Assessing the Effects of Financial Literacy on Patient Engagement.

PubMed

Meyer, Melanie A; Hudak, Ronald P

2016-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-03-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

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

PubMed

Obeidat, Rana; Khrais, Huthaifah I

2016-01-01

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

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 - 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.

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

PubMed

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

2017-06-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

Shared Decision-Making 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

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2013-09-01

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

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2015-10-01

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

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.

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.

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Stegall, David; Linton, Jayme

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Shepherd, Andrew; Shorthouse, Oliver; Gask, Linda

2014-05-01

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

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.

[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.

Is Shared Leadership Right for Your School District?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Poff, Joni C.; Parks, David J.

2010-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-04-01

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

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 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.

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

PubMed

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

2010-06-01

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2018-06-01

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

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

PubMed

Barratt, Alexandra

2008-12-01

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

[Shared decision-making 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.

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

PubMed

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

2015-10-12

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

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

[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.

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

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-09-05

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

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

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

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.

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.

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

PubMed

Blyer, Kristina; Hulton, Linda

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Brogan, Paula; Hasson, Felicity; McIlfatrick, Sonja

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Edwards, Adrian; Elwyn, Glyn

2006-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-02-01

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

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.

Patients' Values in Clinical Decision-Making.

PubMed

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

2017-09-01

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

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.

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

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

The Effect of Shared Decision-Making on the Improvement in Teachers' Job Development

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Chi Keung, Cheng

2008-01-01

Background: Teacher Participation in decision-making is one of the recommendations of school-based management and one of the key characteristics of an effective school. Although teacher participation in decision making is claimed to be correlated with their affective outcome, few researchers have been attempted to verify the predictive…

Decision making in midwifery: rationality and intuition.

PubMed

Steinhauer, Suyai

2015-04-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

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

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.

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

PubMed Central

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

2008-01-01

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

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.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2018-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-07-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2018-02-21

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

Shared Decision Making for Better Schools.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brost, Paul

2000-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-10-01

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

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.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2015-05-01

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

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 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.

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.

Ethical Information Transparency and Sexually Transmitted Infections.

PubMed

Feltz, Adam

2015-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2013-03-06

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

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/

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences.

PubMed

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

2016-08-08

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

How contextual issues can distort shared decision making.

PubMed

Gartlehner, Gerald; Matyas, Nina

2016-12-01

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

A Tale of English Polytechnic Lecturers' Decision Making

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Abdullah, Suhaily; Majid, Faizah Abd

2016-01-01

Teacher decision making involves a selection of options that leads to thinking processes, underlying teaching in language classroom contexts. Due to this, as a small part of an on-going postgraduate research, this exploratory case study shares the initial findings on the lecturers' decision-making effects on their classroom orientation. Four…

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

PubMed

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

2009-06-01

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

Shared decision making 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.

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

PubMed

Suh, Won S; Lee, Chae Kyung

2010-01-01

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

Shared decision making 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.

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-10-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2011-07-07

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

Error affect inoculation for a complex decision-making task.

PubMed

Tabernero, Carmen; Wood, Robert E

2009-05-01

Individuals bring knowledge, implicit theories, and goal orientations to group meetings. Group decisions arise out of the exchange of these orientations. This research explores how a trainee's exploratory and deliberate process (an incremental theory and learning goal orientation) impacts the effectiveness of individual and group decision-making processes. The effectiveness of this training program is compared with another program that included error affect inoculation (EAI). Subjects were 40 Spanish Policemen in a training course. They were distributed in two training conditions for an individual and group decision-making task. In one condition, individuals received the Self-Guided Exploration plus Deliberation Process instructions, which emphasised exploring the options and testing hypotheses. In the other condition, individuals also received instructions based on Error Affect Inoculation (EAI), which emphasised positive affective reactions to errors and mistakes when making decisions. Results show that the quality of decisions increases when the groups share their reasoning. The AIE intervention promotes sharing information, flexible initial viewpoints, and improving the quality of group decisions. Implications and future directions are discussed.

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

PubMed

Weiss, Marjorie C; Peters, Tim J

2008-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-03-01

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

A 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.

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

PubMed

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

2015-07-01

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

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.

The Relationship between Shared Leadership and Administrative Creativity in Kuwaiti Schools

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Alanezi, Ahmad

2016-01-01

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

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 in mental health care: a role model from youth mental health care].

PubMed

Westermann, G M A; Maurer, J M G

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-10-02

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-04-01

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

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 as the Future of Emergency Cardiology.

PubMed

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

2018-02-01

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

Shared Decision Making: Improving Care for Children with Autism

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

Shared decision making: 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.

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

PubMed

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

2015-11-01

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

Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions.

PubMed

Duncan, Edward; Best, Catherine; Hagen, Suzanne

2010-01-20

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life course. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual, their family and society. Increasingly partnership models of mental health care have been advocated and enshrined in international healthcare policy. Shared decision making is one such partnership approach. Shared decision making is a form of patient-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision. This is advocated on the basis that patients have a right to self-determination and also in the expectation that it will increase treatment adherence. To assess the effects of provider-, consumer- or carer-directed shared decision making interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, on a range of outcomes including: patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and health service outcomes. We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1980 to November 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to November 2008), CINAHL (1982 to November 2008), British Nursing Index and Archive (1985 to November 2008) and SIGLE (1890 to September 2005 (database end date)). We also searched online trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials (q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs); and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of interventions to increase shared decision making in people with mental health conditions (by DSM or ICD-10 criteria). Data on recruitment methods, eligibility criteria, sample characteristics, interventions, outcome measures, participant flow and outcome data from each study were extracted by one author and checked by another. Data are presented in a narrative synthesis. We included two separate German studies involving a total of 518 participants. One study was undertaken in the inpatient treatment of schizophrenia and the other in the treatment of people newly diagnosed with depression in primary care. Regarding the primary outcomes, one study reported statistically significant increases in patient satisfaction, the other study did not. There was no evidence of effect on clinical outcomes or hospital readmission rates in either study. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an indication that interventions to increase shared decision making increased doctor facilitation of patient involvement in decision making, and did not increase consultation times. Nor did the interventions increase patient compliance with treatment plans. Neither study reported any harms of the intervention. Definite conclusions cannot be drawn, however, on the basis of these two studies. No firm conclusions can be drawn at present about the effects of shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. There is no evidence of harm, but there is an urgent need for further research in this area.

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-12

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

An introduction to behavioural decision-making theories for paediatricians.

PubMed

Haward, Marlyse F; Janvier, Annie

2015-04-01

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

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.

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.

How Do Children Share Information in Groups?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Depressive symptoms and decision-making preferences in patients with comorbid illnesses.

PubMed

Moise, Nathalie; Ye, Siqin; Alcántara, Carmela; Davidson, Karina W; Kronish, Ian

2017-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly promoted in the primary care setting, but depressive symptoms, which are associated with cognitive changes, may influence decision-making preferences. We sought to assess whether elevated depressive symptoms are associated with decision-making preference in patients with comorbid chronic illness. We enrolled 195 patients ≥18years old with uncontrolled hypertension from two urban, academic primary care clinics. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire. Clinician-directed decision-making preference was assessed according to the Control Preference Scale. The impact of depressive symptoms on decision-making preference was assessed using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, Medicaid status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, partner status, and clustering within clinicians. The mean age was 64.2years; 72% were women, 77% Hispanic, 38% Black, and 33% had elevated depressive symptoms. Overall, 35% of patients preferred clinician-directed decision-making, 19% mostly clinician-directed, 39% shared, and 7% some or little clinician-input. Patients with (vs. without) elevated depressive symptoms were more likely to prefer clinician-directed decision-making (46% versus 29%; p=0.02; AOR 2.51, 95% CI 1.30-4.85, p=0.005). Remitted depressive symptoms (vs. never depressed) were not associated with preference. Elevated depressive symptoms are associated with preference for clinician-directed decision-making. We suggest that clinicians should be aware of this effect when incorporating preference into their communication styles and take an active role in eliciting patient values and exchanging information about treatment choice, all important components of shared decision-making, particularly when patients are depressed. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

Complementary and Alternative Therapies in ALS

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

Nurse aide decision making in nursing homes: factors affecting empowerment.

PubMed

Chaudhuri, Tanni; Yeatts, Dale E; Cready, Cynthia M

2013-09-01

To evaluate factors affecting structural empowerment among nurse aides in nursing homes. Structural empowerment can be defined as the actual rather than perceived ability to make autonomous decisions within an organisation. Given the paucity of research on the subject, this study helps to close the gap by identifying factors that affect nurse aide empowerment, that is, decision-making among nurse aides. The data for the study come from self-administered questionnaires distributed to direct-care workers (nurse aides) in 11 nursing homes in a southern state in the USA. Ordinary least square regression models were estimated to analyse the effects of demographic predictors, personal factors (competency, emotional exhaustion and positive attitude) and structural characteristics (coworker and supervisor support, information availability and shared governance) on nurse aide decision-making. Findings suggest race among demographic predictors, emotional exhaustion among personal characteristics, and supervisor support, and shared governance among structural factors, significantly affect nurse aide decision-making. It is important to explore race as one of the central determinants of structural empowerment among nurse aides. In addition, the nature and type of emotional exhaustion that propels decision-making needs to be further examined. The study shows the importance of shared governance and supervisor support for fostering nurse aide empowerment. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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,…

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.

Right For Me: protocol for a cluster randomised trial of two interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods

PubMed Central

Thompson, Rachel; Manski, Ruth; Donnelly, Kyla Z; Stevens, Gabrielle; Agusti, Daniela; Banach, Michelle; Boardman, Maureen B; Brady, Pearl; Colón Bradt, Christina; Foster, Tina; Johnson, Deborah J; Li, Zhongze; Norsigian, Judy; Nothnagle, Melissa; Olson, Ardis L; Shepherd, Heather L; Stern, Lisa F; Tosteson, Tor D; Trevena, Lyndal; Upadhya, Krishna K; Elwyn, Glyn

2017-01-01

Introduction Despite the observed and theoretical advantages of shared decision-making in a range of clinical contexts, including contraceptive care, there remains a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate its adoption. This paper describes the protocol for a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of patient-targeted and provider-targeted interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Methods and analysis We will conduct a 2×2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial with four arms: (1) video+prompt card, (2) decision aids+training, (3) video+prompt card and decision aids+training and (4) usual care. The clusters will be clinics in USA that deliver contraceptive care. The participants will be people who have completed a healthcare visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, are aged 15–49 years, are able to read and write English or Spanish and have not previously participated in the study. The primary outcome will be shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of a conversation about contraception in the healthcare visit, satisfaction with the conversation about contraception, intended contraceptive method(s), intention to use a highly effective method, values concordance of the intended method(s), decision regret, contraceptive method(s) used, use of a highly effective method, use of the intended method(s), adherence, satisfaction with the method(s) used, unintended pregnancy and unwelcome pregnancy. We will collect study data via longitudinal patient surveys administered immediately after the healthcare visit, four weeks later and six months later. Ethics and dissemination We will disseminate results via presentations at scientific and professional conferences, papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals and scientific and lay reports. We will also make an anonymised copy of the final participant-level dataset available to others for research purposes. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759939. PMID:29061624

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2006-01-01

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

Space and Power in the Ivory Tower: Effective Space Management and Decision Making

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Blanchette, Sandra

2012-01-01

At a time when there are enormous economic pressures on campuses to use resources effectively, space being one of these resources, the academic culture of shared governance, with its fragmented roles for decision making, presents additional challenges. These roles are fragmented due to independent faculty and administrative action. They are…

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

PubMed

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

2018-05-29

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

Has Lean improved organizational decision making?

PubMed

Simons, Pascale; Benders, Jos; Bergs, Jochen; Marneffe, Wim; Vandijck, Dominique

2016-06-13

Purpose - Sustainable improvement is likely to be hampered by ambiguous objectives and uncertain cause-effect relations in care processes (the organization's decision-making context). Lean management can improve implementation results because it decreases ambiguity and uncertainties. But does it succeed? Many quality improvement (QI) initiatives are appropriate improvement strategies in organizational contexts characterized by low ambiguity and uncertainty. However, most care settings do not fit this context. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether a Lean-inspired change program changed the organization's decision-making context, making it more amenable for QI initiatives. Design/methodology/approach - In 2014, 12 professionals from a Dutch radiotherapy institute were interviewed regarding their perceptions of a Lean program in their organization and the perceived ambiguous objectives and uncertain cause-effect relations in their clinical processes. A survey (25 questions), addressing the same concepts, was conducted among the interviewees in 2011 and 2014. The structured interviews were analyzed using a deductive approach. Quantitative data were analyzed using appropriate statistics. Findings - Interviewees experienced improved shared visions and the number of uncertain cause-effect relations decreased. Overall, more positive (99) than negative Lean effects (18) were expressed. The surveys revealed enhanced process predictability and standardization, and improved shared visions. Practical implications - Lean implementation has shown to lead to greater transparency and increased shared visions. Originality/value - Lean management decreased ambiguous objectives and reduced uncertainties in clinical process cause-effect relations. Therefore, decision making benefitted from Lean increasing QI's sustainability.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2014-09-02

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

Shared Decision-Making 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

Couple decision making and use of cultural scripts in Malawi.

PubMed

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

2008-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2002-11-01

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

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.

[Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in oncology: Patient perceptions].

PubMed

Ortega-Moreno, M; Padilla-Garrido, N; Huelva-López, L; Aguado-Correa, F; Bayo-Calero, J; Bayo-Lozano, E

To determine, from the point of view of the oncological patient, who made the decision about their treatment, as well as the major barriers and facilitators that enabled Shared Decision Making to be implemented. A cross-sectional, descriptive, sand association study using a self-report questionnaire to selected cancer patients, with casual sampling in different oncology clinics and random time periods. A total of 108 patients provided analysable data. The information was collected on sociodemographic and clinical variables, who made the decision about treatment, and level of agreement or disagreement with various barriers and facilitators. More than one-third (38.1%) of patients claimed to have participated in shared decision making with their doctor. Barriers such as, time, the difficulty of understanding, the paternalism, lack of fluid communication, and having preliminary and often erroneous information influenced the involvement in decision-making. However, to have or not have sufficient tools to aid decision making or the patient's interest to participate had no effect. As regards facilitators, physician motivation, their perception of improvement, and the interest of the patient had a positive influence. The exception was the possibility of financial incentives to doctors. The little, or no participation perceived by cancer patients in decisions about their health makes it necessary to introduce improvements in the health care model to overcome barriers and promote a more participatory attitude in the patient. Copyright © 2017 SECA. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2018-05-30

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

'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.

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.

High deductible health plans: does cost sharing stimulate increased consumer sophistication?

PubMed

Gupta, Neal; Polsky, Daniel

2015-06-01

To determine whether increased cost sharing in health insurance plans induces higher levels of consumer sophistication in a non-elderly population. This analysis is based on the collection of survey and demographic data collected from enrollees in the RAND health insurance experiment (HIE). During the RAND HIE, enrollees were randomly assigned to different levels of cost sharing (0, 25, 50 and 95%). The study population compromises about 2000 people enrolled in the RAND HIE, between the years 1974 and 1982. Effects on health-care decision making were measured using the results of a standardized questionnaire, administered at the beginning and end of the experiment. Points of enquiry included whether or not enrollees' (i) recognized the need for second opinions (ii) questioned the effectiveness of certain therapies and (iii) researched the background/skill of their medical providers. Consumer sophistication was also measured for regular health-care consumers, as indicated by the presence of a chronic disease. We found no statically significant changes (P < 0.05) in the health-care decision-making strategies between individuals randomized to high cost sharing plans and low cost sharing plans. Furthermore, we did not find a stronger effect for patients with a chronic disease. The evidence from the RAND HIE does not support the hypothesis that a higher level of cost sharing incentivizes the development of consumer sophistication. As a result, cost sharing alone will not promote individuals to become more selective in their health-care decision-making. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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

PubMed

Karnieli-Miller, Orit; Eisikovits, Zvi

2009-07-01

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

Exploring Effective Decision Making through Human-Centered and Computational Intelligence Methods

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

Han, Kyungsik; Cook, Kristin A.; Shih, Patrick C.

Decision-making has long been studied to understand a psychological, cognitive, and social process of selecting an effective choice from alternative options. Its studies have been extended from a personal level to a group and collaborative level, and many computer-aided decision-making systems have been developed to help people make right decisions. There has been significant research growth in computational aspects of decision-making systems, yet comparatively little effort has existed in identifying and articulating user needs and requirements in assessing system outputs and the extent to which human judgments could be utilized for making accurate and reliable decisions. Our research focus ismore » decision-making through human-centered and computational intelligence methods in a collaborative environment, and the objectives of this position paper are to bring our research ideas to the workshop, and share and discuss ideas.« less

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

PubMed Central

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

2008-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2012-11-13

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Business Intelligence: Turning Knowledge into Power

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Endsley, Krista

2009-01-01

Today, many school districts are turning to business intelligence tools to retrieve, organize, and share knowledge for faster analysis and more effective, guided decision making. Business intelligence (BI) tools are the technologies and applications that gather and report information to help an organization's leaders make better decisions. BI…

Pairing Physician Education With Patient Activation to Improve Shared Decisions in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

PubMed Central

Wilkes, Michael S.; Day, Frank C.; Srinivasan, Malathi; Griffin, Erin; Tancredi, Daniel J.; Rainwater, Julie A.; Kravitz, Richard L.; Bell, Douglas S.; Hoffman, Jerome R.

2013-01-01

BACKGROUND Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician’s final recommendations. METHODS Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients’ reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients’ reported shared decision making and the physician’s recommendation for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS Patients’ ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests. CONCLUSIONS Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to significant changes in all aspects of physician attitudes and behaviors that we studied, interventions that involved physicians did have a large effect on their attitudes toward screening and in the discussions they had with patients, including their being more likely than control physicians to engage in prostate cancer screening discussions and more likely to be neutral in their final recommendations. PMID:23835818

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

PubMed

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

2005-12-01

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

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.

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.…

Culture and medical decision making: Healthcare consumer perspectives in Japan and the United States.

PubMed

Alden, Dana L; Friend, John M; Lee, Angela Y; de Vries, Marieke; Osawa, Ryosuke; Chen, Qimei

2015-12-01

Two studies identified core value influences on medical decision-making processes across and within cultures. In Study 1, Japanese and American adults reported desired levels of medical decision-making influence across conditions that varied in seriousness. Cultural antecedents (interdependence, independence, and power distance) were also measured. In Study 2, American adults reviewed a colorectal cancer screening decision aid. Decision preparedness was measured along with interdependence, independence, and desire for medical information. In Study 1, higher interdependence predicted stronger desire for decision-making information in both countries, but was significantly stronger in Japan. The path from information desire to decision-making influence desire was significant only in Japan. The independence path to desire for decision-making influence was significant only in the United States. Power distance effects negatively predicted desire for decision-making influence only in the United States. For Study 2, high (low) interdependents and women (men) in the United States felt that a colorectal cancer screening decision aid helped prepare them more (less) for a medical consultation. Low interdependent men were at significantly higher risk for low decision preparedness. Study 1 suggests that Japanese participants may tend to view medical decision-making influence as an interdependent, information sharing exchange, whereas American respondents may be more interested in power sharing that emphasizes greater independence. Study 2 demonstrates the need to assess value influences on medical decision-making processes within and across cultures and suggests that individually tailored versions of decision aids may optimize decision preparedness. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

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

PubMed

Astbury, Ruth; Shepherd, Ashley; Cheyne, Helen

2017-01-01

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

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.

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).

A brief educational intervention to teach residents shared decision making in the intensive care unit.

PubMed

Yuen, Jacqueline K; Mehta, Sonal S; Roberts, Jordan E; Cooke, Joseph T; Reid, M Carrington

2013-05-01

Effective communication is essential for shared decision making with families of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), yet there is limited evidence on effective strategies to teach these skills. The study's objective was to pilot test an educational intervention to teach internal medicine interns skills in discussing goals of care and treatment decisions with families of critically ill patients using the shared decision making framework. The intervention consisted of a PowerPoint online module followed by a four-hour workshop implemented at a retreat for medicine interns training at an urban, academic medical center. Participants (N=33) completed post-intervention questionnaires that included self-assessed skills learned, an open-ended question on the most important learning points from the workshop, and retrospective pre- and post-workshop comfort level with ICU communication skills. Participants rated their satisfaction with the workshop. Twenty-nine interns (88%) completed the questionnaires. Important self-assessed communication skills learned reflect key components of shared decision making, which include assessing the family's understanding of the patient's condition (endorsed by 100%) and obtaining an understanding of the patient/family's perspectives, values, and goals (100%). Interns reported significant improvement in their comfort level with ICU communication skills (pre 3.26, post 3.73 on a five-point scale, p=0.004). Overall satisfaction with the intervention was high (mean 4.45 on a five-point scale). The findings suggest that a brief intervention designed to teach residents communication skills in conducting goals of care and treatment discussions in the ICU is feasible and can improve their comfort level with these conversations.

A moral compass for management decision making: a healthcare CEO's reflections.

PubMed

Donnellan, John J

2013-01-01

Ethical behavior is good for business in any organization. In healthcare, it results in better patient care, a more committed and satisfied staff, more efficient care delivery, and increased market share. But it requires leaders who have a broad view of the role that ethics programs--and an effective, sustained ethical culture--play. Ethical organizations have integrated and shared ethical values and practices, an effective ethics infrastructure, ongoing ethics education for staff at every level, ethical and morally courageous leaders, and a culture that is consistent with the organization's values. The mission, vision, and values statements of these organizations have been successfully translated into a set of shared values--a moral compass that guides behavior and decision making.

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

PubMed

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

2015-09-01

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

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

PubMed

Biedrzycki, Barbara A

2011-09-01

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

Decision-Making Processes of SME in Cloud Computing Adoption to Create Disruptive Innovation: Mediating Effect of Collaboration

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sonthiprasat, Rattanawadee

2014-01-01

THE PROBLEM. The purpose of this quantitative correlation study was to assess the relationship between different Cloud service levels of effective business innovation for SMEs. In addition, the new knowledge gained from the benefits of Cloud adoption with knowledge sharing would enhance the decision making process for businesses to consider the…

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 for people living with dementia in extended care settings: a systematic review

PubMed Central

Bunn, Frances; Goodman, Claire

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-04-07

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

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care.

PubMed

Coxeter, Peter; Del Mar, Chris B; McGregor, Leanne; Beller, Elaine M; Hoffmann, Tammy C

2015-11-12

Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available. We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients.The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this.We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively.There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms. Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death.

