beta = 0.08; P < .01). In addition, physicians enacted more SDM behaviors with SPs who made general (beta = 2.46; P < .01) and brand-specific (beta = 2.21; P < .01) medication requests compared with those who made no request. In the context of new visits for depressive symptoms, primary care physicians performed few SDM behaviors. However, physician SDM behaviors are influenced by practice setting and patient-initiated requests for medication. Additional research is needed to identify interventions that encourage SDM when indicated.

[Shared decision-making as a new quality indicator in nephrology: a nationwide survey in Germany].

PubMed

Scheibler, Fülöp; Stoffel, Markus P; Barth, Claudia; Kuch, Christine; Steffen, Petra; Baldamus, Conrad A; Pfaff, Holger

2005-04-15

Shared decision-making (SDM) as a model in physician-patient interaction is gaining relevance in the German health system. By applying this model, mid- and long-term improvements are expected especially in the outcomes of chronic diseases. Up to now, there has hardly been any empirical data available in German health services research regarding the state and development of SDM. This study establishes a baseline and provides actual data on this subject based on a German-wide survey of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Standardized German-wide survey of 6,614 patients with ESRD. The questionnaire included an instrument to measure the patients' perceived involvement in care (PICS) which had been translated and validated before. 82% of the questioned patients feel their physicians facilitated involvement in decision making. 81% of the patients actively inform themselves concerning their disease and treatment options. 69% state that SDM has taken place. Age, years on dialysis and gender correlate with perceived involvement. This paper provides a valid baseline for the prospective research of SDM in ESRD. The results indicate that dialysis patients are willing to participate in the process of medical decision-making. Characteristics and preferences of the patients should be taken into account not only in everyday clinical interactions. They could be monitored systematically within the framework of quality management and used as potential for quality improvement.

Engaging patients in health care decisions in the emergency department through shared decision-making: a systematic review.

PubMed

Flynn, Darren; Knoedler, Meghan A; Hess, Erik P; Murad, M Hassan; Erwin, Patricia J; Montori, Victor M; Thomson, Richard G

2012-08-01

Many decisions in the emergency department (ED) may benefit from patient involvement, even though this setting has been considered least conducive to shared decision-making (SDM). The objective was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the approaches, methods, and tools used to engage patients or their surrogates in SDM in the ED. Five electronic databases were searched in conjunction with contacting content experts, reviewing selected bibliographies, and conducting citation searches using the Web of Knowledge database. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies that addressed patient involvement and engagement in decision-making in the ED setting via the use of decision support interventions (DSIs), defined as decision aids or decision support designed to communicate probabilistic information on the risks and benefits of treatment options to patients as part of an SDM process. Eligible studies described and assessed at least one of the following outcomes: patient knowledge, experiences and perspectives on participating in treatment or management decisions, clinician or patient satisfaction, preference for involvement and/or degree of engagement in decision-making and treatment preferences, and clinical outcomes (e.g., rates of hospital admission/readmission, rates of medical or surgical interventions). Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methodologic quality, and outcomes. The authors also assessed the extent to which SDM interventions adhered to good practice for the presentation of information on outcome probabilities (eight probability items from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument [IPDASi]) and had comprehensive development processes. Five studies met inclusion criteria and were synthesized using a narrative approach. Each study was of satisfactory methodologic quality and used a DSI to engage patients or their surrogates in decision-making in the ED across four domains: 1) management options for

The application of reduced-processing decision support systems to facilitate the acquisition of decision-making skills.

PubMed

Perry, Nathan C; Wiggins, Mark W; Childs, Merilyn; Fogarty, Gerard

2013-06-01

The study was designed to examine whether the availability of reduced-processing decision support system interfaces could improve the decision making of inexperienced personnel in the context of Although research into reduced-processing decision support systems has demonstrated benefits in minimizing cognitive load, these benefits have not typically translated into direct improvements in decision accuracy because of the tendency for inexperienced personnel to focus on less-critical information. The authors investigated whether reduced-processing interfaces that direct users' attention toward the most critical cues for decision making can produce improvements in decision-making performance. Novice participants made incident command-related decisions in experimental conditions that differed according to the amount of information that was available within the interface, the level of control that they could exert over the presentation of information, and whether they had received decision training. The results revealed that despite receiving training, participants improved in decision accuracy only when they were provided with an interface that restricted information access to the most critical cues. It was concluded that an interface that restricts information access to only the most critical cues in the scenario can facilitate improvements in decision performance. Decision support system interfaces that encourage the processing of the most critical cues have the potential to improve the accuracy and timeliness of decisions made by inexperienced personnel.

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.