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.

‘They leave at least believing they had a part in the discussion’: Understanding decision aid use and patient–clinician decision-making through qualitative research

PubMed Central

Tiedje, Kristina; Shippee, Nathan D.; Johnson, Anna M.; Flynn, Priscilla M.; Finnie, Dawn M.; Liesinger, Juliette T.; May, Carl R.; Olson, Marianne E.; Ridgeway, Jennifer L.; Shah, Nilay D.; Yawn, Barbara P.; Montori, Victor M.

2013-01-01

Objective This study explores how patient decision aids (DAs) for antihyperglycemic agents and statins, designed for use during clinical consultations, are embedded into practice, examining how patients and clinicians understand and experience DAs in primary care visits. Methods We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with patients (n = 22) and primary care clinicians (n = 19), and videorecorded consultations (n = 44). Two researchers coded all transcripts. Inductive analyses guided by grounded theory led to the identification of themes. Video and interview data were compared and organized by themes. Results DAs used during consultations became flexible artifacts, incorporated into existing decision making roles for clinicians (experts, authority figures, persuaders, advisors) and patients (drivers of healthcare, learners, partners). DAs were applied to different decision making steps (deliberation, bargaining, convincing, case assessment), and introduced into an existing knowledge context (participants’ literacy regarding shared decision-making (SDM) and DAs). Conclusion DAs’ flexible use during consultations effectively provided space for discussion, even when SDM was not achieved. DAs can be used within any decision-making model. Practice implications Clinician training in DA use and SDM practice may be needed to facilitate DA implementation and promote more ideal-type forms of sharing in decision making. PMID:23598292

Right For Me: protocol for a cluster randomised trial of two interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods.

PubMed

Thompson, Rachel; Manski, Ruth; Donnelly, Kyla Z; Stevens, Gabrielle; Agusti, Daniela; Banach, Michelle; Boardman, Maureen B; Brady, Pearl; Colón Bradt, Christina; Foster, Tina; Johnson, Deborah J; Li, Zhongze; Norsigian, Judy; Nothnagle, Melissa; Olson, Ardis L; Shepherd, Heather L; Stern, Lisa F; Tosteson, Tor D; Trevena, Lyndal; Upadhya, Krishna K; Elwyn, Glyn

2017-10-22

Despite the observed and theoretical advantages of shared decision-making in a range of clinical contexts, including contraceptive care, there remains a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate its adoption. This paper describes the protocol for a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of patient-targeted and provider-targeted interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. We will conduct a 2×2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial with four arms: (1) video+prompt card, (2) decision aids+training, (3) video+prompt card and decision aids+training and (4) usual care. The clusters will be clinics in USA that deliver contraceptive care. The participants will be people who have completed a healthcare visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, are aged 15-49 years, are able to read and write English or Spanish and have not previously participated in the study. The primary outcome will be shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of a conversation about contraception in the healthcare visit, satisfaction with the conversation about contraception, intended contraceptive method(s), intention to use a highly effective method, values concordance of the intended method(s), decision regret, contraceptive method(s) used, use of a highly effective method, use of the intended method(s), adherence, satisfaction with the method(s) used, unintended pregnancy and unwelcome pregnancy. We will collect study data via longitudinal patient surveys administered immediately after the healthcare visit, four weeks later and six months later. We will disseminate results via presentations at scientific and professional conferences, papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals and scientific and lay reports. We will also make an anonymised copy of the final participant-level dataset available to others for research purposes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759939. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

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.

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.

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.

Informed use of patients' records on trusted health care services.

PubMed

Sahama, Tony; Miller, Evonne

2011-01-01

Health care is an information-intensive business. Sharing information in health care processes is a smart use of data enabling informed decision-making whilst ensuring. the privacy and security of patient information. To achieve this, we propose data encryption techniques embedded Information Accountability Framework (IAF) that establishes transitions of the technological concept, thus enabling understanding of shared responsibility, accessibility, and efficient cost effective informed decisions between health care professionals and patients. The IAF results reveal possibilities of efficient informed medical decision making and minimisation of medical errors. Of achieving this will require significant cultural changes and research synergies to ensure the sustainability, acceptability and durability of the IAF.

Impact of a web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid on patient-reported decision process parameters: results from the Prostate Cancer Patient Centered Care trial.

PubMed

Cuypers, Maarten; Lamers, Romy E D; Kil, Paul J M; van de Poll-Franse, Lonneke V; de Vries, Marieke

2018-05-12

To compare patients' evaluation of the treatment decision-making process in localized prostate cancer between counseling that included an online decision aid (DA) and standard counseling. Eighteen Dutch hospitals were randomized to DA counseling (n = 235) or the control group with standard counseling (n = 101) in a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The DA was provided to patients at, or soon after diagnosis. Decisional conflict, involvement, knowledge, and satisfaction with information were assessed with a questionnaire after treatment decision-making. Anxiety and depression served as covariates. The levels of decision involvement and conflict were comparable between patients in both groups. Patients with a DA felt more knowledgeable but scored equally well on a knowledge test as patients without a DA. Small significant negative effects were found on satisfaction with information and preparation for decision-making. A preference for print over online and depression and anxiety symptoms was negatively associated with satisfaction and conflict scores in the DA group. The DA aimed to support shared decision-making, while outcomes for a majority of DA users were comparable to patients who received standard counseling. Patients, who are less comfortable with the online DA format or experience anxiety or depression symptoms, could require more guidance toward shared decision-making. To evaluate long-term DA effects, follow-up evaluation on treatment satisfaction and decisional regret will be done.

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

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

Factors That Effect Interagency Collaborations: Lessons During and Following the 2002 Winter Olympics

DTIC Science & Technology

2008-03-01

solving Formal control ( decision making ) Strategic planning (structure or process) Barriers PROBE / Ticklers Were there incentives... making ) Strategic planning (structure or process) 74 PROBE / Ticklers To what extend does interdependence needed for these...aspect Motivation Social capital Trust Leadership Interpersonal communication (people skills) Shared problem solving Formal control ( decision

Participative Decision Making in Schools: A Mediating-Moderating Analytical Framework for Understanding School and Teacher Outcomes

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Somech, Anit

2010-01-01

The increasing emergence of participation in decision making (PDM) in schools reflects the widely shared belief that flatter management and decentralized authority structures carry the potential for promoting school effectiveness. However, the literature indicates a discrepancy between the intuitive appeal of PDM and empirical evidence in respect…

Spontaneous mental associations with the words "side effect": Implications for informed and shared decision making.

PubMed

Izadi, Sonya; Pachur, Thorsten; Wheeler, Courtney; McGuire, Jaclyn; Waters, Erika A

2017-10-01

To gain insight into patients' medical decisions by exploring the content of laypeople's spontaneous mental associations with the term "side effect." An online cross-sectional survey asked 144 women aged 40-74, "What are the first three things you think of when you hear the words 'side effect?"' Data were analyzed using content analysis, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. 17 codes emerged and were grouped into 4 themes and a Miscellaneous category: Health Problems (70.8% of participants), Decision-Relevant Evaluations (52.8%), Negative Affect (30.6%), Practical Considerations (18.1%) and Miscellaneous (9.7%). The 4 most frequently identified codes were: Risk (36.1%), Health Problems-Specific Symptoms (35.4%), Health Problems-General Terms (32.6%), and Negative Affect-Strong (19.4%). Code and theme frequencies were generally similar across demographic groups (ps>0.05). The term "side effect" spontaneously elicited comments related to identifying health problems and expressing negative emotions. This might explain why the mere possibility of side effects triggers negative affect for people making medical decisions. Some respondents also mentioned decision-relevant evaluations and practical considerations in response to side effects. Addressing commonly-held associations and acknowledging negative affects provoked by side effects are first steps healthcare providers can take towards improving informed and shared patient decision making. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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…

American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

MedlinePlus

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

Encouraging information sharing to boost the name-your-own-price auction

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Chen, Yahong; Li, Jinlin; Huang, He; Ran, Lun; Hu, Yusheng

2017-08-01

During a name-your-own-price (NYOP) auction, buyers can learn a lot of knowledge from their socially connected peers. Such social learning process makes them become more active to attend the auction and also helps them make decisions on what price to submit. Combining an information diffusion model and a belief decision model, we explore three effects of bidders' information sharing on the buyers' behaviors and the seller profit. The results indicate that information sharing significantly increases the NYOP popularity and the seller profit. When enlarging the quality or quantity of information sharing, or increasing the spreading efficiency of the network topology, the number of attenders and the seller profit are increased significantly. However, the spread of information may make bidders be more likely to bid higher and consequently lose surplus. In addition, the different but interdependent influence of the successful information and failure information are discussed in this work.

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: 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.

Interdependence and Management in Bilingual Classrooms. Final Report.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cohen, Elizabeth G.; Intili, Jo Ann

Applying industrial organizational theory to classroom management, the authors examined the organization of a complex bilingual curriculum for the effects of shared authority among students and teachers and the effects of shared decision-making among staff. Using a math-science curriculum called "Finding Out: Descubrimiento," the nine…

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.

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

Patient Preferences and Surrogate Decision Making in Neuroscience Intensive Care Units

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

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.

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.

Decision making in pediatric oncology: Views of parents and physicians in two European countries.

PubMed

Badarau, Domnita O; Ruhe, Katharina; Kühne, Thomas; De Clercq, Eva; Colita, Anca; Elger, Bernice S; Wangmo, Tenzin

2017-01-01

Decision making is a highly complex task when providing care for seriously ill children. Physicians, parents, and children face many challenges when identifying and selecting from available treatment options. This qualitative interview study explored decision-making processes for children with cancer at different stages in their treatment in Switzerland and Romania. Thematic analysis of interviews conducted with parents and oncologists identified decision making as a heterogeneous process in both countries. Various decisions were made based on availability and reasonableness of care options. In most cases, at the time of diagnosis, parents were confronted with a "choiceless choice"-that is, there was only one viable option (a standard protocol), and physicians took the lead in making decisions significant for health outcomes. Parents' and sometimes children's role increased during treatment when they had to make decisions regarding research participation and aggressive therapy or palliative care. Framing these results within the previously described Decisional Priority in Pediatric Oncology Model (DPM) highlights family's more prominent position when making elective decisions regarding quality-of-life or medical procedures, which had little effect on health outcomes. The interdependency between oncologists, parents, and children is always present. Communication, sharing of information, and engaging in discussions about preferences, values, and ultimately care goals should be decision making's foundation. Patient participation in these processes was reported as sometimes limited, but parents and oncologists should continue to probe patients' abilities and desire to be involved in decision making. Future research should expand the DPM and explore how decisional priority and authority can be shared by oncologists with parents and even patients.

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

PubMed

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

2017-08-01

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

Shared Decision Making 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…

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.

Health literacy, numeracy, and graphical literacy among veterans in primary care and their effect on shared decision making and trust in physicians.

PubMed

Rodríguez, Vanessa; Andrade, Allen D; García-Retamero, Rocio; Anam, Ramanakumar; Rodríguez, Remberto; Lisigurski, Miriam; Sharit, Joseph; Ruiz, Jorge G

2013-01-01

Studies reveal high levels of inadequate health literacy and numeracy in African Americans and older veterans. The authors aimed to investigate the distribution of health literacy, numeracy, and graph literacy in these populations. They conducted a cross-sectional survey of veterans receiving outpatient care and measured health literacy, numeracy, graph literacy, shared decision making, and trust in physicians. In addition, the authors compared subgroups of veterans using analyses of covariance. Participants were 502 veterans (22-82 years). Low, marginal, and adequate health literacy were found in, respectively, 29%, 26%, and 45% of the veterans. The authors found a significant main effect of race qualified by an age and race interaction. Inadequate health literacy was more common in African Americans than in Whites. Younger African Americans had lower health literacy (p <.001), graph literacy (p <.001), and numeracy (p <.001) than did Whites, even after the authors adjusted for covariates. Older and younger participants did not differ in health literacy, objective numeracy, or graph literacy after adjustment. The authors found no health literacy or age-related differences regarding preferences for shared decision making. African Americans expressed dissatisfaction with their current role in decision making (p =.03). Older participants trusted their physicians more than younger participants (p =.01). In conclusion, African Americans may be at a disadvantage when reviewing patient education materials, potentially affecting health care outcomes.

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

PubMed

Land, Victoria; Parry, Ruth; Seymour, Jane

2017-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-05-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

Patient Decision Control and the Use of Cardiac Catheterization

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

Tailoring and evaluating an intervention to improve shared decision-making among seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and healthcare providers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Giguere, Anik M C; Lawani, Moulikatou Adouni; Fortier-Brochu, Émilie; Carmichael, Pierre-Hugues; Légaré, France; Kröger, Edeltraut; Witteman, Holly O; Voyer, Philippe; Caron, Danielle; Rodríguez, Charo

2018-06-25

The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia raises new challenges to ensure that healthcare decisions are informed by research evidence and reflect what is important for seniors and their caregivers. Therefore, we aim to evaluate a tailored intervention to help healthcare providers empower seniors and their caregivers in making health-related decisions. In two phases, we will: (1) design and tailor the intervention; and (2) implement and evaluate it. We will use theory and user-centered design to tailor an intervention comprising a distance professional training program on shared decision-making and five shared decision-making tools dealing with difficult decisions often faced by seniors with dementia and their caregivers. Each tool will be designed in two versions, one for clinicians and one for patients. We will recruit 49 clinicians and 27 senior/caregiver to participate in three cycles of design-evaluation-feedback of each intervention components. Besides think-aloud and interview approaches, users will also complete questionnaires based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to identify the factors most likely to influence their adoption of shared decision-making after exposure to the intervention. We will then modify the intervention by adding/enhancing behavior-change techniques targeting these factors. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this tailored intervention before/after implementation, in a two-armed, clustered randomized trial. We will enroll a convenience sample of six primary care clinics (unit of randomization) in the province of Quebec and recruit the clinicians who practice there (mostly family physicians, nurses, and social workers). These clinics will then be randomized to immediate exposure to the intervention or delayed exposure. Overall, we will recruit 180 seniors with dementia, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers. We will evaluate the impact of the intervention on patient involvement in the decision-making process, decisional comfort, patient and caregiver personal empowerment in relation to their own healthcare, patient quality of life, caregiver burden, and decisional regret. The intervention will empower patients and their caregivers in their healthcare, by fostering their participation as partners during the decision-making process and by ensuring they make informed decisions congruent with their values and priorities. ClinicalTrials.org, NCT02956694 . Registered on 31 October 2016.

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.

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.

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.

Communication and Decision-Making About End-of-Life Care in the Intensive Care Unit.

PubMed

Brooks, Laura Anne; Manias, Elizabeth; Nicholson, Patricia

2017-07-01

Clinicians in the intensive care unit commonly face decisions involving withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, which present many clinical and ethical challenges. Communication and shared decision-making are key aspects relating to the transition from active treatment to end-of-life care. To explore the experiences and perspectives of nurses and physicians when initiating end-of-life care in the intensive care unit. The study was conducted in a 24-bed intensive care unit in Melbourne, Australia. An interpretative, qualitative inquiry was used, with focus groups as the data collection method. Intensive care nurses and physicians were recruited to participate in a discipline-specific focus group. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic data analysis. Five focus groups were conducted; 17 nurses and 11 physicians participated. The key aspects discussed included communication and shared decision-making. Themes related to communication included the timing of end-of-life care discussions and conducting difficult conversations. Implementation and multidisciplinary acceptance of end-of-life care plans and collaborative decisions involving patients and families were themes related to shared decision-making. Effective communication and decision-making practices regarding initiating end-of-life care in the intensive care unit are important. Multidisciplinary implementation and acceptance of end-of-life care plans in the intensive care unit need improvement. Clear organizational processes that support the introduction of nurse and physician end-of-life care leaders are essential to optimize outcomes for patients, family members, and clinicians. ©2017 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2017-08-02

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

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

The Role of Epistemic Motivation in Individuals' Response to Decision Complexity

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Amit, Adi; Sagiv, Lilach

2013-01-01

Integrating findings on the effects of more alternatives with findings on the effects of more attributes, we offer a motivational decision-making model, suggesting that epistemic motivation moderates individuals' responses to complex information. Study 1 empirically investigated the shared essence of four conceptualizations of epistemic…

Decision Making and Cancer

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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.

The Effect of Screen-to-Screen Versus Face-to-Face Consultation on Doctor-Patient Communication: An Experimental Study with Simulated Patients

PubMed Central

Tates, Kiek; Kanters, Saskia; Nieboer, Theodoor E; Gerritse, Maria BE

2017-01-01

Background Despite the emergence of Web-based patient-provider contact, it is still unclear how the quality of Web-based doctor-patient interactions differs from face-to-face interactions. Objective This study aimed to examine (1) the impact of a consultation medium on doctors’ and patients’ communicative behavior in terms of information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and shared decision making and (2) the mediating role of doctors’ and patients’ communicative behavior on satisfaction with both types of consultation medium. Methods Doctor-patient consultations on pelvic organ prolapse were simulated, both in a face-to-face and in a screen-to-screen (video) setting. Twelve medical interns and 6 simulated patients prepared 4 different written scenarios and were randomized to perform a total of 48 consultations. Effects of the consultations were measured by questionnaires that participants filled out directly after the consultation. Results With respect to patient-related outcomes, satisfaction, perceived information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and perceived shared decision making showed no significant differences between face-to-face and screen-to-screen consultations. Patients’ attitude toward Web-based communication (b=−.249, P=.02 and patients’ perceived time and attention (b=.271, P=.03) significantly predicted patients’ perceived interpersonal relationship building. Patients’ perceived shared decision making was positively related to their satisfaction with the consultation (b=.254, P=.005). Overall, patients experienced significantly greater shared decision making with a female doctor (mean 4.21, SD 0.49) than with a male doctor (mean 3.66 [SD 0.73]; b=.401, P=.009). Doctor-related outcomes showed no significant differences in satisfaction, perceived information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and perceived shared decision making between the conditions. There was a positive relationship between perceived information exchange and doctors’ satisfaction with the consultation (b=.533, P<.001). Furthermore, doctors’ perceived interpersonal relationship building was positively related to doctors’ satisfaction with the consultation (b=.331, P=.003). Conclusions In this study, the quality of doctor-patient communication, as indicated by information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and shared decision making, did not differ significantly between Web-based and face-to-face consultations. Doctors and simulated patients were equally satisfied with both types of consultation medium, and no differences were found in the manner in which participants perceived communicative behavior during these consultations. The findings suggest that worries about a negative impact of Web-based video consultation on the quality of patient-provider consultations seem unwarranted as they offer the same interaction quality and satisfaction level as regular face-to-face consultations. PMID:29263017

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

PubMed

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

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

Instrumental relating and treatment decision making among older women with early-stage breast cancer.

PubMed

Pieters, Huibrie C; Heilemann, Marysue V; Maliski, Sally; Dornig, Katrina; Mentes, Jan

2012-01-01

To understand how women aged 70 years and older who had recently undergone treatment for early-stage breast cancer experienced treatment decision making. Qualitative, descriptive study guided by grounded theory. PARTICIPANTS' houses and apartments in southern California. 18 women, aged 70-94 years, who completed treatment for primary, early-stage breast cancer 3-15 months prior (X = 8.5 months). Twenty-eight semistructured personal interviews that lasted, on average, 104 minutes. Data were collected and analyzed using constructivist grounded theory. Gero-oncology perspective of treatment decision making. A major finding was that the power of relating spontaneously was used as a vehicle to connect with others. That process, which the authors called "instrumental relating," was grounded in a foundation of mutual caring for themselves and others. Within that mutual caring, the women participated in three ways of relating to share in treatment decision making: obtaining information, interpreting healthcare providers, and determining the trustworthiness of their providers. Those ways of relating were effortlessly and simultaneously employed. The women used their expert abilities of relating to get the factual and emotional information that they needed. That information supported what the women perceived to be decisions that were shared and effective. The findings are the first evidence of the importance of relating as a key factor in decision making from the personal perspective of older women with early-stage breast cancer. This work serves as a springboard for future clinical interventions and research opportunities to individualize communication and enhance effective decision making for older patients who wish to participate in their cancer care.

Gender Discrimination in the Allocation of Migrant Household Resources.

PubMed

Antman, Francisca M

2015-07-01

This paper considers the relationship between international migration and gender discrimination through the lens of decision-making power over intrahousehold resource allocation. The endogeneity of migration is addressed with a difference-in-differences style identification strategy and a model with household fixed effects. The results suggest that while a migrant household head is away, a greater share of resources is spent on girls relative to boys and his spouse commands greater decision-making power. Once the head returns home, however, a greater share of resources goes to boys and there is suggestive evidence of greater authority for the head of household.

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

PubMed

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

2015-11-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-08-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-12-01

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

Shared decision making: relevant concepts and facilitating strategies.

PubMed

Bae, Jong-Myon

2017-01-01

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

Oversight mechanisms in public managed care programs: from little oversight to negotiations to shared decision-making.

PubMed

Beinecke, R H

1999-01-01

An expanded range of oversight mechanisms is being adopted to hold public human service programs more accountable to funding sources as well as consumers, family members, and providers. Most of these approaches are hierarchical in nature. Some involve negotiated agreements and each is designed to meet certain goals and functions. Each utilizes different forms of decision-making. Stakeholders prefer to be part of a shared decision-making process. Understanding these underlying premises can help to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each method and can suggest how to most effectively utilize combinations of approaches to improve program performance. Whether we will move toward a new paradigm emphasizing participation and collaboration rather than more formal structural approaches is yet undetermined but will greatly affect how programs are monitored and evaluated in the future.

The relationship between social support, shared decision-making and patient's trust in doctors: a cross-sectional survey of 2,197 inpatients using the Cologne Patient Questionnaire.

PubMed

Ommen, Oliver; Thuem, Sonja; Pfaff, Holger; Janssen, Christian

2011-06-01

Empirical studies have confirmed that a trusting physician-patient interaction promotes patient satisfaction, adherence to treatment and improved health outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to investigate the relationship between social support, shared decision-making and inpatient's trust in physicians in a hospital setting. A written questionnaire was completed by 2,197 patients who were treated in the year 2000 in six hospitals in Germany. Logistic regression was performed with a dichotomized index for patient's trust in physicians. The logistic regression model identified significant relationships (p < 0.05) in terms of emotional support (standardized effect coefficient [sc], 3.65), informational support (sc, 1.70), shared decision-making (sc, 1.40), age (sc, 1.14), socioeconomic status (sc, 1.15) and gender (sc, 1.15). We found no significant relationship between 'tendency to excuse' and trust. The last regression model accounted for 49.1% of Nagelkerke's R-square. Insufficient physician communication skills can lead to extensive negative effects on the trust of patients in their physicians. Thus, it becomes clear that medical support requires not only biomedical, but also psychosocial skills.

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

PubMed

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

2013-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

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.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Weiss, Carol H.; And Others

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-10-19

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

Advance care planning and proxy decision making for patients with advanced Parkinson disease.

PubMed

Kwak, Jung; Wallendal, Maggie S; Fritsch, Thomas; Leo, Gary; Hyde, Trevor

2014-03-01

To examine advance care planning practices and proxy decision making by family healthcare proxies for patients with advanced Parkinson disease (PD). Sixty-four spouses and adult children, self-designated as a/the healthcare proxy for advanced patients with PD, participated in a cross-sectional survey study. Sixty patients with PD (95%) had completed a living will, but only 38% had shared the document with a physician. Among three life-support treatments--cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), ventilator, and feeding tube--47% of patients opted for CPR, 16% for ventilator, and 20% for feeding tube. Forty-two percent of proxies did not know patients' preferences for one or more of the three life-support treatments. Only 28% of proxies reported that patients wanted hospice. Patients who shared advance directives with a physician were significantly less likely to choose CPR and a feeding tube and they were more likely to choose hospice. In a hypothetical end-of-life (EOL) scenario, the majority of proxies chose comfort care as the EOL goal of care (53%) and pain and symptom management only as the course of treatment option (72%); these proxy choices for patients, however, were not associated with patients' preferences for life support. Patients' proxies preferred a form of shared decision making with other family members and physicians. Advance care planning is effective when patients, families, and healthcare professionals together consider future needs for EOL care decisions. Further efforts are needed by healthcare professionals to provide evidence-based education about care options and facilitate advanced discussion and shared decision making by the patient and families.

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

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

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

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

2018-02-01

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

Health Literacy, Numeracy, and Graphical Literacy Among Veterans in Primary Care and Their Effect on Shared Decision Making and Trust in Physicians

PubMed Central

Rodríguez, Vanessa; Andrade, Allen D.; García-Retamero, Rocio; Anam, Ramanakumar; Rodríguez, Remberto; Lisigurski, Miriam; Sharit, Joseph; Ruiz, Jorge G.

2013-01-01

Studies reveal high levels of inadequate health literacy and numeracy in African Americans and older veterans. The authors aimed to investigate the distribution of health literacy, numeracy, and graph literacy in these populations. They conducted a cross-sectional survey of veterans receiving outpatient care and measured health literacy, numeracy, graph literacy, shared decision making, and trust in physicians. In addition, the authors compared subgroups of veterans using analyses of covariance. Participants were 502 veterans (22–82 years). Low, marginal, and adequate health literacy were found in, respectively, 29%, 26%, and 45% of the veterans. The authors found a significant main effect of race qualified by an age and race interaction. Inadequate health literacy was more common in African Americans than in Whites. Younger African Americans had lower health literacy (p < .001), graph literacy (p < .001), and numeracy (p < .001) than did Whites, even after the authors adjusted for covariates. Older and younger participants did not differ in health literacy, objective numeracy, or graph literacy after adjustment. The authors found no health literacy or age-related differences regarding preferences for shared decision making. African Americans expressed dissatisfaction with their current role in decision making (p = .03). Older participants trusted their physicians more than younger participants (p = .01). In conclusion, African Americans may be at a disadvantage when reviewing patient education materials, potentially affecting health care outcomes. PMID:24093361

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.

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.

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.

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

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,…

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.

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.

Decision making and cancer.

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

We review decision making along the cancer continuum in the contemporary context of informed and shared decision making in which patients are encouraged to take a more active role in their health care. We discuss challenges to achieving informed and shared decision making, including cognitive limitations and emotional factors, but argue that understanding the mechanisms of decision making offers hope for improving decision support. Theoretical approaches to decision making that explain cognition, emotion, and their interaction are described, including classical psychophysical approaches, dual-process approaches that focus on conflicts between emotion versus cognition (or reason), and modern integrative approaches such as fuzzy-trace theory. In contrast to the earlier emphasis on rote use of numerical detail, modern approaches emphasize understanding the bottom-line gist of options (which encompasses emotion and other influences on meaning) and retrieving relevant social and moral values to apply to those gist representations. Finally, research on interventions to support better decision making in clinical settings is reviewed, drawing out implications for future research on decision making and cancer. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2013-08-01

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

Shared Problem Models and Crew Decision Making

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Orasanu, Judith; Statler, Irving C. (Technical Monitor)

1994-01-01

The importance of crew decision making to aviation safety has been well established through NTSB accident analyses: Crew judgment and decision making have been cited as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents in commercial air transport, general aviation, and military aviation. Yet the bulk of research on decision making has not proven helpful in improving the quality of decisions in the cockpit. One reason is that traditional analytic decision models are inappropriate to the dynamic complex nature of cockpit decision making and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions. A new model of dynamic naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove more useful for training or aiding cockpit decision making. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulation and National Transportation Safety Board accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation and reflect the crew's metacognitive skill. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relation between communication that serves to build performance. Implications of these findings for crew training will be discussed.

Sterilization surgery - making a decision

MedlinePlus

... medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002138.htm Sterilization surgery - making a decision To use the sharing features on this page, ... about all the options available to you before making the decision to have a sterilization procedure. Alternative Names Deciding ...

Academic Libraries, Information Sources, and Shared Decision Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

McClure, Charles R.

1980-01-01

Analyzes the relationship of academic librarians' contact with information sources and their involvement in library decision making. Findings suggest that individuals rich in information sources are most closely linked to the decision-making process. (RAA)

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

Objectives Shared decision-making (SDM) is endorsed by critical care organizations, however there remains confusion about what SDM is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define SDM, recommend when SDM should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills. Methods The American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of ACCM and ATS were included in the statement. Main Results Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) Definition: Shared decision-making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make health care decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient’s values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a SDM process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their “default” approach a SDM process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies. Conclusions Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate. PMID:26509317

Shared governance in the endoscopy department.

PubMed

Metcalf, R; Tate, R

1995-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2010-01-01

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

How Does a Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Intervention for Oncologists Affect Participation Style and Preference Matching in Patients with Breast and Colon Cancer?

PubMed

Bieber, Christiane; Nicolai, Jennifer; Gschwendtner, Kathrin; Müller, Nicole; Reuter, Katrin; Buchholz, Angela; Kallinowski, Birgit; Härter, Martin; Eich, Wolfgang

2018-06-01

The aims of this study are to assess patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles and preference matching in a sample of German breast and colon cancer patients and to investigate how a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for oncologists influences patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles and the attainment of preference matches. This study is a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effects of an SDM intervention. The SDM intervention was a 12-h SDM training program for physicians in combination with decision board use. For this study, we analysed a subgroup of 107 breast and colon cancer patients faced with serious treatment decisions who provided data on specific questionnaires with regard to their preferred and perceived decision-making roles (passive, SDM or active). Patients filled in questionnaires immediately following a decision-relevant consultation (t1) with their oncologist. Eleven of these patients' 27 treating oncologists had received the SDM intervention within the RCT. A majority of cancer patients (60%) preferred SDM. A match between preferred and perceived decision-making roles was reached for 72% of patients. The patients treated by SDM-trained physicians perceived greater autonomy in their decision making (p < 0.05) with more patients perceiving SDM or an active role, but their preference matching was not influenced. A SDM intervention for oncologists boosted patient autonomy but did not improve preference matching. This highlights the already well-known reluctance of physicians to engage in explicit role clarification. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00000539; Funding Source: German Cancer Aid.

Beyond shared decision-making: Collaboration in the age of recovery from serious mental illness.

PubMed

Treichler, Emily B H; Spaulding, William D

2017-01-01

The role that people with serious mental illness (SMI) play in making decisions about their own treatment and rehabilitation is attracting increasing attention and scrutiny. This attention is embedded in a broader social/consumer movement, the recovery movement , whose agenda includes extensive reform of the mental health system and advancing respect for the dignity and autonomy of people with SMI. Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach for enhancing consumer participation in health-care decision-making. SDM translates straightforwardly to specific clinical procedures that systematically identify domains of decision-making and guide the practitioner and consumer through making the decisions. In addition, Collaborative decision-making (CDM) is a set of guiding principles that avoids the connotations and limitations of SDM. CDM looks broadly at the range of decisions to be made in mental health care, and assigns consumers and providers equal responsibility and power in the decision-making process. It recognizes the diverse history, knowledge base, and values of each consumer by assuming patients can lead and contribute to decision-making, contributing both value-based information and technical information. This article further discusses the importance of CDM for people with SMI. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

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

Gender Discrimination in the Allocation of Migrant Household Resources*

PubMed Central

Antman, Francisca M.

2016-01-01

This paper considers the relationship between international migration and gender discrimination through the lens of decision-making power over intrahousehold resource allocation. The endogeneity of migration is addressed with a difference-in-differences style identification strategy and a model with household fixed effects. The results suggest that while a migrant household head is away, a greater share of resources is spent on girls relative to boys and his spouse commands greater decision-making power. Once the head returns home, however, a greater share of resources goes to boys and there is suggestive evidence of greater authority for the head of household. PMID:27546986

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Doyle, Richard; And Others

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

[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.

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

PubMed

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

2014-01-01

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

Clinical Decision Making and Mental Health Service Use Among Persons With Severe Mental Illness Across Europe.

PubMed

Cosh, Suzanne; Zenter, Nadja; Ay, Esra-Sultan; Loos, Sabine; Slade, Mike; De Rosa, Corrado; Luciano, Mario; Berecz, Roland; Glaub, Theodora; Munk-Jørgensen, Povl; Krogsgaard Bording, Malene; Rössler, Wulf; Kawohl, Wolfram; Puschner, Bernd

2017-09-01

The study explored relationships between preferences for and experiences of clinical decision making (CDM) with service use among persons with severe mental illness. Data from a prospective observational study in six European countries were examined. Associations of baseline staff-rated (N=213) and patient-rated (N=588) preferred and experienced decision making with service use were examined at baseline by using binomial regressions and at 12-month follow-up by using multilevel models. A preference by patients and staff for active patient involvement in decision making, rather than shared or passive decision making, was associated with longer hospital admissions and higher costs at baseline and with increases in admissions over 12 months (p=.043). Low patient-rated satisfaction with an experienced clinical decision was also related to increased costs over the study period (p=.005). A preference for shared decision making may reduce health care costs by reducing inpatient admissions. Patient satisfaction with decisions was a predictor of costs, and clinicians should maximize patient satisfaction with CDM.

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

Reward-related decision making in eating and weight disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence from neuropsychological studies.

PubMed

Wu, Mudan; Brockmeyer, Timo; Hartmann, Mechthild; Skunde, Mandy; Herzog, Wolfgang; Friederich, Hans-Christoph

2016-02-01

Eating disorders (EDs) and overweight/obesity (OW/OB) are serious public health concerns that share common neuropsychological features and patterns of disturbed eating. Reward-related decision making as a basic neurocognitive function may trans-diagnostically underlie both pathological overeating and restricted eating. The present meta-analysis synthesizes the evidence from N=82 neuropsychological studies for altered reward-related decision making in all ED subtypes, OW and OB. The overall effect sizes for the differences between currently-ill ED patients and OW/OB people and controls were Hedge's g=-0.49 [CI: -0.63; -0.35], and Hedge's g=-0.39 [CI: -0.53; -0.25], respectively. Decision making was found to be altered to similar degrees in all ED subtypes and OB. Effect sizes, however, diverged for the different measures of decision making. Adolescents appear to be less affected than adults. When foods were used as rewarding stimuli, decision making was found to be intact in OB. The findings support that altered general reward-related decision making is a salient neuropsychological factor across eating and weight disorders in adulthood. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

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

Perspectives on counseling patients about menopausal hormone therapy: strategies in a complex data environment.

PubMed

Parish, Sharon J; Nappi, Rossella E; Kingsberg, Sheryl

2018-03-05

This narrative review strives to give healthcare providers (HCPs) who care for menopausal women better tools and skills to initiate discussions with women about menopause and hormone therapy (HT), communicate complex concepts and data, and promote shared decision-making. We review relevant studies on HT, barriers to treatment of menopausal symptoms, and effective communication strategies. We also provide recommendations for communicating with patients about HT based on the medical literature and our own professional experience. Both patient and HCP-related barriers can prevent women from accessing treatment for bothersome symptoms of menopause. Many women and HCPs have a poor understanding of the complex, nuanced data regarding HT. The benefits and risks vary with patient age and time since menopause, duration of use, inclusion of a progestin, and patient medical history. Women may also have fears about potential side effects of HT and feel unable to make informed choices. Strategies for effective patient communication and shared decision-making include use of open-ended questions to elicit patient's concerns and preferences, reflecting back to the patient what the HCP heard, presenting evidence about benefits and risks in language the patient can understand, keeping risks in perspective (eg, provide absolute, and also relative risks) without minimizing them, and making conscious efforts to minimize potential bias. Necessary components for achieving high-quality, shared decisions about HT involve a combination of medical evidence, communication skills, and recognition of patient goals and concerns. Use of such strategies can enhance women's satisfaction with care.

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.

The Effect of Screen-to-Screen Versus Face-to-Face Consultation on Doctor-Patient Communication: An Experimental Study with Simulated Patients.

PubMed

Tates, Kiek; Antheunis, Marjolijn L; Kanters, Saskia; Nieboer, Theodoor E; Gerritse, Maria Be

2017-12-20

Despite the emergence of Web-based patient-provider contact, it is still unclear how the quality of Web-based doctor-patient interactions differs from face-to-face interactions. This study aimed to examine (1) the impact of a consultation medium on doctors' and patients' communicative behavior in terms of information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and shared decision making and (2) the mediating role of doctors' and patients' communicative behavior on satisfaction with both types of consultation medium. Doctor-patient consultations on pelvic organ prolapse were simulated, both in a face-to-face and in a screen-to-screen (video) setting. Twelve medical interns and 6 simulated patients prepared 4 different written scenarios and were randomized to perform a total of 48 consultations. Effects of the consultations were measured by questionnaires that participants filled out directly after the consultation. With respect to patient-related outcomes, satisfaction, perceived information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and perceived shared decision making showed no significant differences between face-to-face and screen-to-screen consultations. Patients' attitude toward Web-based communication (b=-.249, P=.02 and patients' perceived time and attention (b=.271, P=.03) significantly predicted patients' perceived interpersonal relationship building. Patients' perceived shared decision making was positively related to their satisfaction with the consultation (b=.254, P=.005). Overall, patients experienced significantly greater shared decision making with a female doctor (mean 4.21, SD 0.49) than with a male doctor (mean 3.66 [SD 0.73]; b=.401, P=.009). Doctor-related outcomes showed no significant differences in satisfaction, perceived information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and perceived shared decision making between the conditions. There was a positive relationship between perceived information exchange and doctors' satisfaction with the consultation (b=.533, P<.001). Furthermore, doctors' perceived interpersonal relationship building was positively related to doctors' satisfaction with the consultation (b=.331, P=.003). In this study, the quality of doctor-patient communication, as indicated by information exchange, interpersonal relationship building, and shared decision making, did not differ significantly between Web-based and face-to-face consultations. Doctors and simulated patients were equally satisfied with both types of consultation medium, and no differences were found in the manner in which participants perceived communicative behavior during these consultations. The findings suggest that worries about a negative impact of Web-based video consultation on the quality of patient-provider consultations seem unwarranted as they offer the same interaction quality and satisfaction level as regular face-to-face consultations. ©Kiek Tates, Marjolijn L Antheunis, Saskia Kanters, Theodoor E Nieboer, Maria BE Gerritse. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 20.12.2017.

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…

Treatment decision-making among breast cancer patients in Malaysia.

PubMed

Nies, Yong Hui; Islahudin, Farida; Chong, Wei Wen; Abdullah, Norlia; Ismail, Fuad; Ahmad Bustamam, Ros Suzanna; Wong, Yoke Fui; Saladina, J J; Mohamed Shah, Noraida

2017-01-01

This study investigated breast cancer patients' involvement level in the treatment decision-making process and the concordance between patients' and physician's perspectives in decision-making. A cross-sectional study was conducted involving physicians and newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from three public/teaching hospitals in Malaysia. The Control Preference Scale (CPS) was administered to patients and physicians, and the Krantz Health Opinion Survey (KHOS) was completed by the patients alone. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between sociodemographic characteristics, the patients' involvement in treatment decision-making, and patients' preference for behavioral involvement and information related to their disease. The majority of patients preferred to share decision-making with their physicians (47.5%), while the second largest group preferred being passive (42.6%) and a small number preferred being active (9.8%). However, the physicians perceived that the majority of patients preferred active decision-making (56.9%), followed by those who desired shared decision-making (32.8%), and those who preferred passive decision-making (10.3%). The overall concordance was 26.5% (54 of 204 patient-physician dyads). The median of preference for information score and behavioral involvement score was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] =3-5) and 2 (IQR =2-3), respectively. In univariate analysis, the ethnicity and educational qualification of patients were significantly associated with the patients' preferred role in the process of treatment decision-making and the patients' preference for information seeking ( p >0.05). However, only educational qualification ( p =0.004) was significantly associated with patients' preference for information seeking in multivariate analysis. Physicians failed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences in treatment decision-making. The concordance between physicians' perception and patients' perception was quite low as the physicians perceived that more than half of the patients were active in treatment decision-making. In actuality, more than half of patients perceived that they shared decision-making with their physicians.

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.

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 Conference of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) and Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM). We scanned the ISRCTN (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number) register and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Register for ongoing trials on 29 February 2016. For this update, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of SDM interventions for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. The types of decisions included were: treatment, health care and research participation decisions. The primary outcome was SDM as measured with any validated scale. Two review authors undertook the searches, and three review authors independently assessed the studies obtained. We contacted study authors for additional information. No studies met the inclusion criteria, and hence no analysis could be undertaken. No conclusions can be made on the effects of interventions to promote SDM for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality quantitative research on interventions to promote participation in SDM for children with cancer. There are many potential reasons for the lack of SDM intervention studies with children. Attitudes towards children's participation are slowly changing in society and such changes may take time to be translated or adopted in healthcare settings. The priority may be on developing interventions that promote children's participation in communication interactions since information-sharing is a prerequisite for SDM. Restricting this review to RCTs was a limitation and extending the review to non-randomised studies (NRS) may have produced more evidence. For this update, we included only RCTs and CCTs. Clearly more research is needed.

The Impact of Multifaceted Osteoporosis Group Education on Patients' Decision-Making regarding Treatment Options and Lifestyle Changes.

PubMed

Jensen, Annesofie L; Wind, Gitte; Langdahl, Bente Lomholt; Lomborg, Kirsten

2018-01-01

Patients with chronic diseases like osteoporosis constantly have to make decisions related to their disease. Multifaceted osteoporosis group education (GE) may support patients' decision-making. This study investigated multifaceted osteoporosis GE focusing on the impact of GE on patients' decision-making related to treatment options and lifestyle. An interpretive description design using ethnographic methods was utilized with 14 women and three men diagnosed with osteoporosis who attended multifaceted GE. Data consisted of participant observation during GE and individual interviews. Attending GE had an impact on the patients' decision-making in all educational themes. Patients decided on new ways to manage osteoporosis and made decisions regarding bone health and how to implement a lifestyle ensuring bone health. During GE, teachers and patients shared evidence-based knowledge and personal experiences and preferences, respectively, leading to a two-way exchange of information and deliberation about recommendations. Though teachers and patients explored the implications of the decisions and shared their preferences, teachers stressed that the patients ultimately had to make the decision. Teachers therefore refrained from participating in the final step of the decision-making process. Attending GE has an impact on the patients' decision-making as it can initiate patient reflection and support decision-making.

Patient decision-making preference and physician decision-making style for contraceptive method choice in an Asian culture: does concordance matter?

PubMed

Alden, Dana Latham; Merz, Miwa Yamazaki; Thi, Le Minh

2010-12-01

This study investigates preferences for patient-physician decision-making in an emerging economy with an Asian culture. A survey of 445 randomly sampled women, aged 20-40 in Hanoi, Vietnam, revealed that pre-consultation attitudes were most positive toward a "shared" decision-making approach with the physician for contraceptive method choice. However, following random assignment to one of three vignettes (passive, shared or autonomous) featuring a young Vietnamese woman reaching a contraceptive method decision with her physician, preference was highest for the "autonomous" approach. Furthermore, discordance between pre-consultation preference for decision-making style and the physician's decision-making style negatively impacted evaluations under some but not all circumstances. This study demonstrates that, despite living in a hierarchic Asian culture, active participation in contraceptive method choice is desired by many urban Vietnamese women. However, there is variation on this dimension and adjusting the physician's style to be concordant with patient preference appears important to maximizing patient satisfaction.

Surrogate decision making: do we have to trade off accuracy and procedural satisfaction?

PubMed

Frey, Renato; Hertwig, Ralph; Herzog, Stefan M

2014-02-01

Making surrogate decisions on behalf of incapacitated patients can raise difficult questions for relatives, physicians, and society. Previous research has focused on the accuracy of surrogate decisions (i.e., the proportion of correctly inferred preferences). Less attention has been paid to the procedural satisfaction that patients' surrogates and patients attribute to specific approaches to making surrogate decisions. The objective was to investigate hypothetical patients' and surrogates' procedural satisfaction with specific approaches to making surrogate decisions and whether implementing these preferences would lead to tradeoffs between procedural satisfaction and accuracy. Study 1 investigated procedural satisfaction by assigning participants (618 in a mixed-age but relatively young online sample and 50 in an older offline sample) to the roles of hypothetical surrogates or patients. Study 2 (involving 64 real multigenerational families with a total of 253 participants) investigated accuracy using 24 medical scenarios. Hypothetical patients and surrogates had closely aligned preferences: Procedural satisfaction was highest with a patient-designated surrogate, followed by shared surrogate decision-making approaches and legally assigned surrogates. These approaches did not differ substantially in accuracy. Limitations are that participants' preferences regarding existing and novel approaches to making surrogate decisions can only be elicited under hypothetical conditions. Next to decision making by patient-designated surrogates, shared surrogate decision making is the preferred approach among patients and surrogates alike. This approach appears to impose no tradeoff between procedural satisfaction and accuracy. Therefore, shared decision making should be further studied in representative samples of the general population, and if people's preferences prove to be robust, they deserve to be weighted more strongly in legal frameworks in addition to patient-designated surrogates.