Facilitating Adoption of News Tool to Develop Clinical Decision Making

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brown, Robin T.

2017-01-01

This scholarly project was a non-experimental, pre/post-test design to (a) facilitate the voluntary adoption of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and (b) develop clinical decision making (CDM) in one cohort of junior level nursing students participating in a simulation lab. NEWS is an evidence-based predictive scoring tool developed by the…

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…

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.

Shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

PubMed

Martínez-González, Nahara Anani; Plate, Andreas; Senn, Oliver; Markun, Stefan; Rosemann, Thomas; Neuner-Jehle, Stefan

2018-02-23

Men facing prostate cancer screening and treatment need to make critical and highly preference-sensitive decisions that involve a variety of potential benefits and risks. Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered fundamental for "preference-sensitive" medical decisions and it is guideline-recommended. There is no single definition of SDM however. We systematically reviewed the extent of SDM implementation in interventions to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening and treatment. We searched Medline Ovid, Embase (Elsevier), CINHAL (EBSCOHost), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), PsychINFO (EBSCOHost), Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, the WHO search portal, ohri.ca, opengrey.eu, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included studies, clinical guidelines and relevant reviews. We also contacted the authors of relevant abstracts without available full text. We included primary peer-reviewed and grey literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English, conducted in primary and specialised care, addressing interventions aiming to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening and treatment. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised interventions and assessed the extent of SDM implementation based on the key features of SDM, namely information exchange, deliberation and implementation. We considered bi-directional deliberation as a central and mandatory component of SDM. We performed a narrative synthesis. Thirty-six RCTs including 19 196 randomised patients met the eligibility criteria; they were mainly conducted in North America (n = 28). The median year of publication was 2008 (1997-2015). Twenty-three RCTs addressed decision-making for screening, twelve for treatment and one for both screening and treatment for prostate cancer. Bi-directional interactions between healthcare providers and patients were verified in 31 RCTs, but only 14 fulfilled the three key SDM features, 14 had at least "deliberation", one had "unclear

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.

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.

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.

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.

Facilitating Decision Making, Re-Use and Collaboration: A Knowledge Management Approach for System Self-Awareness

DTIC Science & Technology

2009-10-01

FACILITATING DECISION MAKING, RE-USE AND COLLABORATION: A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR SYSTEM SELF- AWARENESS Shelley P. Gallup, Douglas J... Information Systems Experimentation (DISE) Group Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA 93943 Keywords: Program self- awareness , decision making...decision makers express in obtaining constant awareness of what is going on in their domains of decision making because information that is needed

A Web-Based Tool to Support Shared Decision Making for People With a Psychotic Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial and Process Evaluation

PubMed Central

Emerencia, Ando C; Boonstra, Nynke; Wunderink, Lex; de Jonge, Peter; Sytema, Sjoerd

2013-01-01

Background Mental health policy makers encourage the development of electronic decision aids to increase patient participation in medical decision making. Evidence is needed to determine whether these decision aids are helpful in clinical practice and whether they lead to increased patient involvement and better outcomes. Objective This study reports the outcome of a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of a Web-based intervention to facilitate shared decision making for people with psychotic disorders. Methods The study was carried out in a Dutch mental health institution. Patients were recruited from 2 outpatient teams for patients with psychosis (N=250). Patients in the intervention condition (n=124) were provided an account to access a Web-based information and decision tool aimed to support patients in acquiring an overview of their needs and appropriate treatment options provided by their mental health care organization. Patients were given the opportunity to use the Web-based tool either on their own (at their home computer or at a computer of the service) or with the support of an assistant. Patients in the control group received care as usual (n=126). Half of the patients in the sample were patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis; the other half were patients with a chronic psychosis. Primary outcome was patient-perceived involvement in medical decision making, measured with the Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision-making Effectiveness (COMRADE). Process evaluation consisted of questionnaire-based surveys, open interviews, and researcher observation. Results In all, 73 patients completed the follow-up measurement and were included in the final analysis (response rate 29.2%). More than one-third (48/124, 38.7%) of the patients who were provided access to the Web-based decision aid used it, and most used its full functionality. No differences were found between the intervention and control conditions

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.

Professor as Facilitator: Shaping an Emerging, Living System of Shared Leadership in the Classroom

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bright, David S.; Turesky, Elizabeth Fisher; Putzel, Roger; Stang, Thomas

2012-01-01

From the perspective of emergence, professors can facilitate and shape a class as a complex, adaptive, and living system. A case study illustrates phases of emergence in the classroom by tracing how a professor may use this perspective to empower students to share in the leadership of the classroom. Instead of presenting lessons, the professor…

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.

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.