Collaborative Manufacturing for Small-Medium Enterprises

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Irianto, D.

2016-02-01

Manufacturing systems involve decisions concerning production processes, capacity, planning, and control. In a MTO manufacturing systems, strategic decisions concerning fulfilment of customer requirement, manufacturing cost, and due date of delivery are the most important. In order to accelerate the decision making process, research on decision making structure when receiving order and sequencing activities under limited capacity is required. An effective decision making process is typically required by small-medium components and tools maker as supporting industries to large industries. On one side, metal small-medium enterprises are expected to produce parts, components or tools (i.e. jigs, fixture, mold, and dies) with high precision, low cost, and exact delivery time. On the other side, a metal small- medium enterprise may have weak bargaining position due to aspects such as low production capacity, limited budget for material procurement, and limited high precision machine and equipment. Instead of receiving order exclusively, a small-medium enterprise can collaborate with other small-medium enterprise in order to fulfill requirements high quality, low manufacturing cost, and just in time delivery. Small-medium enterprises can share their best capabilities to form effective supporting industries. Independent body such as community service at university can take a role as a collaboration manager. The Laboratory of Production Systems at Bandung Institute of Technology has implemented shared manufacturing systems for small-medium enterprise collaboration.

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.

Pre-consultation educational group intervention to improve shared decision-making for postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Causarano, Natalie; Platt, Jennica; Baxter, Nancy N; Bagher, Shaghayegh; Jones, Jennifer M; Metcalfe, Kelly A; Hofer, Stefan O P; O'Neill, Anne C; Cheng, Terry; Starenkyj, Elizabeth; Zhong, Toni

2015-05-01

Breast cancer survivors who make preference-sensitive decisions about postmastectomy breast reconstruction often have large gaps in knowledge and undergo procedures that are misaligned with their treatment goals. We evaluated the feasibility and effect of a pre-consultation educational group intervention on the decision-making process for breast reconstruction. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) where participants were randomly assigned to the intervention with routine education or routine education alone. The outcomes evaluated were decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement in care, and uptake of reconstruction following surgical consultation. Trial feasibility and acceptability were evaluated, and effect sizes were calculated to determine the primary outcome for the full-scale RCT. Of the 41 patients enrolled, recruitment rate was 72 %, treatment fidelity was 98 %, and retention rate was 95 %. The Cohen's d effect size in reduction of decisional conflict was moderate to high for the intervention group compared to routine education (0.69, 95 % CI = 0.02-1.42), while the effect sizes of increase in decision self-efficacy (0.05, 95 % CI = -0.60-0.71) and satisfaction with information (0.11, 95 % CI = -0.53-0.76) were small. A higher proportion of patients receiving routine education signed informed consent to undergo breast reconstruction (14/20 or 70 %) compared to the intervention group (8/21 or 38 %) P = 0.06. A pre-consultation educational group intervention improves patients' shared decision-making quality compared to routine preoperative patient education. A full-scale definitive RCT is warranted based on high feasibility outcomes, and the primary outcome for the main trial will be decisional conflict.

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

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.

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.

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.

Toward Optimal Decision Making among Vulnerable Patients Referred for Cardiac Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient and Provider Perspectives.

PubMed

Gainer, Ryan A; Curran, Janet; Buth, Karen J; David, Jennie G; Légaré, Jean-Francois; Hirsch, Gregory M

2017-07-01

Comprehension of risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options has been shown to be poor among patients referred for cardiac interventions. Patients' values and preferences are rarely explicitly sought. An increasing proportion of frail and older patients are undergoing complex cardiac surgical procedures with increased risk of both mortality and prolonged institutional care. We sought input from patients and caregivers to determine the optimal approach to decision making in this vulnerable patient population. Focus groups were held with both providers and former patients. Three focus groups were convened for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), Valve, or CABG +Valve patients ≥ 70 y old (2-y post-op, ≤ 8-wk post-op, complicated post-op course) (n = 15). Three focus groups were convened for Intermediate Medical Care Unit (IMCU) nurses, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) nurses, surgeons, anesthesiologists and cardiac intensivists (n = 20). We used a semi-structured interview format to ask questions surrounding the informed consent process. Transcribed audio data was analyzed to develop consistent and comprehensive themes. We identified 5 main themes that influence the decision making process: educational barriers, educational facilitators, patient autonomy and perceived autonomy, patient and family expectations of care, and decision making advocates. All themes were influenced by time constraints experienced in the current consent process. Patient groups expressed a desire to receive information earlier in their care to allow time to identify personal values and preferences in developing plans for treatment. Both groups strongly supported a formal approach for shared decision making with a decisional coach to provide information and facilitate communication with the care team. Identifying the barriers and facilitators to patient and caretaker engagement in decision making is a key step in the development of a structured, patient-centered SDM approach. Intervention early in the decision process, the use of individualized decision aids that employ graphic risk presentations, and a dedicated decisional coach were identified by patients and providers as approaches with a high potential for success. The impact of such a formalized shared decision making process in cardiac surgery on decisional quality will need to be formally assessed. Given the trend toward older and frail patients referred for complex cardiac procedures, the need for an effective shared decision making process is compelling.

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.

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.

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…

Decision-making without a brain: how an amoeboid organism solves the two-armed bandit.

PubMed

Reid, Chris R; MacDonald, Hannelore; Mann, Richard P; Marshall, James A R; Latty, Tanya; Garnier, Simon

2016-06-01

Several recent studies hint at shared patterns in decision-making between taxonomically distant organisms, yet few studies demonstrate and dissect mechanisms of decision-making in simpler organisms. We examine decision-making in the unicellular slime mould Physarum polycephalum using a classical decision problem adapted from human and animal decision-making studies: the two-armed bandit problem. This problem has previously only been used to study organisms with brains, yet here we demonstrate that a brainless unicellular organism compares the relative qualities of multiple options, integrates over repeated samplings to perform well in random environments, and combines information on reward frequency and magnitude in order to make correct and adaptive decisions. We extend our inquiry by using Bayesian model selection to determine the most likely algorithm used by the cell when making decisions. We deduce that this algorithm centres around a tendency to exploit environments in proportion to their reward experienced through past sampling. The algorithm is intermediate in computational complexity between simple, reactionary heuristics and calculation-intensive optimal performance algorithms, yet it has very good relative performance. Our study provides insight into ancestral mechanisms of decision-making and suggests that fundamental principles of decision-making, information processing and even cognition are shared among diverse biological systems. © 2016 The Authors.

Principles of shared decision-making within teams.

PubMed

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

2015-12-01

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

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.

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

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.

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

PubMed Central

Jimbo, Masahito; Rana, Gurpreet K.; Hawley, Sarah; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Kelly-Blake, Karen; Nease, Donald E.; Ruffin, Mack T.

2013-01-01

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have given not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians’ support, must decide whether to get screened or not, which modality to use, and how often to get screened. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. We reviewed 73 decision aids on screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need for more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real world setting. Most studies used sound study design. Significant variation existed in setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over a third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted in which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision making. Little information was available on the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. We discuss the implications for future research, as well as what the clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice. PMID:23504675

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2008-01-01

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

Return-to-Play in 2017 and the Role of Shared Decision-Making in Patients with Inherited and Acquired Channelopathies and Cardiomyopathies.

PubMed

Afshar, Kia; Bunch, T Jared

2017-09-14

Shared decision-making is based upon a physician-patient encounter in which there is adequate education using aids if needed, a mutual discussion of how to assist the patient in weighing risks and benefits, and a supportive environment that allows the patient to deliberate on the clinical decision and make their own choice. This decision-making paradigm centers on the principles of autonomy and self-determination. Physical activity is a critical part of healthy lifestyle choices that helps lower risk of cardiovascular disease or the progression of it. Exercise is also a significant contributor to quality of life in many patients in additional to the health benefits. In patients with inherited or acquired cardiovascular disease, exercise may increase risk of electrical and hemodynamic instability. There is a paucity of data to guide physicians and committees that create guidelines regarding athletic and fitness participation in these patients, particularly when the patient wants to participate in those activities that are considered moderate-severe in intensity. As a consequence, the principles of shared decision-making are critical for physicians to use to help patients with cardiovascular disease make the best decision regarding fitness participation that will minimize their risk of new disease or progression of their disease and enhance their quality of life.

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

PubMed

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

2017-08-01

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

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…

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.

A Model of Organizational Context and Shared Decision Making: Application to LGBT Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients.

PubMed

DeMeester, Rachel H; Lopez, Fanny Y; Moore, Jennifer E; Cook, Scott C; Chin, Marshall H

2016-06-01

Shared decision making (SDM) occurs when patients and clinicians work together to reach care decisions that are both medically sound and responsive to patients' preferences and values. SDM is an important tenet of patient-centered care that can improve patient outcomes. Patients with multiple minority identities, such as sexual orientation and race/ethnicity, are at particular risk for poor SDM. Among these dual-minority patients, added challenges to clear and open communication include cultural barriers, distrust, and a health care provider's lack of awareness of the patient's minority sexual orientation or gender identity. However, organizational factors like a culture of inclusion and private space throughout the visit can improve SDM with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ("LGBT") racial/ethnic minority patients who have faced stigma and discrimination. Most models of shared decision making focus on the patient-provider interaction, but the health care organization's context is also critical. Context-an organization's structure and operations-can strongly influence the ability and willingness of patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making. SDM is most likely to be optimal if organizations transform their contexts and patients and providers improve their communication. Thus, we propose a conceptual model that suggests ways in which organizations can shape their contextual structure and operations to support SDM. The model contains six drivers: workflows, health information technology, organizational structure and culture, resources and clinic environment, training and education, and incentives and disincentives. These drivers work through four mechanisms to impact care: continuity and coordination, the ease of SDM, knowledge and skills, and attitudes and beliefs. These mechanisms can activate clinicians and patients to engage in high-quality SDM. We provide examples of how specific contextual changes could make SDM more effective for LGBT racial/ethnic minority populations, focusing especially on transformations that would establish a safe environment, build trust, and decrease stigma.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Coughenour, C. Milton; And Others

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-11-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-03-01

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

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.

Patient Preferences and Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PubMed Central

Friedrichs, Anke; Spies, Maren; Härter, Martin; Buchholz, Angela

2016-01-01

Background Shared Decision Making (SDM) as means to the involvement of patients in medical decision making is increasingly demanded by treatment guidelines and legislation. Also, matching of patients’ preferences to treatments has been shown to be effective regarding symptom reduction. Despite promising results for patients with substance use disorders (SUD) no systematic evaluation of the literature has been provided. The aim is therefore to give a systematic overview of the literature of patient preferences and SDM in the treatment of patients with SUD. Methods An electronic literature search of the databases Medline, Embase, Psyndex and Clinical Trials Register was performed. Variations of the search terms substance use disorders, patient preferences and SDM were used. For data synthesis the populations, interventions and outcomes were summarized and described according to the PRISMA statement. Methodological quality of the included articles was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results N = 25 trials were included in this review. These were conducted between 1986 and 2014 with altogether n = 8.729 patients. Two studies found that patients with SUD preferred to be actively involved in treatment decisions. Treatment preferences were assessed in n = 18 studies, where the majority of patients preferred outpatient compared with inpatient treatment. Matching patients to preferences resulted in a reduction on substance use (n = 3 studies), but the majority of studies found no significant effect. Interventions for SDM differed across patient populations and optional therapeutic techniques. Discussion Patients with substance use disorders should be involved in medical treatment decisions, as patients with other health conditions. A suitable approach is Shared Decision Making, emphasizing the patients’ preferences. However, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, results should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed regarding SDM interventions in patient populations with substance use disorders. PMID:26731679

Democratic parenting: paradoxical messages in democratic parent education theories

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Oryan, Shlomit; Gastil, John

2013-06-01

Some prominent parent education theories in the United States and other Western countries base their educational viewpoint explicitly on democratic values, such as mutual respect, equality and personal freedom. These democratic parenting theories advocate sharing power with children and including them in family decision making. This study presents a textual analysis of two such theories, the Adlerian model of parent education and the Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) model, as they are embodied in two original bestselling textbooks. Through content and argumentation analysis of these influential texts, this study examines the paradoxes inherent in these two theories when they articulate how to implement fully democratic principles within the parent-child relationship. We discover that in spite of their democratic rationale, both books offer communication practices that guide the child to modify misbehaviour, enforce parental power, and manipulate the child to make decisions that follow parental judgment, and thus do not endorse the use of a truly democratic parenting style. We suggest, as an alternative to the democratic parenting style, that parents be introduced to a guardianship management style, in which they do not share authority with children, but seek opportunities for enabling children to make more autonomous decisions and participate in more family decision making.

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.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Blyer, Kristina; Hulton, Linda

2016-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2013-01-01

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

Unexpected Effects of a System-Distributed Mobile Application in Maternity Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ledford, Christy J. W.; Womack, Jasmyne J.; Rider, Heather A.; Seehusen, Angela B.; Conner, Stephen J.; Lauters, Rebecca A.; Hodge, Joshua A.

2018-01-01

Background: As pregnant mothers increasingly engage in shared decision making regarding prenatal decisions, such as induction of labor, the patient's level of activation may influence pregnancy outcomes. One potential tool to increase patient activation in the clinical setting is mobile applications. However, research is limited in comparing…

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation

PubMed Central

Cox, Christopher E.; Lewis, Carmen L.; Hanson, Laura C.; Hough, Catherine L.; Kahn, Jeremy M.; White, Douglas B.; Song, Mi-Kyung; Tulsky, James A.; Carson, Shannon S.

2013-01-01

Objective Shared decision making is inadequate in intensive care units (ICUs). Decision aids can improve decision making quality, though their role in an ICU setting is unclear. We aimed to develop and pilot test a decision aid for shared decision makers of patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation. Setting ICUs at three medical centers. Subjects 53 surrogate decision makers and 58 physicians. Design and interventions We developed the decision aid using defined methodological guidelines. After an iterative revision process, formative cognitive testing was performed among surrogate-physician dyads. Next, we compared the decision aid to usual care control in a prospective, before/after design study. Measurements and main results Primary outcomes were physician-surrogate discordance for expected patient survival, comprehension of relevant medical information, and the quality of communication. Compared to control, the intervention group had lower surrogate-physician discordance (7 [10] vs 43 [21]), greater comprehension (11.4 [0.7] vs 6.1 [3.7]), and improved quality of communication (8.7 [1.3] vs 8.4 [1.3]) (all p<0.05) post-intervention. Hospital costs were lower in the intervention group ($110,609 vs $178,618; p=0.044); mortality did not differ by group (38% vs 50%, p=0.95). 94% of surrogates and 100% of physicians reported that the decision aid was useful in decision making. Conclusion We developed a prolonged mechanical ventilation decision aid that is feasible, acceptable, and associated with both improved decision making quality and less resource utilization. Further evaluation using a randomized controlled trial design is needed to evaluate the decision aid's effect on long-term patient and surrogate outcomes. PMID:22635048

The Voice of the Patient Methodology: A Novel Mixed-Methods Approach to Identifying Treatment Goals for Men with Prostate Cancer.

PubMed

Saigal, Christopher S; Lambrechts, Sylvia I; Seenu Srinivasan, V; Dahan, Ely

2017-06-01

Many guidelines advocate the use of shared decision making for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Decision aids can facilitate the process of shared decision making. Implicit in this approach is the idea that physicians understand which elements of treatment matter to patients. Little formal work exists to guide physicians or developers of decision aids in identifying these attributes. We use a mixed-methods technique adapted from marketing science, the 'Voice of the Patient', to describe and identify treatment elements of value for men with localized prostate cancer. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 men treated for prostate cancer in the urology clinic of the West Los Angeles Veteran Affairs Medical Center. We used a qualitative analysis to generate themes in patient narratives, and a quantitative approach, agglomerative hierarchical clustering, to identify attributes of treatment that were most relevant to patients making decisions about prostate cancer. We identified five 'traditional' prostate cancer treatment attributes: sexual dysfunction, bowel problems, urinary problems, lifespan, and others' opinions. We further identified two novel treatment attributes: a treatment's ability to validate a sense of proactivity and the need for an incision (separate from risks of surgery). Application of a successful marketing technique, the 'Voice of the Customer', in a clinical setting elicits non-obvious attributes that highlight unique patient decision-making concerns. Use of this method in the development of decision aids may result in more effective decision support.

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

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-03-24

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

Presenting Germany's drug pricing rule as a cost-per-QALY rule.

PubMed

Gandjour, Afschin

2012-06-01

In Germany, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) makes recommendations for ceiling prices of drugs based on an evaluation of the relationship between costs and effectiveness. To set ceiling prices, IQWiG uses the following decision rule: the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a new drug compared with the next effective intervention should not be higher than that of the next effective intervention compared to its comparator. The purpose of this paper is to show that IQWiG's decision rule can be presented as a cost-per-QALY rule by using equity-weighted QALYs. This transformation shows where both rules share commonalities. Furthermore, it makes the underlying ethical implications of IQWiG's decision rule transparent and open to debate.

Patient involvement in the decision-making process improves satisfaction and quality of life in postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

PubMed

Ashraf, Azra A; Colakoglu, Salih; Nguyen, John T; Anastasopulos, Alexandra J; Ibrahim, Ahmed M S; Yueh, Janet H; Lin, Samuel J; Tobias, Adam M; Lee, Bernard T

2013-09-01

The patient-physician relationship has evolved from the paternalistic, physician-dominant model to the shared-decision-making and informed-consumerist model. The level of patient involvement in this decision-making process can potentially influence patient satisfaction and quality of life. In this study, patient-physician decision models are evaluated in patients undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction. All women who underwent breast reconstruction at an academic hospital from 1999-2007 were identified. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were mailed questionnaires at a minimum of 1 y postoperatively with questions about decision making, satisfaction, and quality of life. There were 707 women eligible for our study and 465 completed surveys (68% response rate). Patients were divided into one of three groups: paternalistic (n = 18), informed-consumerist (n = 307), shared (n = 140). There were differences in overall general satisfaction (P = 0.034), specifically comparing the informed group to the paternalistic group (66.7% versus 38.9%, P = 0.020) and the shared to the paternalistic group (69.3% versus 38.9%, P = 0.016). There were no differences in aesthetic satisfaction. There were differences found in the SF-12 physical component summary score across all groups (P = 0.033), and a difference was found between the informed and paternalistic groups (P < 0.05). There were no differences in the mental component score (P = 0.42). Women undergoing breast reconstruction predominantly used the informed model of decision making. Patients who adopted a more active role, whether using an informed or shared approach, had higher general patient satisfaction and physical component summary scores compared with patients whose decision making was paternalistic. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

How to handle part-time, flex-time, and job-sharing employees.

PubMed

Sachs, L

2001-01-01

Offering employment structures other than traditional full-time positions in your practice can help you draw excellent job applicants and also can enable you to increase morale, job satisfaction, and productivity. However, there are many decisions you must make when offering a part-time, flex-time, or job-sharing position. This article explores the pros and cons of offering alternative job structures. It suggests ways to make part-time, flex-time, or job-sharing positions work most effectively, both for the employee and for your practice. In addition, this article suggests which positions are best suited to alternative structures.

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.

Impact of a decision-support tool on decision making at the district level in Kenya

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background In many countries, the responsibility for planning and delivery of health services is devolved to the subnational level. Health programs, however, often fall short of efficient use of data to inform decisions. As a result, programs are not as effective as they can be at meeting the health needs of the populations they serve. In Kenya, a decision-support tool, the District Health Profile (DHP) tool was developed to integrate data from health programs, primarily HIV, at the district level and to enable district health management teams to review and monitor program progress for specific health issues to make informed service delivery decisions. Methods Thirteen in-depth interviews were conducted with ten tool users and three non-users in six districts to qualitatively assess the process of implementing the tool and its effect on data-informed decision making at the district level. The factors that affected use or non-use of the tool were also investigated. Respondents were selected via convenience sample from among those that had been trained to use the DHP tool except for one user who was self-taught to use the tool. Selection criteria also included respondents from urban districts with significant resources as well as respondents from more remote, under-resourced districts. Results Findings from the in-depth interviews suggest that among those who used it, the DHP tool had a positive effect on data analysis, review, interpretation, and sharing at the district level. The automated function of the tool allowed for faster data sharing and immediate observation of trends that facilitated data-informed decision making. All respondents stated that the DHP tool assisted them to better target existing services in need of improvement and to plan future services, thus positively influencing program improvement. Conclusions This paper stresses the central role that a targeted decision-support tool can play in making data aggregation, analysis, and presentation easier and faster. The visual synthesis of data facilitates the use of information in health decision making at the district level of a health system and promotes program improvement. The experience in Kenya can be applied to other countries that face challenges making district-level, data-informed decisions with data from fragmented information systems. PMID:24011028

A Prospective Evaluation of Shared Decision-making Regarding Analgesics Selection for Older Emergency Department Patients With Acute Musculoskeletal Pain.

PubMed

Holland, Wesley C; Hunold, Katherine M; Mangipudi, Sowmya A; Rittenberg, Alison M; Yosipovitch, Natalie; Platts-Mills, Timothy F

2016-03-01

Musculoskeletal pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visit by older adults. Outpatient pain management following ED visits in this population is challenging as a result of contraindications to, and side effects from, available therapies. Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and emergency physicians may improve patient experiences and health outcomes. Among older ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain, we sought to characterize their desire for involvement in the selection of outpatient analgesics. We also sought to assess the impact of SDM on change in pain at 1 week, patient satisfaction, and side effects. This was a prospective study of adults aged 60 years and older presenting to the ED with acute musculoskeletal pain. Participants' desire to contribute to outpatient analgesic selection was assessed by phone within 24 hours of ED discharge using the Control Preferences Scale and categorized as active, collaborative, or passive. The extent to which SDM occurred in the ED was also assessed within 24 hours of discharge using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, and scores were subsequently grouped into tertiles of low, middle, and high SDM. The primary outcome was change in pain severity between the ED visit and 1 week. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction regarding the decision about how to treat pain at home, satisfaction with the pain medication itself, and side effects. Desire of participants (N = 94) to contribute to the decision regarding selection of outpatient analgesics varied: 16% active (i.e., make the final decision themselves), 37% collaborative (i.e., share decision with provider), and 47% passive (i.e., let the doctor make the final decision). The percentage of patients who desired an active role in the decision was higher for patients who were college educated versus those who were not college educated (28% vs. 11%; difference 17%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0% to 35%), received care from a nurse practitioner versus a resident or an attending physician (32% vs. 9%; difference 23%, 95% CI = 4% to 42%), or received care from a female versus a male provider (24% vs. 5%; difference 19%, 95% = CI 5% to 32%). After potential confounders were adjusted for, the mean decrease in pain severity from the ED visit to 1-week follow-up was not significantly different across tertiles of SDM (p = 0.06). Higher SDM scores were associated with greater satisfaction with the discharge pain medications (p = 0.006). SDM was not associated with the class of analgesic received. In this sample of older adults with acute musculoskeletal pain, the reported desire of patients to contribute to decisions regarding analgesics varied based on both patient and provider characteristics. SDM was not significantly related to pain reduction in the first week or type of pain medication received, but was associated with greater patient satisfaction. © 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

A Prospective Evaluation of Shared Decision-making Regarding Analgesics Selection for Older Emergency Department Patients With Acute Musculoskeletal Pain

PubMed Central

Holland, Wesley C.; Hunold, Katherine M.; Mangipudi, Sowmya A.; Rittenberg, Alison M.; Yosipovitch, Natalie; Platts-Mills, Timothy F.