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.

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…

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…

Making cognitive decision support work: Facilitating adoption, knowledge and behavior change through QI.

PubMed

Weir, Charlene; Brunker, Cherie; Butler, Jorie; Supiano, Mark A

2017-07-01

This paper evaluates the role of facilitation in the successful implementation of Computerized Decision Support (CDS). Facilitation processes include education, specialized computerized decision support, and work process reengineering. These techniques, as well as modeling and feedback enhance self-efficacy, which we propose is one of the factors that mediate the effectiveness of any CDS. In this study, outpatient clinics implemented quality improvement (QI) projects focused on improving geriatric care. Quality Improvement is the systematic process of improving quality through continuous measurement and targeted actions. The program, entitled "Advancing Geriatric Education through Quality Improvement" (AGE QI), consisted of a 6-month, QI based, intervention: (1) 2h didactic session, (2) 1h QI planning session, (3) computerized decision support design and implementation, (4) QI facilitation activities, (5) outcome feedback, and (6) 20h of CME. Specifically, we examined the impact of the QI based program on clinician's perceived self-efficacy in caring for older adults and the relationship of implementation support and facilitation on perceived success. The intervention was implemented at 3 institutions, 27 community healthcare system clinics, and 134 providers. This study reports the results of pre/post surveys for the forty-nine clinicians who completed the full CME program. Self-efficacy ratings for specific clinical behaviors related to care of older adults were assessed using a Likert based instrument. Self-ratings of efficacy improved across the following domains (depression, falls, end-of-life, functional status and medication management) and specifically in QI targeted domains and were associated with overall clinic improvements. Published by Elsevier Inc.

[Shared decision-making and communication theory: grounding the tango].

PubMed

Kasper, Jürgen; Légaré, France; Scheibler, Fülöp; Geiger, Friedemann

2010-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to overcome outdated social role models in the health care system. The concept, however, adheres to archaic epistemological assumptions as can be inferred from the rudimentary stage of the measurement methods used and from the information monopoly that the physician still holds in this concept. Advantages of an up-to-date model of knowledge for understanding and operationalising SDM are outlined. To this purpose, essential definitions of the concept are reflected in terms of epistemology. Accordingly, information emerges through a process of social construction. Likewise, interpersonal relations do not represent a static condition; rather, they develop anew with each interaction. Therefore, constructs suitable to focus on dyadic interaction processes can be used as indicators of sharing in SDM. Theories and methods of the interpersonal paradigm are advocated. Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

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.

Race, ethnicity, and shared decision making for hyperlipidemia and hypertension treatment: the DECISIONS survey.

PubMed

Ratanawongsa, Neda; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J; Couper, Mick P; Van Hoewyk, John; Powe, Neil R

2010-01-01

Racial/ethnic differences in shared decision making about cardiovascular risk-reduction therapy could affect health disparities. To investigate whether patient race/ethnicity is associated with experiences discussing cardiovascular risk-reduction therapy with health care providers. National sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing. Cross-sectional survey conducted in November 2006 to May 2007. Among participants in the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS), a nationally representative sample of English-speaking US adults aged 40 and older, the authors analyzed respondents who reported discussing hyperlipidemia or hypertension medications with a health care provider in the previous 2 years. In multivariate linear and logistic regressions adjusting for age, gender, income, insurance status, perceived health, and current therapy, they assessed the relation between race/ethnicity (black/Hispanic v. white) and decision making: knowledge, discussion of pros and cons of therapy, discussion of patient preference, who made the final decision, preferred involvement, and confidence in the decision. Of respondents who discussed high cholesterol (N = 738) or hypertension (N = 745) medications, 88% were white, 9% black, and 4% Hispanic. Minorities had lower knowledge scores than whites for hyperlipidemia (42% v. 52%, difference -10% [95% confidence interval (CI): 15, -5], P < 0.001), but not for hypertension. For hyperlipidemia, minorities were more likely than whites to report that the health care provider made the final decision for treatment (31.7% v. 12.3% whites, difference 19.4% [95% CI: 6.9, 33.1%], P < 0.01); this was not true for hypertension. Possible limitations include the small percentage of minorities in the sample and potential recall bias. Minorities considering hyperlipidemia therapy may be less informed about and less involved in the final decision-making process.

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.