2016-01-01

Objectives Musculoskeletal pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visit by older adults. Outpatient pain management following ED visits in this population is challenging as a result of contraindications to, and side effects from, available therapies. Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and emergency physicians may improve patient experiences and health outcomes. Among older ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain, we sought to characterize their desire for involvement in the selection of outpatient analgesics. We also sought to assess the impact of SDM on change in pain at 1 week, patient satisfaction, and side effects. Methods This was a prospective study of adults aged 60 years and older presenting to the ED with acute musculoskeletal pain. Participants’ desire to contribute to outpatient analgesic selection was assessed by phone within 24 hours of ED discharge using the Control Preferences Scale and categorized as active, collaborative, or passive. The extent to which SDM occurred in the ED was also assessed within 24 hours of discharge using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, and scores were subsequently grouped into tertiles of low, middle, and high SDM. The primary outcome was change in pain severity between the ED visit and 1 week. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction regarding the decision about how to treat pain at home, satisfaction with the pain medication itself, and side effects. Results Desire of participants (N = 94) to contribute to the decision regarding selection of outpatient analgesics varied: 16% active (i.e., make the final decision themselves), 37% collaborative (i.e., share decision with provider), and 47% passive (i.e., let the doctor make the final decision). The percentage of patients who desired an active role in the decision was higher for patients who were college educated versus those who were not college educated (28% vs. 11%; difference 17%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0% to 35%), received care from a nurse practitioner versus a resident or an attending physician (32% vs. 9%; difference 23%, 95% CI = 4% to 42%), or received care from a female versus a male provider (24% vs. 5%; difference 19%, 95% = CI 5% to 32%). After potential confounders were adjusted for, the mean decrease in pain severity from the ED visit to 1-week follow-up was not significantly different across tertiles of SDM (p = 0.06). Higher SDM scores were associated with greater satisfaction with the discharge pain medications (p = 0.006). SDM was not associated with the class of analgesic received. Conclusions In this sample of older adults with acute musculoskeletal pain, the reported desire of patients to contribute to decisions regarding analgesics varied based on both patient and on provider characteristics. SDM was not significantly related to pain reduction in the first week or type of pain medication received, but was associated with greater patient satisfaction. PMID:26728174

Patients' perceptions and attitudes on recurrent prostate cancer and hormone therapy: Qualitative comparison between decision-aid and control groups.

PubMed

Gorawara-Bhat, Rita; O'Muircheartaigh, Siobhan; Mohile, Supriya; Dale, William

2017-09-01

To compare patients' attitudes towards recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) and starting hormone therapy (HT) treatment in two groups-Decision-Aid (DA) (intervention) and Standard-of-care (SoC) (Control). The present research was conducted at three academic clinics-two in the Midwest and one in the Northeast U.S. Patients with biochemical recurrence of PCa (n=26) and follow-up oncology visits meeting inclusion criteria were randomized to either the SoC or DA intervention group prior to their consultation. Analysts were blinded to group assignment. Semi-structured phone interviews with patients were conducted 1-week post consultation. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Qualitative analytic techniques were used to extract salient themes and conduct a comparative analysis of the two groups. Four salient themes emerged-1) knowledge acquisition, 2) decision-making style, 3) decision-making about timing of HT, and 4) anxiety-coping mechanisms. A comparative analysis showed that patients receiving the DA intervention had a better comprehension of Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), an improved understanding of HT treatment implications, an external locus-of-control, participation in shared decision-making and, support-seeking for anxiety reduction. In contrast, SoC patients displayed worse comprehension of PSA testing and HT treatment implications, internal locus-of-control, unilateral involvement in knowledge-seeking and decision-making, and no support-seeking for anxiety-coping. The DA was more effective than the SoC group in helping PCa patients understand the full implications of PSA testing and treatment; motivating shared decision-making, and support-seeking for anxiety relief. DA DVD interventions can be a useful patient education tool for bringing higher quality decision-making to prostate cancer care. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Primary care professional's perspectives on treatment decision making for depression with African Americans and Latinos in primary care practice.

PubMed

Patel, Sapana R; Schnall, Rebecca; Little, Virna; Lewis-Fernández, Roberto; Pincus, Harold Alan

2014-12-01

Increasing interest has been shown in shared decision making (SDM) to improve mental health care communication between underserved immigrant minorities and their providers. Nonetheless, very little is known about this process. The following is a qualitative study of fifteen primary care providers at two Federally Qualified Health Centers in New York and their experience during depression treatment decision making. Respondents described a process characterized in between shared and paternalistic models of treatment decision making. Barriers to SDM included discordant models of illness, stigma, varying role expectations and decision readiness. Respondents reported strategies used to overcome barriers including understanding illness perceptions and the role of the community in the treatment process, dispelling stigma using cultural terms, orienting patients to treatment and remaining available regarding the treatment decision. Findings from this study have implications for planning SDM interventions to guide primary care providers through treatment engagement for depression.

Preferences for Shared Decision Making in Older Adult Patients With Orthopedic Hand Conditions.

PubMed

Dardas, Agnes Z; Stockburger, Christopher; Boone, Sean; An, Tonya; Calfee, Ryan P

2016-10-01

The practice of medicine is shifting from a paternalistic doctor-patient relationship to a model in which the doctor and patient collaborate to decide optimal treatment. This study aims to determine whether the older orthopedic population desires a shared decision-making approach to care and to identify patient predictors for the preferred type of approach. This cross-sectional investigation enrolled 99 patients, minimum age 65 years, at a tertiary hand specialty practice between March and June 2015. All patients completed the Control Preferences Scale, a validated system that distinguishes among patient preferences for patient-directed, collaborative, or physician-directed decision making. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses assessed associations among demographic data; clinic encounter variables such as familiarity with provider, trauma, diagnosis, and treatment decision; and the primary outcome of Control Preferences Scale preferences. A total of 81% of patients analyzed preferred a more patient-directed role in decision making; 46% of the total cohort cited a collaborative approach as their most preferred treatment approach. Sixty-seven percent cited the most physician-directed approach as their least preferred model of decision making. In addition, 49% reported that spending more time with their physician to address questions and explain the diagnosis would be most useful when making a health care decision and 73% preferred additional written informational material. Familiarity with the provider was associated with being more likely to prefer a collaborative approach. Older adult patients with symptomatic upper-extremity conditions desire more patient-directed roles in treatment decision making. Given the limited amount of reliable information obtained independently outside the office visit, our data suggest that written decision aids offer an approach to shared decision making that is most consistent with the preferences of the older orthopedic patient. This study quantifies older adults' desire to participate in decision making when choosing among treatments for hand conditions. Copyright © 2016 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Toward patient-centered, personalized and personal decision support and knowledge management: a survey.

PubMed

Leong, T-Y

2012-01-01

This paper summarizes the recent trends and highlights the challenges and opportunities in decision support and knowledge management for patient-centered, personalized, and personal health care. The discussions are based on a broad survey of related references, focusing on the most recent publications. Major advances are examined in the areas of i) shared decision making paradigms, ii) continuity of care infrastructures and architectures, iii) human factors and system design approaches, iv) knowledge management innovations, and v) practical deployment and change considerations. Many important initiatives, projects, and plans with promising results have been identified. The common themes focus on supporting the individual patients who are playing an increasing central role in their own care decision processes. New collaborative decision making paradigms and information infrastructures are required to ensure effective continuity of care. Human factors and usability are crucial for the successful development and deployment of the relevant systems, tools, and aids. Advances in personalized medicine can be achieved through integrating genomic, phenotypic and other biological, individual, and population level information, and gaining useful insights from building and analyzing biological and other models at multiple levels of abstraction. Therefore, new Information and Communication Technologies and evaluation approaches are needed to effectively manage the scale and complexity of biomedical and health information, and adapt to the changing nature of clinical decision support. Recent research in decision support and knowledge management combines heterogeneous information and personal data to provide cost-effective, calibrated, personalized support in shared decision making at the point of care. Current and emerging efforts concentrate on developing or extending conventional paradigms, techniques, systems, and architectures for the new predictive, preemptive, and participatory health care model for patient-centered, personalized medicine. There is also an increasing emphasis on managing complexity with changing care models, processes, and settings.

What makes it so difficult for nurses to coach patients in shared decision making? A process evaluation.

PubMed

Lenzen, Stephanie Anna; Daniëls, Ramon; van Bokhoven, Marloes Amantia; van der Weijden, Trudy; Beurskens, Anna

2018-04-01

Primary care nurses play a crucial role in coaching patients in shared decision making about goals and actions. This presents a challenge to practice nurses, who are frequently used to protocol-based working routines. Therefore, an approach was developed to support nurses to coach patients in shared decision making. To investigate how the approach was implemented and experienced by practice nurses and patients. A process evaluation was conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Fifteen female practice nurses (aged between 28 and 55 years), working with people suffering from diabetes, COPD, asthma and/or cardiovascular diseases, participated. Nurses were asked to apply the approach to their chronically ill patients and to recruit patients (n = 10) willing to participate in an interview or an audio-recording of a consultation (n = 13); patients (13 women, 10 men) were aged between 41 and 88 years and suffered from diabetes, COPD or cardiovascular diseases. The approach involved a framework for shared decision making about goals and actions, a tool to explore the patient perspective, a patient profiles model and a training course. Interviews (n = 15) with nurses, a focus group with nurses (n = 9) and interviews with patients (n = 10) were conducted. Nurses filled in a questionnaire about their work routine before, during and after the training course. They were asked to deliver audiotapes of their consultations (n = 13). Overall, nurses felt that the approach supported them to coach patients in shared decision making. Nurses had become more aware of their own attitudes and learning needs and reported to have had more in-depth discussions with patients. The on-the-job coaching was experienced as valuable. However, nurses struggled to integrate the approach in routine care. They experienced the approach as different to their protocol-based routines and expressed the importance of receiving support and the need for integration of the approach into the family physician practice. This study shows that changing practice nurses' role from medical experts to coaches in shared decision making is very complex and requires paying attention to skills and attitudes, as well as to contextual factors. Our results indicate that more time and training might be needed for this role transition. Moreover, it might be worthwhile to focus on organizational learning, in order to increase an organization's capacity to change work routines in a collaborative process. Future research into the development and evaluation of health coaching approaches, focusing on shared decision making, is necessary. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

[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.

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.

Shared Decision Making with Collective Bargaining.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Steimel, Eric L.

This paper examines the changing role of school leaders, in light of the current trend toward participative decision making. Executive Order 12871 mandates the formation of a partnership between unions and management, which will result in teachers playing an active role in decision making. Leaders, particularly leaders of Department of Defense…

Assessing Decision Making in Young Adult Romantic Relationships

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vennum, Amber; Fincham, Frank D.

2011-01-01

Romantic relationships among young adults are rich with ambiguity and without a clear, universal progression emphasizing the need for active decision making. Lack of active decision making in romantic relationships can lead to increases in constraints (e.g. pregnancy, shared living space or finances) that promote the continuation of relationships…

[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.

Perspectives of decision-making in requests for euthanasia: a qualitative research among patients, relatives and treating physicians in the Netherlands.

PubMed

Dees, Marianne K; Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra J; Dekkers, Wim J; Elwyn, Glyn; Vissers, Kris C; van Weel, Chris

2013-01-01

Euthanasia has been legally performed in the Netherlands since 2002. Respect for patient's autonomy is the underpinning ethical principal. However, patients have no right to euthanasia, and physicians have no obligation to provide it. Although over 3000 cases are conducted per year in the Netherlands, there is little known about how decision-making occurs and no guidance to support this difficult aspect of clinical practice. To explore the decision-making process in cases where patients request euthanasia and understand the different themes relevant to optimise this decision-making process. A qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with patients making explicit requests for euthanasia, most-involved relative(s) and treating physician. Thirty-two cases, 31 relatives and 28 treating physicians. Settings were patients' and relatives' homes and physicians' offices. Five main themes emerged: (1) initiation of sharing views and values about euthanasia, (2) building relationships as part of the negotiation, (3) fulfilling legal requirements, (4) detailed work of preparing and performing euthanasia and (5) aftercare and closing. A patient's request for euthanasia entails a complex process that demands emotional work by all participants. It is characterised by an intensive period of sharing information, relationship building and negotiation in order to reach agreement. We hypothesise that making decisions about euthanasia demands a proactive approach towards participants' preferences and values regarding end of life, towards the needs of relatives, towards the burden placed on physicians and a careful attention to shared decision-making. Future research should address the communicational skills professionals require for such complex decision-making.

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 decision making (COMRADE satisfaction with communication: F1,68=0.422, P=.52; COMRADE confidence in decision: F1,67=0.086, P=.77). In addition, results of the process evaluation suggest that the intervention did not optimally fit in with routine practice of the participating teams. The development of electronic decision aids to facilitate shared medical decision making is encouraged and many people with a psychotic disorder can work with them. This holds for both first-episode patients and long-term care patients, although the latter group might need more assistance. However, results of this paper could not support the assumption that the use of electronic decision aids increases patient involvement in medical decision making. This may be because of weak implementation of the study protocol and a low response rate.

Decisional role preferences, risk knowledge and information interests in patients with multiple sclerosis.

PubMed

Heesen, Christoph; Kasper, Jürgen; Segal, Julia; Köpke, Sascha; Mühlhauser, Ingrid

2004-12-01

Shared decision making is increasingly recognized as the ideal model of patient-physician communication especially in chronic diseases with partially effective treatments as multiple sclerosis (MS). To evaluate prerequisite factors for this kind of decision making we studied patients' decisional role preferences in medical decision making, knowledge on risks, information interests and the relations between these factors in MS. After conducting focus groups to generate hypotheses, 219 randomly selected patients from the MS Outpatient Clinic register (n = 1374) of the University Hospital Hamburg received mailed questionnaires on their knowledge of risks in MS, their perception of their own level of knowledge, information interests and role preferences. Most patients (79%) indicated that they preferred an active role in treatment decisions giving the shared decision and the informed choice model the highest priority. MS risk knowledge was low but questionnaire results depended on disease course, disease duration and ongoing immune therapy. Measured knowledge as well as perceived knowledge was only weakly correlated with preferences of active roles. Major information interests were related to symptom alleviation, diagnostic procedures and prognosis. Patients with MS claimed autonomous roles in their health care decisions. The weak correlation between knowledge and preferences for active roles implicates that other factors largely influence role preferences.

The Counseling, Self-Care, Adherence Approach to Person-Centered Care and Shared Decision Making: Moral Psychology, Executive Autonomy, and Ethics in Multi-Dimensional Care Decisions.

PubMed

Herlitz, Anders; Munthe, Christian; Törner, Marianne; Forsander, Gun

2016-08-01

This article argues that standard models of person-centred care (PCC) and shared decision making (SDM) rely on simplistic, often unrealistic assumptions of patient capacities that entail that PCC/SDM might have detrimental effects in many applications. We suggest a complementary PCC/SDM approach to ensure that patients are able to execute rational decisions taken jointly with care professionals when performing self-care. Illustrated by concrete examples from a study of adolescent diabetes care, we suggest a combination of moral and psychological considerations to support the claim that standard PCC/SDM threatens to systematically undermine its own goals. This threat is due to a tension between the ethical requirements of SDM in ideal circumstances and more long-term needs actualized by the context of self-care handled by patients with limited capacities for taking responsibility and adhere to their own rational decisions. To improve this situation, we suggest a counseling, self-care, adherence approach to PCC/SDM, where more attention is given to how treatment goals are internalized by patients, how patients perceive choice situations, and what emotional feedback patients are given. This focus may involve less of a concentration on autonomous and rational clinical decision making otherwise stressed in standard PCC/SDM advocacy.

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Verwys, Susan K.

2007-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Jewell, Kenneth E.; Rosen, Jacqueline L.

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hammad, Waheed

2010-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2005-01-01

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

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

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Hansman, R. John

1999-01-01

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

Ethics of End of Life Decisions in Pediatrics: A Narrative Review of the Roles of Caregivers, Shared Decision-Making, and Patient Centered Values.

PubMed

Santoro, Jonathan D; Bennett, Mariko

2018-04-26

Background: This manuscript reviews unique aspects of end of life decision-making in pediatrics. Methods: A narrative literature review of pediatric end of life issues was performed in the English language. Results: While a paternalistic approach is typically applied to children with life-limiting medical prognoses, the cognitive, language, and physical variability in this patient population is wide and worthy of review. In end of life discussions in pediatrics, the consideration of a child’s input is often not reviewed in depth, although a shared decision-making model is ideal for use, even for children with presumed limitations due to age. This narrative review of end of life decision-making in pediatric care explores nomenclature, the introduction of the concept of death, relevant historical studies, limitations to the shared decision-making model, the current state of end of life autonomy in pediatrics, and future directions and needs. Although progress is being made toward a more uniform and standardized approach to care, few non-institutional protocols exist. Complicating factors in the lack of guidelines include the unique facets of pediatric end of life care, including physical age, paternalism, the cognitive and language capacity of patients, subconscious influencers of parents, and normative values of death in pediatrics. Conclusions: Although there have been strides in end of life decision-making in pediatrics, further investigation and research is needed in this field.

Adoption of clinical decision support systems in a developing country: Antecedents and outcomes of physician's threat to perceived professional autonomy.

PubMed

Esmaeilzadeh, Pouyan; Sambasivan, Murali; Kumar, Naresh; Nezakati, Hossein

2015-08-01

The basic objective of this research is to study the antecedents and outcomes of professional autonomy which is a central construct that affects physicians' intention to adopt clinical decision support systems (CDSS). The antecedents are physicians' attitude toward knowledge sharing and interactivity perception (about CDSS) and the outcomes are performance expectancy and intention to adopt CDSS. Besides, we include (1) the antecedents of attitude toward knowledge sharing-subjective norms, social factors and OCB (helping behavior) and (2) roles of physicians' involvement in decision making, computer self-efficacy and effort expectancy in our framework. Data from a stratified sample of 335 Malaysian physicians working in 12 public and private hospitals in Malaysia were collected to test the hypotheses using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The important findings of our research are: (1) factors such as perceived threat to professional autonomy, performance expectancy, and physicians' involvement in making decision about CDSS have significant impact on physicians' intention to adopt CDSS; (2) physicians' attitude toward knowledge sharing, interactivity perception and computer self-efficacy of physicians play a crucial role in influencing their perceived threat to professional autonomy; and (3) social network, shared goals and OCB (helping behavior) impact physicians' attitude toward knowledge sharing. The findings provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence physicians' intention to adopt CDSS in a developing country. The results can help hospital managers manage CDSS implementation in an effective manner. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Student Decision-Making about a Globally Familiar Socioscientific Issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Grace, Marcus; Chung Lee, Yeung; Asshoff, Roman; Wallin, Anita

2015-07-01

This paper focuses on the views of 16-17-year-old science students from England, Germany, Hong Kong and Sweden on whale hunting, and their perceptions of the views of their international counterparts. The students were all provided with the same decision-making task, discussed the issue in small groups and then presented their views on video, which were shared with their counterparts. The findings show that the decision-making task served to deepen and modify students' views across all nationalities, and the students generally valued and learned from the sharing of views with students of the same age from around the world. However, an important discovery was that the German students' opinions often ran counter to those from the other 3 locations, and the paper cautions against making broad-sweeping generalisations about students' views on socioscientific issues.

Palliative Medicine and Decision Science: The Critical Need for a Shared Agenda To Foster Informed Patient Choice in Serious Illness

PubMed Central

Kryworuchko, Jennifer; Matlock, Dan D.; Volandes, Angelo E.

2011-01-01

Abstract Assisting patients and their families in complex decision making is a foundational skill in palliative care; however, palliative care clinicians and scientists have just begun to establish an evidence base for best practice in assisting patients and families in complex decision making. Decision scientists aim to understand and clarify the concepts and techniques of shared decision making (SDM), decision support, and informed patient choice in order to ensure that patient and family perspectives shape their health care experience. Patients with serious illness and their families are faced with myriad complex decisions over the course of illness and as death approaches. If patients lose capacity, then surrogate decision makers are cast into the decision-making role. The fields of palliative care and decision science have grown in parallel. There is much to be gained in advancing the practices of complex decision making in serious illness through increased collaboration. The purpose of this article is to use a case study to highlight the broad range of difficult decisions, issues, and opportunities imposed by a life-limiting illness in order to illustrate how collaboration and a joint research agenda between palliative care and decision science researchers, theorists, and clinicians might guide best practices for patients and their families. PMID:21895453

Perceptions of Shared Decision Making Among Patients with Spinal Cord Injuries/Disorders.

PubMed

Locatelli, Sara M; Etingen, Bella; Heinemann, Allen; Neumann, Holly DeMark; Miskovic, Ana; Chen, David; LaVela, Sherri L

2016-01-01

Background: Individuals with spinal cord injuries/disorders (SCI/D) are interested in, and benefit from, shared decision making (SDM). Objective: To explore SDM among individuals with SCI/D and how demographics and health and SCI/D characteristics are related to SDM. Method: Individuals with SCI/D who were at least 1 year post injury, resided in the Chicago metropolitan area, and received SCI care at a Veterans Affairs (VA; n = 124) or an SCI Model Systems facility ( n = 326) completed a mailed survey measuring demographics, health and SCI/D characteristics, physical and mental health status, and perceptions of care, including SDM, using the Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision-Making Effectiveness (COMRADE) that assesses decision-making effectiveness (effectiveness) and risk communication (communication). Bivariate analyses and multiple linear regression were used to identify variables associated with SDM. Results: Participants were mostly male (83%) and White (70%) and were an average age of 54 years ( SD = 14.3). Most had traumatic etiology, 44% paraplegia, and 49% complete injury. Veteran/civilian status and demographics were unrelated to scores. Bivariate analyses showed that individuals with tetraplegia had better effectiveness scores than those with paraplegia. Better effectiveness was correlated with better physical and mental health; better communication was correlated with better mental health. Multiple linear regressions showed that tetraplegia, better physical health, and better mental health were associated with better effectiveness, and better mental health was associated with better communication. Conclusion: SCI/D and health characteristics were the only variables associated with SDM. Interventions to increase engagement in SDM and provider attention to SDM may be beneficial, especially for individuals with paraplegia or in poorer physical and mental health.