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

PubMed Central

Slade, Mike

2017-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non‐maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high‐quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery‐supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified. PMID:28498575

Surgical Consultation as Social Process: Implications for Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Clapp, Justin T; Arriaga, Alexander F; Murthy, Sushila; Raper, Steven E; Schwartz, J Sanford; Barg, Frances K; Fleisher, Lee A

2017-12-12

This qualitative study examines surgical consultation as a social process and assesses its alignment with assumptions of the shared decision-making (SDM) model. SDM stresses the importance of patient preferences and rigorous discussion of therapeutic risks/benefits based on these preferences. However, empirical studies have highlighted discrepancies between SDM and realities of surgical decision making. Qualitative research can inform understanding of the decision-making process and allow for granular assessment of the nature and causes of these discrepancies. We observed consultations between 3 general surgeons and 45 patients considering undergoing 1 of 2 preference-sensitive elective operations: (1) hernia repair, or (2) cholecystectomy. These patients and surgeons also participated in semi-structured interviews. By the time of the consultation, patients and surgeons were predisposed toward certain decisions by preceding events occurring elsewhere. During the visit, surgeons had differential ability to arbitrate surgical intervention and construct the severity of patients' conditions. These upstream dynamics frequently displaced the centrality of the risk/benefit-based consent discussion. The influence of events preceding consultation suggests that decision-making models should account for broader spatiotemporal spans. Given surgeons' authority to define patients' conditions and control service provision, SDM may be premised on an overestimation of patients' power to alter the course of decision making once in a specialist's office. Considering the subordinate role of the risk/benefit discussion in many surgical decisions, it will be important to study if and how the social process of decision making is altered by SDM-oriented decision aids that foreground this discussion.

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...

[Early detection in prostate cancer and shared decision making].

PubMed

Junod, A F

2005-09-28

Screening of prostate cancer with PSA is a challenge for the aid to decision. Beside the rather mediocre characteristics of the screening test, there the additional problem of the peculiar biology of this cancer, with its late development and its ability to remain latent for a prolonged period. On the other hand, the treatment (surgery, irradiation) is associated with important side-effects: impotence and urinary leakage. Several studies, which appear to be a form of aid to information than aid to shared decision, have been carried out to analyse the effect of various modes of information on the behaviour of potential candidates to screening of prostate cancer, with the following results: better knowledge of the problem, lower rate of acceptance of PSA testing and trend towards watchful waiting rather than surgery in case of discovery of cancer.

Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study.

PubMed

Légaré, France; Stacey, Dawn; Gagnon, Susie; Dunn, Sandy; Pluye, Pierre; Frosch, Dominick; Kryworuchko, Jennifer; Elwyn, Glyn; Gagnon, Marie-Pierre; Graham, Ian D

2011-08-01

Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada. In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the model's implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires. Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care. Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 within goal setting in rehabilitation settings: A systematic review.

PubMed

Rose, Alice; Rosewilliam, Sheeba; Soundy, Andrew

2017-01-01

To map out and synthesise literature that considers the extent of shared decision-making (SDM) within goal-setting in rehabilitation settings and explore participants' views of this approach within goal-setting. Four databases were systematically searched between January 2005-September 2015. All articles addressing SDM within goal-setting involving adult rehabilitation patients were included. The literature was critically appraised followed by a thematic synthesis. The search output identified 3129 studies and 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. Themes that emerged related to methods of SDM within goal-setting, participants' views on SDM, perceived benefits of SDM, barriers and facilitators to using SDM and suggestions to improve involvement of patients resulting in a better process of goal-setting. The literature showed various levels of patient involvement existing within goal-setting however few teams adopted an entirely patient-centred approach. However, since the review has identified clear value to consider SDM within goal-setting for rehabilitation, further research is required and practice should consider educating both clinicians and patients about this approach. To enhance the use of SDM within goal-setting in rehabilitation it is likely clinicians and patients will require further education on this approach. For clinicians this could commence during their training at undergraduate level. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Influence of English proficiency on patient-provider communication and shared decision-making.

PubMed

Paredes, Anghela Z; Idrees, Jay J; Beal, Eliza W; Chen, Qinyu; Cerier, Emily; Okunrintemi, Victor; Olsen, Griffin; Sun, Steven; Cloyd, Jordan M; Pawlik, Timothy M

2018-06-01

The number of patients in the United States (US) who speak a language other than English is increasing. We evaluated the impact of English proficiency on self-reported patient-provider communication and shared decision-making. The 2013-2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey database was utilized to identify respondents who spoke a language other than English. Patient-provider communication (PPC) and shared decision-making (SDM) scores from 4-12 were categorized as "poor" (4-7), "average" (8-11), and "optimal." The relationship between PPC, SDM, and English proficiency was analyzed. Among 13,880 respondents, most were white (n = 10,281, 75%), age 18-39 (n = 6,677, 48%), male (n = 7,275, 52%), middle income (n = 4,125, 30%), and born outside of the US (n = 9,125, 65%). English proficiency was rated as "very well" (n = 7,221, 52%), "well" (n = 2,378, 17%), "not well" (n = 2,820, 20%), or "not at all" (n = 1,463, 10%). On multivariable analysis, patients who rated their English as "well" (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37-2.18) or "not well" (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.14) were more likely to report "poor" PPC (both P < .01). Similarly, SDM was more commonly self-reported as "poor" among patients who reported English proficiency as "not well" (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04-1.65, P = .02). Decreased English proficiency was associated with worse self-reported patient-provider communication and shared decision-making. Attention to patients' language needs is critical to patient satisfaction and improved perception of care. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

GROUP DECISIONS. Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons.

PubMed

Strandburg-Peshkin, Ariana; Farine, Damien R; Couzin, Iain D; Crofoot, Margaret C

2015-06-19

Conflicts of interest about where to go and what to do are a primary challenge of group living. However, it remains unclear how consensus is achieved in stable groups with stratified social relationships. Tracking wild baboons with a high-resolution global positioning system and analyzing their movements relative to one another reveals that a process of shared decision-making governs baboon movement. Rather than preferentially following dominant individuals, baboons are more likely to follow when multiple initiators agree. When conflicts arise over the direction of movement, baboons choose one direction over the other when the angle between them is large, but they compromise if it is not. These results are consistent with models of collective motion, suggesting that democratic collective action emerging from simple rules is widespread, even in complex, socially stratified societies. Copyright © 2015, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Barriers to shared decision making in mental health care: qualitative study of the Joint Crisis Plan for psychosis.

PubMed

Farrelly, Simone; Lester, Helen; Rose, Diana; Birchwood, Max; Marshall, Max; Waheed, Waquas; Henderson, R Claire; Szmukler, George; Thornicroft, Graham

2016-04-01

Despite increasing calls for shared decision making (SDM), the precise mechanisms for its attainment are unclear. Sharing decisions in mental health care may be especially complex. Fluctuations in service user capacity and significant power differences are particular barriers. We trialled a form of facilitated SDM that aimed to generate patients' treatment preferences in advance of a possible relapse. The 'Joint Crisis Plan' (JCP) intervention was trialled in four mental health trusts in England between 2008 and 2011. This qualitative study used grounded theory methods to analyse focus group and interview data to understand how stakeholders perceived the intervention and the barriers to SDM in the form of a JCP. Fifty service users with psychotic disorders and 45 clinicians participated in focus groups or interviews between February 2010 and November 2011. Results suggested four barriers to clinician engagement in the JCP: (i) ambivalence about care planning; (ii) perceptions that they were 'already doing SDM'; (iii) concerns regarding the clinical 'appropriateness of service users' choices'; and (iv) limited 'availability of service users' choices'. Service users reported barriers to SDM in routine practice, most of which were addressed by the JCP process. Barriers identified by clinicians led to their lack of constructive engagement in the process, undermining the service users' experience. Future work requires interventions targeted at the engagement of clinicians addressing their concerns about SDM. Particular strategies include organizational investment in implementation of service users' choices and directly training clinicians in SDM communication processes. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Nanomaterial categorization for assessing risk potential to facilitate regulatory decision-making.

PubMed

Godwin, Hilary; Nameth, Catherine; Avery, David; Bergeson, Lynn L; Bernard, Daniel; Beryt, Elizabeth; Boyes, William; Brown, Scott; Clippinger, Amy J; Cohen, Yoram; Doa, Maria; Hendren, Christine Ogilvie; Holden, Patricia; Houck, Keith; Kane, Agnes B; Klaessig, Frederick; Kodas, Toivo; Landsiedel, Robert; Lynch, Iseult; Malloy, Timothy; Miller, Mary Beth; Muller, Julie; Oberdorster, Gunter; Petersen, Elijah J; Pleus, Richard C; Sayre, Philip; Stone, Vicki; Sullivan, Kristie M; Tentschert, Jutta; Wallis, Philip; Nel, Andre E

2015-01-01

For nanotechnology to meet its potential as a game-changing and sustainable technology, it is important to ensure that the engineered nanomaterials and nanoenabled products that gain entry to the marketplace are safe and effective. Tools and methods are needed for regulatory purposes to allow rapid material categorization according to human health and environmental risk potential, so that materials of high concern can be targeted for additional scrutiny, while material categories that pose the least risk can receive expedited review. Using carbon nanotubes as an example, we discuss how data from alternative testing strategies can be used to facilitate engineered nanomaterial categorization according to risk potential and how such an approach could facilitate regulatory decision-making in the future.