Can or can not? Electronic information sharing influence the participation behavior of the employees

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

Mohammed, M. A., E-mail: mhmdaldbag@yahoo.com; Eman, Y., E-mail: emaroof94@yahoo.com; Huda, I., E-mail: huda753@uum.edu.my

Information sharing refers to information being shared between employees inside or outside an agency, or by providing accessibility of their information and data to other agencies so as to allow effective decision making. Electronic information sharing is a key to effective government. This study is conducted to investigate the factors of electronic information sharing that influence the participation behavior so as to augment it amongst the employees in public organizations. Eleven domains of factors that are considered in this study are benefits, risk, social network, Information stewardship, information quality, trust, privacy, reciprocity. The paper proposes electronic information sharing factors inmore » public sector to increase the participation.« less

Do choosing wisely tools meet criteria for patient decision aids? A descriptive analysis of patient materials

PubMed Central

Légaré, France; Hébert, Jessica; Goh, Larissa; Lewis, Krystina B; Leiva Portocarrero, Maria Ester; Robitaille, Hubert; Stacey, Dawn

2016-01-01

Objectives Choosing Wisely is a remarkable physician-led campaign to reduce unnecessary or harmful health services. Some of the literature identifies Choosing Wisely as a shared decision-making approach. We evaluated the patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada to determine whether they meet the criteria for shared decision-making tools known as patient decision aids. Design Descriptive analysis of all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials. Data source In May 2015, we selected all Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials from its official website. Main outcomes and measures Four team members independently extracted characteristics of the English materials using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) modified 16-item minimum criteria for qualifying and certifying patient decision aids. The research team discussed discrepancies between data extractors and reached a consensus. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Results Of the 24 patient materials assessed, 12 were about treatments, 11 were about screening and 1 was about prevention. The median score for patient materials using IPDAS criteria was 10/16 (range: 8–11) for screening topics and 6/12 (range: 6–9) for prevention and treatment topics. Commonly missed criteria were stating the decision (21/24 did not), providing balanced information on option benefits/harms (24/24 did not), citing evidence (24/24 did not) and updating policy (24/24 did not). Out of 24 patient materials, only 2 met the 6 IPDAS criteria to qualify as patient decision aids, and neither of these 2 met the 6 certifying criteria. Conclusions Patient materials developed by Choosing Wisely Canada do not meet the IPDAS minimal qualifying or certifying criteria for patient decision aids. Modifications to the Choosing Wisely Canada patient materials would help to ensure that they qualify as patient decision aids and thus as more effective shared decision-making tools. PMID:27566638

Principals' Perceptions of Community and Staff Involvement in Shared Decision Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brown, David W.; And Others

1996-01-01

Survey of 217 Maine principals revealed that respondents perceived their staff as moderately to highly involved in decision making, viewed the community as informed but not actively involved in decision making, and desired greater involvement from staff and parents. Principal gender and school level did not affect desired levels of involvement.…

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

Development and validation of a shared decision-making instrument for health-related quality of life one year after total hip replacement based on quality registries data.

PubMed

Nemes, Szilard; Rolfson, Ola; Garellick, Göran

2018-02-01

Clinicians considering improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after total hip replacement (THR) must account for multiple pieces of information. Evidence-based decisions are important to best assess the effect of THR on HRQoL. This work aims at constructing a shared decision-making tool that helps clinicians assessing the future benefits of THR by offering predictions of 1-year postoperative HRQoL of THR patients. We used data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Data from 2008 were used as training set and data from 2009 to 2012 as validation set. We adopted two approaches. First, we assumed a continuous distribution for the EQ-5D index and modelled the postoperative EQ-5D index with regression models. Second, we modelled the five dimensions of the EQ-5D and weighted together the predictions using the UK Time Trade-Off value set. As predictors, we used preoperative EQ-5D dimensions and the EQ-5D index, EQ visual analogue scale, visual analogue scale pain, Charnley classification, age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, surgical approach and prosthesis type. Additionally, the tested algorithms were combined in a single predictive tool by stacking. Best predictive power was obtained by the multivariate adaptive regression splines (R 2  = 0.158). However, this was not significantly better than the predictive power of linear regressions (R 2  = 0.157). The stacked model had a predictive power of 17%. Successful implementation of a shared decision-making tool that can aid clinicians and patients in understanding expected improvement in HRQoL following THR would require higher predictive power than we achieved. For a shared decision-making tool to succeed, further variables, such as socioeconomics, need to be considered. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

A Mobile Phone App to Support Young People in Making Shared Decisions in Therapy (Power Up): Study Protocol

PubMed Central

Martin, Kate; Webber, Helen; Craven, Michael P; Hollis, Chris; Deighton, Jessica; Law, Roslyn; Fonagy, Peter; Wolpert, Miranda

2017-01-01

Background Evidence suggests that young people want to be active participants in their care and involved in decisions about their treatment. However, there is a lack of digital shared decision-making tools available to support young people in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Objective The primary aim of this paper is to present the protocol of a feasibility trial for Power Up, a mobile phone app to empower young people in CAMHS to make their voices heard and participate in decisions around their care. Methods In the development phase, 30 young people, parents, and clinicians will take part in interviews and focus groups to elicit opinions on an early version of the app. In the feasibility testing phase, 60 young people from across 7 to 10 London CAMHS sites will take part in a trial looking at the feasibility and acceptability of measuring the impact of Power Up on shared decision making. Results Data collection for the development phase ended in December 2016. Data collection for the feasibility testing phase will end in December 2017. Conclusions Findings will inform the planning of a cluster controlled trial and contribute to the development and implementation of a shared decision-making app to be integrated into CAMHS. Trial Registration ISRCTN77194423; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN77194423 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6MINP0). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987608; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987608 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6PNBZM) PMID:29084708

Evolution of Structural Empowerment: Moving From Shared to Professional Governance.

PubMed

Clavelle, Joanne T; Porter O'Grady, Tim; Weston, Marla J; Verran, Joyce A

2016-06-01

The aim of this study is to describe the maturation of the concept of shared governance to professional governance as a framework for structural empowerment. An analysis of the literature and concept clarification of structural empowerment and shared governance demonstrate that the concept and attributes of shared governance have evolved toward professional governance. A comprehensive, deductive literature review and concept clarification of structural empowerment, shared governance, and related constructs was completed. The concept and practice of shared governance has matured to a concept of professional governance with the attributes of accountability, professional obligation, collateral relationships, and effective decision-making.

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Development of a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Shared Decision making Among African-American LGBT Patients and their Clinicians.

PubMed

Peek, Monica E; Lopez, Fanny Y; Williams, H Sharif; Xu, Lucy J; McNulty, Moira C; Acree, M Ellen; Schneider, John A

2016-06-01

Enhancing patient-centered care and shared decision making (SDM) has become a national priority as a means of engaging patients in their care, improving treatment adherence, and enhancing health outcomes. Relatively little is known about the healthcare experiences or shared decision making among racial/ethnic minorities who also identify as being LGBT. The purpose of this paper is to understand how race, sexual orientation and gender identity can simultaneously influence SDM among African-American LGBT persons, and to propose a model of SDM between such patients and their healthcare providers. We reviewed key constructs necessary for understanding SDM among African-American LGBT persons, which guided our systematic literature review. Eligible studies for the review included English-language studies of adults (≥ 19 y/o) in North America, with a focus on LGBT persons who were African-American/black (i.e., > 50 % of the study population) or included sub-analyses by sexual orientation/gender identity and race. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases using MESH terms and keywords related to shared decision making, communication quality (e.g., trust, bias), African-Americans, and LGBT persons. Additional references were identified by manual reviews of peer-reviewed journals' tables of contents and key papers' references. We identified 2298 abstracts, three of which met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, one was cross-sectional and two were qualitative; one study involved transgender women (91 % minorities, 65 % of whom were African-Americans), and two involved African-American men who have sex with men (MSM). All of the studies focused on HIV infection. Sexual orientation and gender identity were patient-reported factors that negatively impacted patient/provider relationships and SDM. Engaging in SDM helped some patients overcome normative beliefs about clinical encounters. In this paper, we present a conceptual model for understanding SDM in African-American LGBT persons, wherein multiple systems of social stratification (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation) influence patient and provider perceptions, behaviors, and shared decision making. Few studies exist that explore SDM among African-American LGBT persons, and no interventions were identified in our systematic review. Thus, we are unable to draw conclusions about the effect size of SDM among this population on health outcomes. Qualitative work suggests that race, sexual orientation and gender work collectively to enhance perceptions of discrimination and decrease SDM among African-American LGBT persons. More research is needed to obtain a comprehensive understanding of shared decision making and subsequent health outcomes among African-Americans along the entire spectrum of gender and sexual orientation.

What are the decision-making preferences of patients in vascular surgery? A mixed-methods study.

PubMed

Santema, T B Katrien; Stoffer, E Anniek; Kunneman, Marleen; Koelemay, Mark J W; Ubbink, Dirk T

2017-02-10

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as the preferred method of choosing a suitable treatment option. However, patient involvement in treatment decision-making is not yet common practice in the field of vascular surgery. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to explore patients' decision-making preferences and to investigate which facilitators and barriers patients perceive as important for the application of SDM in vascular surgery. Patients were invited to participate after visiting the vascular surgical outpatient clinic of an Academic Medical Center in the Netherlands. A treatment decision was made during the consultation for an abdominal aortic aneurysm or peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Patients filled in a number of questionnaires (quantitative part) and a random subgroup of patients participated in an in-depth interview (qualitative part). A total of 67 patients participated in this study. 58 per cent of them (n=39) indicated that they preferred a shared role in decision-making. In more than half of the patients (55%; n=37) their preferred role was in disagreement with what they had experienced. 31 per cent of the patients (n=21) preferred a more active role in the decision-making process than they had experienced. Patients indicated a good patient-doctor relationship as an important facilitator for the application of SDM. The vast majority of vascular surgical patients preferred, but did not experience a shared role in the decision-making process, although the concept of SDM was insufficiently clear to some patients. This emphasises the importance of explaining the concept of SDM and implementing it in the clinical encounter. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Communication practices in physician decision-making for an unstable critically ill patient with end-stage cancer.

PubMed

Mohan, Deepika; Alexander, Stewart C; Garrigues, Sarah K; Arnold, Robert M; Barnato, Amber E

2010-08-01

Shared decision-making has become the standard of care for most medical treatments. However, little is known about physician communication practices in the decision making for unstable critically ill patients with known end-stage disease. To describe communication practices of physicians making treatment decisions for unstable critically ill patients with end-stage cancer, using the framework of shared decision-making. Analysis of audiotaped encounters between physicians and a standardized patient, in a high-fidelity simulation scenario, to identify best practice communication behaviors. The simulation depicted a 78-year-old man with metastatic gastric cancer, life-threatening hypoxia, and stable preferences to avoid intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation. Blinded coders assessed the encounters for verbal communication behaviors associated with handling emotions and discussion of end-of-life goals. We calculated a score for skill at handling emotions (0-6) and at discussing end of life goals (0-16). Twenty-seven hospital-based physicians. Independent variables included physician demographics and communication behaviors. We used treatment decisions (ICU admission and initiation of palliation) as a proxy for accurate identification of patient preferences. Eight physicians admitted the patient to the ICU, and 16 initiated palliation. Physicians varied, but on average demonstrated low skill at handling emotions (mean, 0.7) and moderate skill at discussing end-of-life goals (mean, 7.4). We found that skill at discussing end-of-life goals was associated with initiation of palliation (p = 0.04). It is possible to analyze the decision making of physicians managing unstable critically ill patients with end-stage cancer using the framework of shared decision-making.

Decision-making about prenatal genetic testing among pregnant Korean-American women.

PubMed

Jun, Myunghee; Thongpriwan, Vipavee; Choi, Jeeyae; Sook Choi, Kyung; Anderson, Gwen

2018-01-01

to understand the prenatal genetic testing decision-making processes among pregnant Korean-American women. a qualitative, descriptive research design. referrals and snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit 10 Korean-American women who had been recommended for amniocentesis during pregnancy in the United States (U.S.). All participants were born in Korea and had immigrated to the U.S. The number of years living in the U.S. ranged from 4 to 11 (M=5.7). various regional areas of the U.S. the researchers conducted face-to-face or phone interviews using semi-structured interview guides. The interviews were conducted in the Korean language and lasted approximately 50-100minutes. The interview guides focused on the decision-making process and experiences with prenatal genetic testing, as well as reflections on the decisions. Four core themes emerged related to the participants' decision-making processes, according to their descriptions. These themes are (1) facing the challenges of decision-making, (2) seeking support, (3) determining one's preferred role in the decision-making process, and (4) feeling uncomfortable with the degree of patient autonomy in U.S. health care. researchers concluded that many distinctive factors influence the decision-making processes used by pregnant Korean-American women. The results have the potential to improve shared decision-making practices regarding prenatal genetic testing. clinicians need to understand the sociocultural underpinnings of pregnant Korean-American immigrants regarding prenatal genetic screening and testing as an initial step to engage these patients in shared decision-making. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Learning about water resource sharing through game play

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Ewen, Tracy; Seibert, Jan

2016-10-01

Games are an optimal way to teach about water resource sharing, as they allow real-world scenarios to be enacted. Both students and professionals learning about water resource management can benefit from playing games, through the process of understanding both the complexity of sharing of resources between different groups and decision outcomes. Here we address how games can be used to teach about water resource sharing, through both playing and developing water games. An evaluation of using the web-based game Irrigania in the classroom setting, supported by feedback from several educators who have used Irrigania to teach about the sustainable use of water resources, and decision making, at university and high school levels, finds Irrigania to be an effective and easy tool to incorporate into a curriculum. The development of two water games in a course for masters students in geography is also presented as a way to teach and communicate about water resource sharing. Through game development, students learned soft skills, including critical thinking, problem solving, team work, and time management, and overall the process was found to be an effective way to learn about water resource decision outcomes. This paper concludes with a discussion of learning outcomes from both playing and developing water games.

Increasing public awareness and facilitating behavior change: Two guiding heuristics

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Maibach, E.

2016-12-01

If there is a single aspiration that unifies the professionals who work on the challenges associated with global change, it is likely their desire to see policy makers, business managers and members of the public make decisions that are better informed by the realities of what we know about how to stabilize the climate and prevent needless harm to people and eco-systems. This calls an obvious question: What can we - as scientists and science organizations - to do more effectively promote evidence-based decision-making and actions by important decision-makers? In this talk I will distinguish between two related challenges: more effectively sharing what we know (i.e., improving our communication); and more effectively helping decision-makers take helpful actions (i.e., improving our efforts to facilitate behavior change). Drawing on both theory and empirical evidence in communication science, behavioral science and other related social sciences, I suggest two guiding heurstics - one for each of the two challenges - that will help scientists and science organizations improve the impact of their outreach efforts. To more effectively share what we know, we need "simple clear messages, repeated often, by a variety of trusted sources." To help people convert their good intentions into effective actions, we need to do more to "make the behaviors we are promoting easy, fun and popular." I refer to each of these as "heuristics" in the sense that they organize a relatively large amount of prescriptive information into a relatively easy to use method or process. In this talk, I will unpack each of these heurtistics with the aim of making them practical for all in attendance.

Patient perceived participation in decision making on their antipsychotic treatment: Evidence of validity and reliability of the COMRADE scale in a sample of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

PubMed

Pérez-Revuelta, José; Villagrán-Moreno, José María; Moreno-Sánchez, Luisa; Pascual-Paño, Juan Manuel; González-Saiz, Francisco

2018-03-23

The aim of this paper is to provide evidence of the validity and reliability of the COMRADE scale (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision making Effectiveness) in patients suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorders. 150 patients recruited at five mental health centers were assessed using a cross-sectional study design. The COMRADE, WAIS-S (therapeutic alliance) and TSQM (satisfaction with medication) scales were used. Exploratory Factor Analysis identified three factors from the COMRADE (F1: "Risk communication"; F2: "Confidence in decision" and F3: "Knowledge of decisional balance") which explain 45.2, 8.5 and 6% of the variance, respectively. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the scores of the COMRADE subscales with the subscales of the WAI-S and the TSQM. The internal consistency observed for each of the factorial scores of the COMRADE were (Cronbach's alpha values) 0.90, 0.89 and 0.74, respectively. The COMRADE scale offers appropriate psychometric properties for its use as a measure of perceived patient involvement in the shared decision making process in antipsychotic treatment. The use of the COMRADE measure in psychiatric clinical practice and in research studies provides an outcome measure of interventions from the shared decision making model. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The Relationship between Principal Personality Type and Elementary School Student Achievement

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Roberson, Tamara Suzanne

2010-01-01

Providing effective administrative leadership that has a positive impact on student achievement often is problematic for school principals. Research suggests that collaboration and shared decision making are functions of effective leadership, and according to the premises of effective school instructional leadership, leadership should change with…

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/.

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.

Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 3: examining how resource allocation decisions are made, implemented and evaluated in a local healthcare setting.

PubMed

Harris, Claire; Allen, Kelly; Waller, Cara; Brooke, Vanessa

2017-05-09

This is the third in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. Leaders in a large Australian health service planned to establish an organisation-wide, systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment. In order to introduce new systems and processes for disinvestment into existing decision-making infrastructure, we aimed to understand where, how and by whom resource allocation decisions were made, implemented and evaluated. We also sought the knowledge and experience of staff regarding previous disinvestment activities. Structured interviews, workshops and document analysis were used to collect information from multiple sources in an environmental scan of decision-making systems and processes. Findings were synthesised using a theoretical framework. Sixty-eight respondents participated in interviews and workshops. Eight components in the process of resource allocation were identified: Governance, Administration, Stakeholder engagement, Resources, Decision-making, Implementation, Evaluation and, where appropriate, Reinvestment of savings. Elements of structure and practice for each component are described and a new framework was developed to capture the relationships between them. A range of decision-makers, decision-making settings, type and scope of decisions, criteria used, and strengths, weaknesses, barriers and enablers are outlined. The term 'disinvestment' was not used in health service decision-making. Previous projects that involved removal, reduction or restriction of current practices were driven by quality and safety issues, evidence-based practice or a need to find resource savings and not by initiatives where the primary aim was to disinvest. Measuring resource savings is difficult, in some situations impossible. Savings are often only theoretical as resources released may be utilised immediately by patients waiting for beds, clinic appointments or surgery. Decision-making systems and processes for resource allocation are more complex than assumed in previous studies. There is a wide range of decision-makers, settings, scope and type of decisions, and criteria used for allocating resources within a single institution. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report this level of detail and to introduce eight components of the resource allocation process identified within a local health service.

The Use of Art in the Medical Decision-Making Process of Oncology Patients

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Czamanski-Cohen, Johanna

2012-01-01

The introduction of written informed consent in the 1970s created expectations of shared decision making between doctors and patients that has led to decisional conflict for some patients. This study utilized a collaborative, intrinsic case study approach to the decision-making process of oncology patients who participated in an open art therapy…

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.

Networking CD-ROMs: The Decision Maker's Guide to Local Area Network Solutions.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Elshami, Ahmed M.

In an era when patrons want access to CD-ROM resources but few libraries can afford to buy multiple copies, CD-ROM local area networks (LANs) are emerging as a cost-effective way to provide shared access. To help librarians make informed decisions, this manual offers information on: (1) the basics of LANs, a "local area network primer";…

Patient centered decision making: use of conjoint analysis to determine risk-benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices.

PubMed

Wilson, Leslie; Loucks, Aimee; Bui, Christine; Gipson, Greg; Zhong, Lixian; Schwartzburg, Amy; Crabtree, Elizabeth; Goodin, Douglas; Waubant, Emmanuelle; McCulloch, Charles

2014-09-15

Understanding patient preferences facilitates shared decision-making and focuses on patient-centered outcomes. Little is known about relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patient preferences for disease modifying therapies (DMTs). We use choice based conjoint (CBC) analysis to calculate patient preferences for risk/benefit trade-offs for hypothetical DMTs. Patients with RRMS were surveyed between 2012 and 2013. Our CBC survey mimicked the decision-making process and trade-offs of patients choosing DMTs, based on all possible DMT attributes. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyzed preferences. We estimated maximum acceptable risk trade-offs for various DMT benefits. Severe side-effect risks had the biggest impact on patient preference with a 1% risk, decreasing patient preference five-fold compared to no risk. (OR=0.22, p<0.001). Symptom improvement was the most preferred benefit (OR=3.68, p<0.001), followed by prevention of progression of 10 years (OR=2.4, p<0.001). Daily oral administration had the third highest DMT preference rating (OR=2.08, p<0.001). Patients were willing to accept 0.08% severe risk for a year delayed relapse, and 0.22% for 4 vs 2 year prevented progression. We provided patient preferences and risk-benefit trade-offs for attributes of all available DMTs. Evaluation of patient preferences is a key step in shared decision making and may significantly impact early drug initiation and compliance. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The relationship between role preferences in decision-making and level of psychological distress in patients with head and neck cancer.

PubMed

Jabbour, Joe; Dhillon, Haryana M; Shepherd, Heather L; Sundaresan, Puma; Milross, Chris; Clark, Jonathan R

2018-05-28

Is there a relationship between decision-making preferences and psychological distress? Patients who had received treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) at four institutions within NSW, Australia were invited to complete a single questionnaire. Five hundred and ninety-seven patients completed the questionnaire. The majority of patients (308, 54%) preferred shared decision making. Significant predictors of a preference towards active decision making were education level (OR 2.1 for tertiary, p < 0.001), primary cancer site (OR 1.9 for thyroid compared to salivary gland, p = 0.024) and gender (OR 1.4 for female, p = 0.028). Mean psychological distress score on Kessler 6 (K6) was 9 (Range: 0-28). Significant predictors of psychological distress were age (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001), primary site (p < 0.01), and decision preference (p < 0.01). HNC patients who are either tertiary educated or female are more likely to prefer active involvement in decision-making. Psychological distress is more likely in patients actively involved in decision making, younger patients, and in females. Patients experienced paternalistic decision-making, but most preferred active or a shared approached. Clinicians need to be aware of potential for psychological distress in active decision-makers and refer patients for psychosocial support. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Cultural targeting and tailoring of shared decision making technology: a theoretical framework for improving the effectiveness of patient decision aids in culturally diverse groups.