The factors facilitating and inhibiting effective clinical decision-making in nursing: a qualitative study

PubMed Central

Hagbaghery, Mohsen Adib; Salsali, Mahvash; Ahmadi, Fazlolah

2004-01-01

Background Nurses' practice takes place in a context of ongoing advances in research and technology. The dynamic and uncertain nature of health care environment requires nurses to be competent decision-makers in order to respond to clients' needs. Recently, the public and the government have criticized Iranian nurses because of poor quality of patient care. However nurses' views and experiences on factors that affect their clinical function and clinical decision-making have rarely been studied. Methods Grounded theory methodology was used to analyze the participants' lived experiences and their viewpoints regarding the factors affecting their clinical function and clinical decision-making. Semi-structured interviews and participant observation methods were used to gather the data. Thirty-eight participants were interviewed and twelve sessions of observation were carried out. Constant comparative analysis method was used to analyze the data. Results Five main themes emerged from the data. From the participants' points of view, "feeling competent", "being self-confident", "organizational structure", "nursing education", and "being supported" were considered as important factors in effective clinical decision-making. Conclusion As participants in this research implied, being competent and self-confident are the most important personal factors influencing nurses clinical decision-making. Also external factors such as organizational structure, access to supportive resources and nursing education have strengthening or inhibiting effects on the nurses' decisions. Individual nurses, professional associations, schools of nursing, nurse educators, organizations that employ nurses and government all have responsibility for developing and finding strategies that facilitate nurses' effective clinical decision-making. They are responsible for identifying barriers and enhancing factors within the organizational structure that facilitate nurses' clinical decision-making. PMID

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.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 7: supporting staff in evidence-based decision-making, implementation and evaluation in a local healthcare setting.

PubMed

Harris, Claire; Allen, Kelly; Waller, Cara; Dyer, Tim; Brooke, Vanessa; Garrubba, Marie; Melder, Angela; Voutier, Catherine; Gust, Anthony; Farjou, Dina

2017-06-21

This is the seventh in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for resource allocation within a large Australian health service. It aimed to facilitate proactive use of evidence from research and local data; evidence-based decision-making for resource allocation including disinvestment; and development, implementation and evaluation of disinvestment projects. From the literature and responses of local stakeholders it was clear that provision of expertise and education, training and support of health service staff would be required to achieve these aims. Four support services were proposed. This paper is a detailed case report of the development, implementation and evaluation of a Data Service, Capacity Building Service and Project Support Service. An Evidence Service is reported separately. Literature reviews, surveys, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. Existing theoretical frameworks were adapted for evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes. Surveys and interviews identified current practice in use of evidence in decision-making, implementation and evaluation; staff needs for evidence-based practice; nature, type and availability of local health service data; and preferred formats for education and training. The Capacity Building and Project Support Services were successful in achieving short term objectives; but long term outcomes were not evaluated due to reduced funding. The Data Service was not implemented at all. Factors influencing the processes and outcomes are discussed. Health service staff need access to education, training, expertise and support to enable evidence-based decision-making and to implement and evaluate the changes arising from those decisions. Three support services were proposed based on research

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…

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

Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study

PubMed Central

Légaré, France; Stacey, Dawn; Gagnon, Susie; Dunn, Sandy; Pluye, Pierre; Frosch, Dominick; Kryworuchko, Jennifer; Elwyn, Glyn; Gagnon, Marie-Pierre; Graham, Ian D

2011-01-01

Rationale, aims and objectives Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada. Methods In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the model's implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires. Results Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care. Conclusions Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice. PMID:20695950

Shared decision making in West Africa: The forgotten area.

PubMed

Diouf, Ndeye Thiab; Ben Charif, Ali; Adisso, Lionel; Adekpedjou, Rhéda; Zomahoun, Hervé Tchala Vignon; Agbadjé, Titilayo Tatiana; Dogba, Mama Joyce; Garvelink, Mirjam Marjolein

2017-06-01

Up to now, little attention has been paid to West Africa when it comes to shared decision making (SDM). West African countries seem to lag behind with regard to SDM initiatives compared to many other countries in the world. There is some interest in informed decision making or informed consent, but little in a full SDM process. Few decision-making tools are available for healthcare professionals and the majority are not designed to support decision-making with patients. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there are no training programs for implementing SDM in healthcare teams. Many barriers exist to implementing SDM in West Africa, including lack of options, few or poor health resources and low levels of education. However, African countries present many opportunities for SDM as well. Existing SDM innovations developed for other populations with low literacy could be explored and adapted to the West African context, and research on implementation and outcomes in West Africa could contribute to SDM worldwide. West African countries are in an excellent position to both learn from other countries and contribute to SDM development in other parts of the world. In this paper we reflect on SDM challenges and opportunities, and propose a research agenda for West Africa. We hope to awaken interest in SDM in West Africa and encourage future collaborations on SDM with various West African stakeholders, including patients, healthcare professionals, policymakers, non-government organisations (NGOs) and academic institutions. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Representing Hydrologic Models as HydroShare Resources to Facilitate Model Sharing and Collaboration

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Castronova, A. M.; Goodall, J. L.; Mbewe, P.

2013-12-01

The CUAHSI HydroShare project is a collaborative effort that aims to provide software for sharing data and models within the hydrologic science community. One of the early focuses of this work has been establishing metadata standards for describing models and model-related data as HydroShare resources. By leveraging this metadata definition, a prototype extension has been developed to create model resources that can be shared within the community using the HydroShare system. The extension uses a general model metadata definition to create resource objects, and was designed so that model-specific parsing routines can extract and populate metadata fields from model input and output files. The long term goal is to establish a library of supported models where, for each model, the system has the ability to extract key metadata fields automatically, thereby establishing standardized model metadata that will serve as the foundation for model sharing and collaboration within HydroShare. The Soil Water & Assessment Tool (SWAT) is used to demonstrate this concept through a case study application.

Barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons’ uptake of decision aids for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative study

PubMed Central

Nelson, Elizabeth; Scott, Anthony; French, Simon; Choong, Peter; Dowsey, Michelle

2017-01-01

Objectives The demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing. Differentiating who will derive a clinically meaningful improvement from TKA from others is a key challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. Decision aids can help surgeons select appropriate candidates for surgery, but their uptake has been low. The aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to decision aid uptake among orthopaedic surgeons. Design A qualitative study involving face-to-face interviews. Questions were constructed on the Theoretical Domains Framework to systematically explore barriers and facilitators. Setting One tertiary hospital in Australia. Participants Twenty orthopaedic surgeons performing TKA. Outcome measures Beliefs underlying similar interview responses were identified and grouped together as themes describing relevant barriers and facilitators to uptake of decision aids. Results While prioritising their clinical acumen, surgeons believed a decision aid could enhance communication and patient informed consent. Barriers identified included the perception that one’s patient outcomes were already optimal; a perceived lack of non-operative alternatives for the management of end-stage osteoarthritis, concerns about mandatory cut-offs for patient-centred care and concerns about the medicolegal implications of using a decision aid. Conclusions Multifaceted implementation interventions are required to ensure that orthopaedic surgeons are ready, willing and able to use a TKA decision aid. Audit/feedback to address current decision-making biases such as overconfidence may enhance readiness to uptake. Policy changes and/or incentives may enhance willingness to uptake. Finally, the design/implementation of effective non-operative treatments may enhance ability to uptake by ensuring that surgeons have the resources they need to carry out decisions. PMID:29133333

Decision support systems in health economics.

PubMed

Quaglini, S; Dazzi, L; Stefanelli, M; Barosi, G; Marchetti, M

1999-08-01

This article describes a system addressed to different health care professionals for building, using, and sharing decision support systems for resource allocation. The system deals with selected areas, namely the choice of diagnostic tests, the therapy planning, and the instrumentation purchase. Decision support is based on decision-analytic models, incorporating an explicit knowledge representation of both the medical domain knowledge and the economic evaluation theory. Application models are built on top of meta-models, that are used as guidelines for making explicit both the cost and effectiveness components. This approach improves the transparency and soundness of the collaborative decision-making process and facilitates the result interpretation.

Evidence of indirect impacts of introduced trout on native amphibians via facilitation of a shared predator

Treesearch

Karen L. Pope; Justin M. Garwood; Hartwell H. Welsh Jr.; Sharon P. Lawler

2008-01-01

Hyperpredation occurs when non-native prey facilitate invasive predators, which then suppress native prey. Direct impacts of introduced fish on amphibians are well studied, but the role of fish in supporting shared predators has not been considered. We present evidence for indirect effects of trout on amphibians through snake predation. Analyses of the diet,...

Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process.

PubMed

Deegan, Patricia E; Drake, Robert E

2006-11-01

Mental health professionals commonly conceptualize medication management for people with severe mental illness in terms of strategies to increase compliance or adherence. The authors argue that compliance is an inadequate construct because it fails to capture the dynamic complexity of autonomous clients who must navigate decisional conflicts in learning to manage disorders over the course of years or decades. Compliance is rooted in medical paternalism and is at odds with principles of person-centered care and evidence-based medicine. Using medication is an active process that involves complex decision making and a chance to work through decisional conflicts. It requires a partnership between two experts: the client and the practitioner. Shared decision making provides a model for them to assess a treatment's advantages and disadvantages within the context of recovering a life after a diagnosis of a major mental disorder.