PubMed

Alden, Dana L; Friend, John; Schapira, Marilyn; Stiggelbout, Anne

2014-03-01

Patient decision aids are known to positively impact outcomes critical to shared decision making (SDM), such as gist knowledge and decision preparedness. However, research on the potential improvement of these and other important outcomes through cultural targeting and tailoring of decision aids is very limited. This is the case despite extensive evidence supporting use of cultural targeting and tailoring to improve the effectiveness of health communications. Building on prominent psychological theory, we propose a two-stage framework incorporating cultural concepts into the design process for screening and treatment decision aids. The first phase recommends use of cultural constructs, such as collectivism and individualism, to differentially target patients whose cultures are known to vary on these dimensions. Decision aid targeting is operationalized through use of symbols and values that appeal to members of the given culture. Content dimensions within decision aids that appear particularly appropriate for targeting include surface level visual characteristics, language, beliefs, attitudes and values. The second phase of the framework is based on evidence that individuals vary in terms of how strongly cultural norms influence their approach to problem solving and decision making. In particular, the framework hypothesizes that differences in terms of access to cultural mindsets (e.g., access to interdependent versus independent self) can be measured up front and used to tailor decision aids. Thus, the second phase in the framework emphasizes the importance of not only targeting decision aid content, but also tailoring the information to the individual based on measurement of how strongly he/she is connected to dominant cultural mindsets. Overall, the framework provides a theory-based guide for researchers and practitioners who are interested in using cultural targeting and tailoring to develop and test decision aids that move beyond a "one-size fits all" approach and thereby, improve SDM in our multicultural world. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

PubMed Central

Conradt, Larissa; Roper, Timothy J.

2008-01-01

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

Shared decision-making.

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.

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 .

How do small groups make decisions? : A theoretical framework to inform the implementation and study of clinical competency committees.

PubMed

Chahine, Saad; Cristancho, Sayra; Padgett, Jessica; Lingard, Lorelei

2017-06-01

In the competency-based medical education (CBME) approach, clinical competency committees are responsible for making decisions about trainees' competence. However, we currently lack a theoretical model for group decision-making to inform this emerging assessment phenomenon. This paper proposes an organizing framework to study and guide the decision-making processes of clinical competency committees.This is an explanatory, non-exhaustive review, tailored to identify relevant theoretical and evidence-based papers related to small group decision-making. The search was conducted using Google Scholar, Web of Science, MEDLINE, ERIC, and PsycINFO for relevant literature. Using a thematic analysis, two researchers (SC & JP) met four times between April-June 2016 to consolidate the literature included in this review.Three theoretical orientations towards group decision-making emerged from the review: schema, constructivist, and social influence. Schema orientations focus on how groups use algorithms for decision-making. Constructivist orientations focus on how groups construct their shared understanding. Social influence orientations focus on how individual members influence the group's perspective on a decision. Moderators of decision-making relevant to all orientations include: guidelines, stressors, authority, and leadership.Clinical competency committees are the mechanisms by which groups of clinicians will be in charge of interpreting multiple assessment data points and coming to a shared decision about trainee competence. The way in which these committees make decisions can have huge implications for trainee progression and, ultimately, patient care. Therefore, there is a pressing need to build the science of how such group decision-making works in practice. This synthesis suggests a preliminary organizing framework that can be used in the implementation and study of clinical competency committees.

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 on perceived involvement in medical decision making (COMRADE satisfaction with communication: F1,68=0.422, P=.52; COMRADE confidence in decision: F1,67=0.086, P=.77). In addition, results of the process evaluation suggest that the intervention did not optimally fit in with routine practice of the participating teams. Conclusions The development of electronic decision aids to facilitate shared medical decision making is encouraged and many people with a psychotic disorder can work with them. This holds for both first-episode patients and long-term care patients, although the latter group might need more assistance. However, results of this paper could not support the assumption that the use of electronic decision aids increases patient involvement in medical decision making. This may be because of weak implementation of the study protocol and a low response rate. Trial Registration Dutch Trial Register (NTR) trial number: 10340; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctsearch.asp?Term=10340 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Jj5umAeS). PMID:24100091

Exercise prescription for non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP): a qualitative study of patients' experiences of involvement in decision making.

PubMed

Stenner, Rob; Swinkels, Annette; Mitchell, Theresa; Palmer, Shea

2016-12-01

The culture of current clinical practice calls for collaboration between therapists and patients, sharing power and responsibility. This paper reports on the findings of a qualitative study of exercise prescription for patients with NSCLBP, taking into account issues such as decision making and how this accords with patient preferences and experiences. To understand the treatment decision making experiences, information and decision support needs of patients with NSCLBP who have been offered exercise as part of their management plan. A qualitative study using a philosophical hermeneutic approach. Semi-structured interviews with eight patients (including use of brief patient vignettes) was undertaken to explore their personal experiences of receiving exercise as part of the management of their NSCLBP, and their involvement in decisions regarding their care. The findings provide a detailed insight into patients' perceptions and experiences of receiving exercise-based management strategies. Four themes were formed from the texts: (1) patients' expectations and patients' needs are not synonymous, (2) information is necessary but often not sufficient, (3) not all decisions need to be shared, and (4) wanting to be treated as an individual. Shared decision making did not appear to happen in physiotherapy clinical practice, but equally may not be what every patient wants. The overall feeling of the patients was that the therapist was dominant in structuring the interactions, leaving the patients feeling disempowered to question and contribute to the decision making. Copyright © 2015 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration

PubMed Central

Pieterse, A H; Baas-Thijssen, M C M; Marijnen, C A M; Stiggelbout, A M

2008-01-01

Patient participation in treatment decision-making is being increasingly advocated, although cancer treatments are often guideline-driven. Trade-offs between benefits and side effects underlying guidelines are made by clinicians. Evidence suggests that clinicians are inaccurate at predicting patient values. The aim was to assess what role oncologists and cancer patients prefer in deciding about treatment, and how they view patient participation in treatment decision-making. Seventy disease-free cancer patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, and medical) were interviewed about their role preferences using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) and about their views on patient participation using closed- and open-ended questions. Almost all participants preferred treatment decisions to be the outcome of a shared process. Clinicians viewed participation more often as reaching an agreement, whereas 23% of patients defined participation exclusively as being informed. Of the participants, ⩾81% thought not all patients are able to participate and ⩾74% thought clinicians are not always able to weigh the pros and cons of treatment for patients, especially not quality as compared with length of life. Clinicians seemed reluctant to share probability information on the likely impact of adjuvant treatment. Clinicians should acknowledge the legitimacy of patients' values in treatment decisions. Guidelines should recommend elicitation of patient values at specific decision points. PMID:18781148

A Mobile Phone App to Support Young People in Making Shared Decisions in Therapy (Power Up): Study Protocol.

PubMed

Chapman, Louise; Edbrooke-Childs, Julian; Martin, Kate; Webber, Helen; Craven, Michael P; Hollis, Chris; Deighton, Jessica; Law, Roslyn; Fonagy, Peter; Wolpert, Miranda

2017-10-30

Evidence suggests that young people want to be active participants in their care and involved in decisions about their treatment. However, there is a lack of digital shared decision-making tools available to support young people in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The primary aim of this paper is to present the protocol of a feasibility trial for Power Up, a mobile phone app to empower young people in CAMHS to make their voices heard and participate in decisions around their care. In the development phase, 30 young people, parents, and clinicians will take part in interviews and focus groups to elicit opinions on an early version of the app. In the feasibility testing phase, 60 young people from across 7 to 10 London CAMHS sites will take part in a trial looking at the feasibility and acceptability of measuring the impact of Power Up on shared decision making. Data collection for the development phase ended in December 2016. Data collection for the feasibility testing phase will end in December 2017. Findings will inform the planning of a cluster controlled trial and contribute to the development and implementation of a shared decision-making app to be integrated into CAMHS. ISRCTN77194423; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN77194423 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6MINP0). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987608; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987608 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6PNBZM). ©Louise Chapman, Julian Edbrooke-Childs, Kate Martin, Helen Webber, Michael P Craven, Chris Hollis, Jessica Deighton, Roslyn Law, Peter Fonagy, Miranda Wolpert. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 30.10.2017.

Physicians' participatory decision-making and quality of diabetes care processes and outcomes: results from the triad study.

PubMed

Heisler, M; Tierney, E; Ackermann, R T; Tseng, C; Narayan, K M Venkat; Crosson, J; Waitzfelder, B; Safford, M M; Duru, K; Herman, W H; Kim, C

2009-09-01

In participatory decision-making (PDM), physicians actively engage patients in treatment and other care decisions. Patients who report that their physicians engage in PDM have better disease self-management and health outcomes. We examined whether physicians' diabetes-specific treatment PDM preferences as well as their self-reported practices are associated with the quality of diabetes care their patients receive. 2003 cross-sectional survey and medical record review of a random sample of diabetes patients (n=4198) in 10 US health plans across the country and their physicians (n=1217). We characterized physicians' diabetes care PDM preferences and practices as 'no patient involvement,' 'physician-dominant,' 'shared,' or 'patient-dominant' and conducted multivariate analyses examining their effects on the following: (1) three diabetes care processes (annual hemoglobin A1c test; lipid test; and dilated retinal exam); (2) patients'satisfaction with physician communication; and (3) whether patients' A1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) were in control. Most physicians preferred 'shared' PDM (58%) rather than 'no patient involvement' (9%), 'physician-dominant' (28%) or 'patient dominant' PDM (5%). However, most reported practicing 'physician-dominant' PDM (43%) with most of their patients, rather than 'no patient involvement' (13%), 'shared' (37%) or 'patient-dominant' PDM (7%). After adjusting for patient and physician-level characteristics and clustering by health plan, patients of physicians who preferred 'shared' PDM were more likely to receive A1c tests [90% vs. 82%, AOR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.03-3.07] and patients of physicians who preferred 'patient-dominant' treatment decision-making were more likely to receive lipid tests [60% vs. 50%, AOR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.04-2.39] than those of providers who preferred 'no patient involvement' in treatment decision-making. There were no differences in patients' satisfaction with their doctor's communication or control of A1c, SBP or LDL depending on their physicians' PDM preferences. Physicians' self-reported PDM practices were not associated with any of the examined aspects of diabetes care in multivariate analyses. Patients whose physicians prefer more patient involvement in decision-making are more likely than patients whose physicians prefer more physician-directed styles to receive some recommended risk factor screening tests, an important first step toward improved diabetes outcomes. Involving patients in treatment decision-making alone, however, appears not to be sufficient to improve biomedical outcomes.

Interspecific shared collective decision-making in two forensically important species.

PubMed

Boulay, Julien; Deneubourg, Jean-Louis; Hédouin, Valéry; Charabidzé, Damien

2016-02-10

To date, the study of collective behaviour has mainly focused on intraspecific situations: the collective decision-making of mixed-species groups involving interspecific aggregation-segregation has received little attention. Here, we show that, in both conspecific and heterospecific groups, the larvae of two species (Lucilia sericata and Calliphora vomitoria, calliphorid carrion-feeding flies) were able to make a collective choice. In all groups, the choice was made within a few minutes and persisted throughout the period of the experiment. The monitoring of a focal individual within a group showed that these aggregations were governed by attractive and retentive effects of the group. Furthermore, the similarity observed between the conspecific and heterospecific groups suggested the existence of shared aggregation signals. The group size was found to have a stronger influence than the species of necrophagous larvae. These results should be viewed in relation to the well-known correlation between group size and heat generation. This study provides the first experimental examination of the dynamics of collective decision-making in mixed-species groups of invertebrates, contributing to our understanding of the cooperation-competition phenomenon in animal social groups. © 2016 The Author(s).

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

PubMed

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

2018-03-07

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

A Framework to Improve Surgeon Communication in High-Stakes Surgical Decisions: Best Case/Worst Case.

PubMed

Taylor, Lauren J; Nabozny, Michael J; Steffens, Nicole M; Tucholka, Jennifer L; Brasel, Karen J; Johnson, Sara K; Zelenski, Amy; Rathouz, Paul J; Zhao, Qianqian; Kwekkeboom, Kristine L; Campbell, Toby C; Schwarze, Margaret L

2017-06-01

Although many older adults prefer to avoid burdensome interventions with limited ability to preserve their functional status, aggressive treatments, including surgery, are common near the end of life. Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-concordant treatment decisions and minimize unwanted care. However, communication in the acute inpatient setting is challenging. To evaluate the proof of concept of an intervention to teach surgeons to use the Best Case/Worst Case framework as a strategy to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decisions. Our prospective pre-post study was conducted from June 2014 to August 2015, and data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. The data were drawn from decision-making conversations between 32 older inpatients with an acute nonemergent surgical problem, 30 family members, and 25 surgeons at 1 tertiary care hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. A 2-hour training session to teach each study-enrolled surgeon to use the Best Case/Worst Case communication framework. We scored conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns in conversation structure, description of outcomes, and deliberation over treatment alternatives. The study participants were patients aged 68 to 95 years (n = 32), 44% of whom had 5 or more comorbid conditions; family members of patients (n = 30); and surgeons (n = 17). The median OPTION 5 score improved from 41 preintervention (interquartile range, 26-66) to 74 after Best Case/Worst Case training (interquartile range, 60-81). Before training, surgeons described the patient's problem in conjunction with an operative solution, directed deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into a treatment recommendation. After training, surgeons using Best Case/Worst Case clearly presented a choice between treatments, described a range of postoperative trajectories including functional decline, and involved patients and families in deliberation. Using the Best Case/Worst Case framework changed surgeon communication by shifting the focus of decision-making conversations from an isolated surgical problem to a discussion about treatment alternatives and outcomes. This intervention can help surgeons structure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

Insights from a conference on implementing comparative effectiveness research through shared decision-making

PubMed Central

Politi, Mary C; Clayman, Marla L; Fagerlin, Angela; Studts, Jamie L; Montori, Victor

2013-01-01

For decades, investigators have conducted innovative research on shared decision-making (SDM), helping patients and clinicians to discuss health decisions and balance evidence with patients' preferences for possible outcomes of options. In addition, investigators have developed and used rigorous methods for conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER), comparing the benefits and risks of different interventions in real-world settings with outcomes that matter to patients and other stakeholders. However, incorporating CER findings into clinical practice presents numerous challenges. In March 2012, we organized a conference at Washington University in St Louis (MO, USA) aimed at developing a network of researchers to collaborate in developing, conducting and disseminating research about the implementation of CER through SDM. Meeting attendees discussed conceptual similarities and differences between CER and SDM, challenges in implementing CER and SDM in practice, specific challenges when engaging SDM with unique populations and examples of ways to overcome these challenges. CER and SDM are related processes that emphasize examining the best clinical evidence and how it applies to real patients in real practice settings. SDM can provide one opportunity for clinicians to discuss CER findings with patients and engage in a dialog about how to manage uncertainty about evidence in order to make decisions on an individual patient level. This meeting highlighted key challenges and suggested avenues to pursue such that CER and SDM can be implemented into routine clinical practice. PMID:23430243

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

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

Exploring the importance of team psychological safety in the development of two interprofessional teams.

PubMed

O'Leary, Denise Fiona

2016-01-01

It has been previously demonstrated that interactions within interprofessional teams are characterised by effective communication, shared decision-making, and knowledge sharing. This article outlines aspects of an action research study examining the emergence of these characteristics within change management teams made up of nurses, general practitioners, physiotherapists, care assistants, a health and safety officer, and a client at two residential care facilities for older people in Ireland. The theoretical concept of team psychological safety (TPS) is utilised in presenting these characteristics. TPS has been defined as an atmosphere within a team where individuals feel comfortable engaging in discussion and reflection without fear of censure. Study results suggest that TPS was an important catalyst in enhancing understanding and power sharing across professional boundaries and thus in the development of interprofessional teamwork. There were differences between the teams. In one facility, the team developed many characteristics of interprofessional teamwork while at the other there was only a limited shift. Stability in team membership and organisational norms relating to shared decision-making emerged as particularly important in accounting for differences in the development of TPS and interprofessional teamwork.

Literature and Everyday Decisions: An Essay about the Influence of Literature on Decision-Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Parsons, Jim

Literature is an artistic expression which teaches human beings valuable lessons about life. Literature invites the reader to share decisions with the decisions of others--the characters seen in literature. Unlike science or philosophy or ethics, which make people say "I understand" and then "I see," literature, as an art,…

Realigning Shared Governance With Magnet® and the Organization's Operating System to Achieve Clinical Excellence.

PubMed

Moreno, Janette V; Girard, Anita S; Foad, Wendy

2018-03-01

In 2012, an academic medical center successfully overhauled a 15-year-old shared governance to align 6 house-wide and 30 unit-based councils with the new Magnet Recognition Program® and the organization's operating system, using the processes of LEAN methodology. The redesign improved cross-council communication structures, facilitated effective shared decision-making processes, increased staff engagement, and improved clinical outcomes. The innovative structural and process elements of the new model are replicable in other health institutions.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2013-06-06

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 shared decision-making (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: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2012); PubMed (1946 to September 2012); EMBASE (1974 to September 2012); CINAHL (1982 to September 2012); PsycINFO (1806 to September 2012); BIOSIS (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ERIC (1966 to September 2012); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to September 2012); and Sociological Abstracts (1952 to September 2012). We searched for information about trials not registered in these resources, either published or unpublished, by searching the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005-2012):American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Cancer Conference (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM 2005-2011 as held every two years), Annual Conference of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) and Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM).We searched the International Scientific and Technical Proceedings database (2005 to September 2012). We also searched Dissertation Abstracts (from 1980 to September 2012).We scanned the ISRCTN (International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number) register and the National Institute of Health (NIH) Register for ongoing trials at: www.controlled-trials.com and clinicaltrials.gov on the 1 October 2012. We contacted authors for further details. We also contacted experts in this field.We did not impose language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. The types of decisions included were: treatment, health care, and research participation decisions. The primary outcome was SDM as measured with any validated scale. Two review authors undertook the searches, and three review authors independently assessed the studies obtained. We contacted study authors for additional information. No studies met the inclusion criteria, and hence no analysis could be undertaken. No conclusions can be made on the effects of interventions to promote SDM for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality quantitative research on interventions to promote participation in SDM for children with cancer. There are many potential reasons for the lack of SDM intervention studies with children. Attitudes towards children's participation are slowly changing in society and such changes may take time to be translated or adopted in healthcare settings. The priority may be on developing interventions that promote children's participation in communication interactions since information-sharing is a prerequisite for SDM. Restricting this review to RCTs was a limitation and extending the review to non-randomised studies (NRS) may have produced more evidence. We plan to expand the types of studies in future updates. Clearly more research is needed.

Shared Decision Making in mental health care using Routine Outcome Monitoring as a source of information: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

PubMed

Metz, Margot J; Franx, Gerdien C; Veerbeek, Marjolein A; de Beurs, Edwin; van der Feltz-Cornelis, Christina M; Beekman, Aartjan T F

2015-12-15

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is a way to empower patients when decisions are made about treatment. In order to be effective agents in this process, patients need access to information of good quality. Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) may provide such information and therefore may be a key element in SDM. This trial tests the effectiveness of SDM using ROM, primarily aiming to diminish decisional conflict of the patient while making decisions about treatment. The degree of decisional conflict, the primary outcome of this study, encompasses personal certainty about choosing an appropriate treatment, information about options, clarification of patient values, support from others and patients experience of an effective decision making process. Secondary outcomes of the study focus on the working alliance between patient and clinician, adherence to treatment, and clinical outcome and quality of life. This article presents the study protocol of a multi-centre two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). The research is conducted in Dutch specialised mental health care teams participating in the ROM Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC), which aims to implement ROM in daily clinical practice. In the intervention teams, ROM is used as a source of information during the SDM process between the patient and clinician. Control teams receive no specific SDM or ROM instructions and apply decision making as usual. Randomisation is conducted at the level of the participating teams within the mental health organisations. A total of 12 teams from 4 organisations and 364 patients participate in the study. Prior to data collection, the intervention teams are trained to use ROM during the SDM process. Data collection will be at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months after inclusion of the patient. Control teams will implement the SDM and ROM model after completion of the study. This study will provide useful information about the effectiveness of ROM within a SDM framework. Furthermore, with practical guidelines this study may contribute to the implementation of SDM using ROM in mental health care. Reporting of the results is expected from December 2016 onwards. Dutch trial register: TC5262. Trial registration date: 24th of June 2015.

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.

Using simulation to assess the influence of race and insurer on shared decision making in periviable counseling.

PubMed

Tucker Edmonds, Brownsyne; McKenzie, Fatima; Fadel, William F; Matthias, Marianne S; Salyers, Michelle P; Barnato, Amber E; Frankel, Richard M

2014-12-01

Sociodemographic differences have been observed in the treatment of extremely premature (periviable) neonates, but the source of this variation is not well understood. We assessed the feasibility of using simulation to test the effect of maternal race and insurance status on shared decision making (SDM) in periviable counseling. We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial simulation experiment in which obstetricians and neonatologists counseled 2 consecutive standardized patients diagnosed with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, counterbalancing race (black/white) and insurance status using random permutation. We assessed verisimilitude of the simulation in semistructured debriefing interviews. We coded physician communication related to resuscitation, mode of delivery, and steroid decisions using a 9-point SDM coding framework and then compared communication scores by standardized patient race and insurer using analysis of variance. Sixteen obstetricians and 15 neonatologists participated; 71% were women, 84% were married, and 75% were parents; 91% of the physicians rated the simulation as highly realistic. Overall, SDM scores were relatively high, with means ranging from 6.4 to 7.9 (of 9). There was a statistically significant interaction between race and insurer for SDM related to steroid use and mode of delivery (P < 0.01 and P = 0.01, respectively). Between-group comparison revealed nonsignificant differences (P = <0.10) between the SDM scores for privately insured black patients versus privately insured white patients, Medicaid-insured white patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients, and privately insured black patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients. This study confirms that simulation is a feasible method for studying sociodemographic effects on periviable counseling. Shared decision making may occur differentially based on patients' sociodemographic characteristics and deserves further study.

[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.

Does young adults' preferred role in decision making about health, money, and career depend on their advisors' leadership skills?