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.

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.

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/.

Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children with cancer.

PubMed

Coyne, Imelda; O'Mathúna, Dónal P; Gibson, Faith; Shields, Linda; Leclercq, Edith; Sheaf, Greg

2016-11-29

This is an update of the Cochrane systematic review of shared decision-making (SMD) making published in 2013. Children's rights to have their views heard in matters that affect their lives are now well established since the publication of the UN Convention treaty (1989). Children with cancer generally prefer to be involved in decision-making and consider it important that they have the opportunity to take part in decision-making concerning their health care, even in end-of-life decisions. There is considerable support for involving children in healthcare decision-making at a level commensurate with their experience, age and abilities. Thus, healthcare professionals and parents need to know how they should involve children in decision-making and what interventions are most effective in promoting SDM for children with cancer. To examine the effects of SDM interventions on the process of SDM for children with cancer who are aged four to 18 years. We searched the following sources for the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1); PubMed (NLM) (1946 to February 2016); Embase (Ovid) (1974 to February 2016); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to February 2016); ERIC (ProQuest) (1966 to February 2016); PsycINFO (EBSCO) (1806 to February 2016); BIOSIS (Thomson Reuters) (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to February 2016); and Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest) (1952 to February 2016). In addition we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005 up to and including 2015): American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM), Annual

Self‐reported use of shared decision‐making among breast cancer specialists and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing this approach

PubMed Central

Charles, Cathy; Gafni, Amiram; Whelan, Tim

2004-01-01

Abstract Background  Physicians are increasingly urged to practice shared decision‐making with their patients. Using a cross‐sectional survey, we explored the extent to which Ontario breast cancer specialists report practising shared decision‐making with their patients, their comfort level with this approach, and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation. Participants and methods  All Ontario surgeons and oncologists (radiation and medical) treating women with early‐stage breast cancer were eligible for this study. Likert scales were used to measure physicians’ comfort level with and self‐reported use of different treatment decision‐making approaches as well as perceived barriers and facilitators to treatment decision‐making with patients. Results  The response rate was 79% for oncologists and 72% for surgeons. More physicians from each specialty (87% of oncologists and 89% of surgeons) expressed high levels of comfort with clinical example 4 (designed to illustrate a shared approach) than with any of the other examples presented (e.g. the informed and paternalistic approach). Similarly, more oncologists and surgeons reported that their usual approach to treatment decision‐making was like example 4 than like any other approach presented (56% of oncologists and 69% of surgeons, respectively). Comfort levels with example 4 for oncologists and surgeons were 31% and 20% higher, respectively, than the reported use of this approach. Lack of time and patient anxiety, patient lack of information and/or misinformation, and patient unwillingness or inability to participate were perceived by a substantial minority of both oncologists and surgeons as barriers to patient involvement in treatment decision‐making. Key facilitators identified included patients’ emotional readiness, support, information and trust in the physician. More research is needed to identify contextual, physician, patient, and interaction factors that will facilitate

Describing Online Learning Content to Facilitate Resource Discovery and Sharing: The Development of the RU LOM Core

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Krull, G. E.; Mallinson, B. J.; Sewry, D. A.

2006-01-01

The development of Internet technologies has the ability to provide a new era of easily accessible and personalised learning, facilitated through the flexible deployment of small, reusable pieces of digital learning content over networks. Higher education institutions can share and reuse digital learning resources in order to improve their…

Emotionally positive stimuli facilitate lexical decisions-an ERP study.

PubMed

Kissler, Johanna; Koessler, Susanne

2011-03-01

The influence of briefly presented positive and negative emotional pictures on lexical decisions on positive, negative and neutral words or pseudowords was investigated. Behavioural reactions were the fastest following all positive stimuli and most accurate for positive words. Stimulus-locked ERPs revealed enhanced early posterior and late parietal attention effects following positive pictures. A small neural affective priming effect was reflected by P3 modulation, indicating more attention allocation to affectively incongruent prime-target pairs. N400 was insensitive to emotion. Response-locked ERPs revealed an early fronto-central negativity from 480ms before reactions to positive words. It was generated in both fronto-central and extra-striate visual areas, demonstrating a contribution of perceptual and, notably, motor preparation processes. Thus, no behavioural and little neural evidence for congruency-driven affective priming with emotional pictures was found, but positive stimuli generally facilitated lexical decisions, not only enhancing perception, but also acting rapidly on response preparation and by-passing full semantic analysis. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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.

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.