PubMed

Garcia-Retamero, Rocio; Galesic, Mirta

2013-01-01

Few empirical data exist on how decision making about health differs from that in other crucial life domains with less threatening consequences. To shed light on this issue we conducted a study with 175 young adults (average age 19 years). We presented the participants with scenarios involving advisors who provided assistance in making decisions about health, money, and career. For each scenario, participants were asked to what extent they wanted the advisor to exhibit several leadership styles and competencies and what role (active, collaborative, or passive) they preferred to play when making decisions. Results show that decision making about health is distinct from that in the other domains in three ways. First, most of the participants preferred to delegate decision making about their health to their physician, whereas they were willing to collaborate or play an active role in decision making about their career or money. Second, the competencies and leadership style preferred for the physician differed substantially from those desired for advisors in the other two domains: Participants expected physicians to show more transformational leadership--the style that is most effective in a wide range of environments--than those who provide advice about financial investments or career. Finally, participants' willingness to share medical decision making with their physician was tied to how strongly they preferred that the physician shows an effective leadership style. In contrast, motivation to participate in decision making in the other domains was not related to preferences regarding advisors' leadership style or competencies. Our results have implications for medical practice as they suggest that physicians are expected to have superior leadership skills compared to those who provide assistance in other important areas of life.

Automated Decision-Making and Big Data: Concerns for People With Mental Illness.

PubMed

Monteith, Scott; Glenn, Tasha

2016-12-01

Automated decision-making by computer algorithms based on data from our behaviors is fundamental to the digital economy. Automated decisions impact everyone, occurring routinely in education, employment, health care, credit, and government services. Technologies that generate tracking data, including smartphones, credit cards, websites, social media, and sensors, offer unprecedented benefits. However, people are vulnerable to errors and biases in the underlying data and algorithms, especially those with mental illness. Algorithms based on big data from seemingly unrelated sources may create obstacles to community integration. Voluntary online self-disclosure and constant tracking blur traditional concepts of public versus private data, medical versus non-medical data, and human versus automated decision-making. In contrast to sharing sensitive information with a physician in a confidential relationship, there may be numerous readers of information revealed online; data may be sold repeatedly; used in proprietary algorithms; and are effectively permanent. Technological changes challenge traditional norms affecting privacy and decision-making, and continued discussions on new approaches to provide privacy protections are needed.

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.

Psychometric properties of the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire for shared decision-making in multiple sclerosis: item response theory modelling and confirmatory factor analysis.

PubMed

Ballesteros, Javier; Moral, Ester; Brieva, Luis; Ruiz-Beato, Elena; Prefasi, Daniel; Maurino, Jorge

2017-04-22

Shared decision-making is a cornerstone of patient-centred care. The 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) is a brief self-assessment tool for measuring patients' perceived level of involvement in decision-making related to their own treatment and care. Information related to the psychometric properties of the SDM-Q-9 for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of the items composing the SDM-Q-9 and its dimensional structure in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. A non-interventional, cross-sectional study in adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS was conducted in 17 MS units throughout Spain. A nonparametric item response theory (IRT) analysis was used to assess the latent construct and dimensional structure underlying the observed responses. A parametric IRT model, General Partial Credit Model, was fitted to obtain estimates of the relationship between the latent construct and item characteristics. The unidimensionality of the SDM-Q-9 instrument was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis. A total of 221 patients were studied (mean age = 42.1 ± 9.9 years, 68.3% female). Median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 2.5 ± 1.5. Most patients reported taking part in each step of the decision-making process. Internal reliability of the instrument was high (Cronbach's α = 0.91) and the overall scale scalability score was 0.57, indicative of a strong scale. All items, except for the item 1, showed scalability indices higher than 0.30. Four items (items 6 through to 9) conveyed more than half of the SDM-Q-9 overall information (67.3%). The SDM-Q-9 was a good fit for a unidimensional latent structure (comparative fit index = 0.98, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.07). All freely estimated parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.001). All items presented standardized parameter estimates with salient loadings (>0.40) with the exception of item 1 which presented the lowest loading (0.26). Items 6 through to 8 were the most relevant items for shared decision-making. The SDM-Q-9 presents appropriate psychometric properties and is therefore useful for assessing different aspects of shared decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis.

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 easily understandable formats, so as to assist clinicians in helping their patients to make the decisions that are right for them.

A model for emergency department end-of-life communications after acute devastating events--part I: decision-making capacity, surrogates, and advance directives.

PubMed

Limehouse, Walter E; Feeser, V Ramana; Bookman, Kelly J; Derse, Arthur

2012-09-01

Making decisions for a patient affected by sudden devastating illness or injury traumatizes a patient's family and loved ones. Even in the absence of an emergency, surrogates making end-of-life treatment decisions may experience negative emotional effects. Helping surrogates with these end-of-life decisions under emergent conditions requires the emergency physician (EP) to be clear, making medical recommendations with sensitivity. This model for emergency department (ED) end-of-life communications after acute devastating events comprises the following steps: 1) determine the patient's decision-making capacity; 2) identify the legal surrogate; 3) elicit patient values as expressed in completed advance directives; 4) determine patient/surrogate understanding of the life-limiting event and expectant treatment goals; 5) convey physician understanding of the event, including prognosis, treatment options, and recommendation; 6) share decisions regarding withdrawing or withholding of resuscitative efforts, using available resources and considering options for organ donation; and 7) revise treatment goals as needed. Emergency physicians should break bad news compassionately, yet sufficiently, so that surrogate and family understand both the gravity of the situation and the lack of long-term benefit of continued life-sustaining interventions. EPs should also help the surrogate and family understand that palliative care addresses comfort needs of the patient including adequate treatment for pain, dyspnea, or anxiety. Part I of this communications model reviews determination of decision-making capacity, surrogacy laws, and advance directives, including legal definitions and application of these steps; Part II (which will appear in a future issue of AEM) covers communication moving from resuscitative to end-of-life and palliative treatment. EPs should recognize acute devastating illness or injuries, when appropriate, as opportunities to initiate end-of-life discussions and to implement shared decisions. © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Development and initial evaluation of a treatment decision dashboard.

PubMed

Dolan, James G; Veazie, Peter J; Russ, Ann J

2013-04-21

For many healthcare decisions, multiple alternatives are available with different combinations of advantages and disadvantages across several important dimensions. The complexity of current healthcare decisions thus presents a significant barrier to informed decision making, a key element of patient-centered care.Interactive decision dashboards were developed to facilitate decision making in Management, a field marked by similarly complicated choices. These dashboards utilize data visualization techniques to reduce the cognitive effort needed to evaluate decision alternatives and a non-linear flow of information that enables users to review information in a self-directed fashion. Theoretically, both of these features should facilitate informed decision making by increasing user engagement with and understanding of the decision at hand. We sought to determine if the interactive decision dashboard format can be successfully adapted to create a clinically realistic prototype patient decision aid suitable for further evaluation and refinement. We created a computerized, interactive clinical decision dashboard and performed a pilot test of its clinical feasibility and acceptability using a multi-method analysis. The dashboard summarized information about the effectiveness, risks of side effects and drug-drug interactions, out-of-pocket costs, and ease of use of nine analgesic treatment options for knee osteoarthritis. Outcome evaluations included observations of how study participants utilized the dashboard, questionnaires to assess usability, acceptability, and decisional conflict, and an open-ended qualitative analysis. The study sample consisted of 25 volunteers - 7 men and 18 women - with an average age of 51 years. The mean time spent interacting with the dashboard was 4.6 minutes. Mean evaluation scores on scales ranging from 1 (low) to 7 (high) were: mechanical ease of use 6.1, cognitive ease of use 6.2, emotional difficulty 2.7, decision-aiding effectiveness 5.9, clarification of values 6.5, reduction in decisional uncertainty 6.1, and provision of decision-related information 6.0. Qualitative findings were similarly positive. Interactive decision dashboards can be adapted for clinical use and have the potential to foster informed decision making. Additional research is warranted to more rigorously test the effectiveness and efficiency of patient decision dashboards for supporting informed decision making and other aspects of patient-centered care, including shared decision making.

Children's participation in shared decision-making: children, adolescents, parents and healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences.

PubMed

Coyne, Imelda; Amory, Aislinn; Kiernan, Gemma; Gibson, Faith

2014-06-01

Despite decision-making featuring throughout the trajectory of cancer care, children's participation in decision-making remains an area much under-researched and complicated by conflicting opinions. This study explored children's participation in shared decision-making (SDM) from multiple perspectives from one haematology/oncology unit in Ireland. Qualitative research design was used to explore participants' experiences of children's decision-making. Interviews were conducted with children(1) aged 7-16 years (n = 20), their parents (n = 22) and healthcare professionals (n = 40). Data were managed with the aid of NVivo (version 8). Parents and children's roles in decision-making were significantly influenced by the seriousness of the illness. Cancer is a life-threatening illness and so the treatment 'had to be done'. Children were not involved in major decisions (treatment decisions) as refusal was not an option. They were generally involved in minor decisions (choices about care delivery) with the purpose of gaining their cooperation, making treatment more palatable, giving back a sense of control and building trusting relationships. These choices were termed 'small' decisions that would not compromise the child's welfare. Some adolescents were aware that choices were not 'real' decisions since they were not allowed to refuse and expressed feelings of frustration. Healthcare professionals and parents controlled the process of SDM and the children's accounts revealed that they held a minimal role. Children appeared content that adults held responsibility for the major treatment decisions. However, they desired and valued receiving information, voicing their preferences and choosing how treatments were administered to them. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

What is a good medical decision? A research agenda guided by perspectives from multiple stakeholders.

PubMed

Hamilton, Jada G; Lillie, Sarah E; Alden, Dana L; Scherer, Laura; Oser, Megan; Rini, Christine; Tanaka, Miho; Baleix, John; Brewster, Mikki; Craddock Lee, Simon; Goldstein, Mary K; Jacobson, Robert M; Myers, Ronald E; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J; Waters, Erika A

2017-02-01

Informed and shared decision making are critical aspects of patient-centered care, which has contributed to an emphasis on decision support interventions to promote good medical decision making. However, researchers and healthcare providers have not reached a consensus on what defines a good decision, nor how to evaluate it. This position paper, informed by conference sessions featuring diverse stakeholders held at the 2015 Society of Behavioral Medicine and Society for Medical Decision Making annual meetings, describes key concepts that influence the decision making process itself and that may change what it means to make a good decision: interpersonal factors, structural constraints, affective influences, and values clarification methods. This paper also proposes specific research questions within each of these priority areas, with the goal of moving medical decision making research to a more comprehensive definition of a good medical decision, and enhancing the ability to measure and improve the decision making process.

Patient involvement in decision-making: a cross-sectional study in a Malaysian primary care clinic

PubMed Central

Ambigapathy, Ranjini; Ng, Chirk Jenn

2016-01-01

Objective Shared decision-making has been advocated as a useful model for patient management. In developing Asian countries such as Malaysia, there is a common belief that patients prefer a passive role in clinical consultation. As such, the objective of this study was to determine Malaysian patients’ role preference in decision-making and the associated factors. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting Study was conducted at an urban primary care clinic in Malaysia in 2012. Participants Patients aged >21 years were chosen using systematic random sampling. Methods Consenting patients answered a self-administered questionnaire, which included demographic data and their preferred and actual role before and after consultation. Doctors were asked to determine patients’ role preference. The Control Preference Scale was used to assess patients’ role preference. Primary outcome Prevalence of patients’ preferred role in decision-making. Secondary outcomes (1) Actual role played by the patient in decision-making. (2) Sociodemographic factors associated with patients’ preferred role in decision-making. (3) Doctors’ perception of patients’ involvement in decision-making. Results The response rate was 95.1% (470/494). Shared decision-making was preferred by 51.9% of patients, followed by passive (26.3%) and active (21.8%) roles in decision-making. Higher household income was significantly associated with autonomous role preference (p=0.018). Doctors’ perception did not concur with patients’ preferred role. Among patients whom doctors perceived to prefer a passive role, 73.5% preferred an autonomous role (p=0.900, κ=0.006). Conclusions The majority of patients attending the primary care clinic preferred and played an autonomous role in decision-making. Doctors underestimated patients’ preference to play an autonomous role. PMID:26729393

Doing patient-centredness versus achieving public health targets: A critical review of interactional dilemmas in ART adherence support.

PubMed

de Kok, B C; Widdicombe, S; Pilnick, A; Laurier, E

2018-05-01

Anti-retroviral Therapy (ART) transformed HIV into a chronic disease but its individual and public health benefits depend on high levels of adherence. The large and rising number of people on ART, now also used as prevention, puts considerable strain on health systems and providers in low and middle as well as high-income countries, which are our focus here. Delivering effective adherence support is thus crucial but challenging, especially given the promotion of patient-centredness and shared decision making in HIV care. To illuminate the complexities of ART adherence support delivered in and through clinical encounters, we conducted a multi-disciplinary interpretative literature review. We reviewed and synthesized 82 papers published post 1997 (when ART was introduced) belonging to three bodies of literature: public health and psychological studies of ART communication; anthropological and sociological studies of ART; and conversation analytic studies of patient-centredness and shared decision-making. We propose three inter-related tensions which make patient-centredness particularly complex in this infectious disease context: achieving trust versus probing about adherence; patient-centredness versus reaching public health targets; and empowerment versus responsibilisation as 'therapeutic citizens'. However, there is a dearth of evidence concerning how precisely ART providers implement patient-centredness, shared-decision making in practice, and enact trust and therapeutic citizenship. We show how conversation analysis could lead to new, actionable insights in this respect. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Assessment of patients' and caregivers' informational and decisional needs for left ventricular assist device placement: Implications for informed consent and shared decision-making.

PubMed

Blumenthal-Barby, Jennifer S; Kostick, Kristin M; Delgado, Estevan D; Volk, Robert J; Kaplan, Holland M; Wilhelms, L A; McCurdy, Sheryl A; Estep, Jerry D; Loebe, Matthias; Bruce, Courtenay R

2015-09-01

Several organizations have underscored the crucial need for patient-centered decision tools to enhance shared decision-making in advanced heart failure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the decision-making process and informational and decisional needs of patients and their caregivers regarding left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. In-depth, structured interviews with LVAD patients, candidates and caregivers (spouse, family members) (n = 45) were conducted. We also administered a Decisional Regret Scale. Participants reported LVAD decision-making to be quick and reflexive (n = 30), and deferred heavily to clinicians (n = 22). They did not perceive themselves as having a real choice (n = 28). The 2 most prevalent informational domains that participants identified were lifestyle issues (23 items), followed by technical (drive-line, battery) issues (14 items). Participants easily and clearly identified their values: life extension; family; and mobility. Participants reported the need to meet other patients and caregivers before device placement (n = 31), and to have an involved caregiver (n = 28) to synthesize information. Some participants demonstrated a lack of clarity regarding transplant probability: 9 of 15 patients described themselves as on a transplant trajectory, yet 7 of these were destination therapy patients. Finally, we found that decisional regret scores were low (1.307). Informed consent and shared-decision making should: (a) help patients offered highly invasive technologies for life-threatening disease get past the initial "anything to avoid thinking about death" reaction and make a more informed decision; (b) clarify transplant status; and (c) focus on lifestyle and technical issues, as patients have the most informational needs in these domains. Copyright © 2015 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Recent Advances in Shared Decision Making for Mental Health

PubMed Central

Patel, Sapana R.; Bakken, Suzanne; Ruland, Cornelia

2009-01-01

Purpose of review To advance integration of shared decision making (SDM) into mental health care service delivery, researchers have outlined several priorities for future research [2–3]. These include: 1) SDM and its role in mental health care; 2) Patient and provider perspectives on SDM; 3) The degree to which SDM is practice in mental health settings; and 4) Outcomes of SDM in mental health populations. This article will review recent advances in these areas. Recent findings The current literature shows that 1) SDM can play a role in the mental health treatment process from entry into care to recovery; 2) Patients and providers find SDM acceptable and express a willingness to engage in SDM for reasons that are multifactorial; 3) Barriers to SDM exist in mental health decision making including patient preferences and provider level biases; and 4) Outcomes research provide encouraging preliminary evidence for feasibility and effectiveness of SDM during the mental health encounter. Summary Although there have not been a great number of SDM studies in mental health to date, the positive effects of SDM are comparable to those documented in general non-mental health patient groups, suggesting that future research is likely to be helpful for patients with psychiatric disorders. PMID:18852569

Ensuring Resident Competence: A Narrative Review of the Literature on Group Decision Making to Inform the Work of Clinical Competency Committees.

PubMed

Hauer, Karen E; Cate, Olle Ten; Boscardin, Christy K; Iobst, William; Holmboe, Eric S; Chesluk, Benjamin; Baron, Robert B; O'Sullivan, Patricia S

2016-05-01

Background The expectation for graduate medical education programs to ensure that trainees are progressing toward competence for unsupervised practice prompted requirements for a committee to make decisions regarding residents' progress, termed a clinical competency committee (CCC). The literature on the composition of these committees and how they share information and render decisions can inform the work of CCCs by highlighting vulnerabilities and best practices. Objective We conducted a narrative review of the literature on group decision making that can help characterize the work of CCCs, including how they are populated and how they use information. Methods English language studies of group decision making in medical education, psychology, and organizational behavior were used. Results The results highlighted 2 major themes. Group member composition showcased the value placed on the complementarity of members' experience and lessons they had learned about performance review through their teaching and committee work. Group processes revealed strengths and limitations in groups' understanding of their work, leader role, and information-sharing procedures. Time pressure was a threat to the quality of group work. Conclusions Implications of the findings include the risks for committees that arise with homogeneous membership, limitations to available resident performance information, and processes that arise through experience rather than deriving from a well-articulated purpose of their work. Recommendations are presented to maximize the effectiveness of CCC processes, including their membership and access to, and interpretation of, information to yield evidence-based, well-reasoned judgments.

Ensuring Resident Competence: A Narrative Review of the Literature on Group Decision Making to Inform the Work of Clinical Competency Committees

PubMed Central

Hauer, Karen E.; Cate, Olle ten; Boscardin, Christy K.; Iobst, William; Holmboe, Eric S.; Chesluk, Benjamin; Baron, Robert B.; O'Sullivan, Patricia S.

2016-01-01

Background The expectation for graduate medical education programs to ensure that trainees are progressing toward competence for unsupervised practice prompted requirements for a committee to make decisions regarding residents' progress, termed a clinical competency committee (CCC). The literature on the composition of these committees and how they share information and render decisions can inform the work of CCCs by highlighting vulnerabilities and best practices. Objective We conducted a narrative review of the literature on group decision making that can help characterize the work of CCCs, including how they are populated and how they use information. Methods English language studies of group decision making in medical education, psychology, and organizational behavior were used. Results The results highlighted 2 major themes. Group member composition showcased the value placed on the complementarity of members' experience and lessons they had learned about performance review through their teaching and committee work. Group processes revealed strengths and limitations in groups' understanding of their work, leader role, and information-sharing procedures. Time pressure was a threat to the quality of group work. Conclusions Implications of the findings include the risks for committees that arise with homogeneous membership, limitations to available resident performance information, and processes that arise through experience rather than deriving from a well-articulated purpose of their work. Recommendations are presented to maximize the effectiveness of CCC processes, including their membership and access to, and interpretation of, information to yield evidence-based, well-reasoned judgments. PMID:27168881

[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.

Knowledge, perceptions, and decision-making about human papillomavirus vaccination among Korean American women: A focus group study

PubMed Central

Kim, Kyounghae; Kim, Boyoung; Choi, Eunsuk; Song, Youngshin; Han, Hae-Ra

2014-01-01

Objective As one of the fastest growing ethnic minority groups in the United States, Korean American (KA) women experience a heightened cervical cancer burden. The advent of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine offers an unprecedented opportunity to eliminate cervical cancer disparities in KA women. Yet, the uptake of HPV vaccine among KA adolescents remains suboptimal. Hence, we set out to explore knowledge, perceptions, and decision-making about HPV vaccination among KA women. Methods We conducted four focus groups of 26 KA women who participated in a community-based randomized controlled trial to promote breast and cervical cancer screening. Focus group data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results Four main themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) limited awareness and knowledge of HPV vaccine, (2) perceptions and beliefs about HPV vaccination (acceptance, negative perceptions, ambivalence), (3) patterns of decision-making about HPV vaccination (hierarchical, peer-influenced, autonomous, and collaborative), and (4) promoting HPV education and information-sharing in the Korean community. Conclusion KA women are generally favorable toward HPV vaccination but lack awareness and knowledge about HPV. Culturally tailored HPV education programs based on KA women’s decision-making patterns and effective information-sharing by trustworthy sources in comfortable environments are suggested strategies to promote HPV vaccination in the KA community. The findings point to the need for a multi-level approach to addressing linguistic, cultural, and system barriers that the recent immigrant community faces in promoting HPV vaccinations. In the development of targeted interventions for KA women, educational strategies and patterns of decision-making need to be considered. PMID:25747518

Research Using In Vivo Simulation of Meta-Organizational Shared Decision-making (SDM). Task 4: Modeling of Communication and Decision Functions within a Shared Decision-making (SDM) Framework

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-12-01

la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale 2011, Abstract...modélisation des fonctions de communication et de prise de décision dans le cadre de la prise de décision partagée (PDP) du volet de travail « Recherche par... la simulation in-vivo sur la prise de décision partagée des méta-organisations ». Cette composante du programme

The politics of end-of-life decision-making: computerised decision-support tools, physicians' jurisdiction and morality.

PubMed

Jennings, Beth

2006-04-01

With the increasing corporate and governmental rationalisation of medical care, the mandate of efficiency has caused many to fear that concern for the individual patient will be replaced with impersonal, rule-governed allocation of medical resources. Largely ignored is the role of moral principles in medical decision-making. This analysis comes from an ethnographic study conducted from 1999-2001 in three US Intensive Care Units, two of which were using the computerised decision-support tool, APACHE III (Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation III), which notably predicts the probability that a patient will die. It was found that the use of APACHE presents a paradox regarding concern for the individual patient. To maintain jurisdiction over the care of patients, physicians share the data with the payers and regulators of care to prove they are using resources effectively and efficiently, yet they use the system in conjunction with moral principles to justify treating each patient as unique. Thus, concern for the individual patient is not lessened with the use of this system. However, physicians do not share the data with patients or surrogate decision-makers because they fear they will be viewed as more interested in profits than patients.

Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers

PubMed Central

2010-01-01

Background Current healthcare systems have extended the evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach to health policy and delivery decisions, such as access-to-care, healthcare funding and health program continuance, through attempts to integrate valid and reliable evidence into the decision making process. These policy decisions have major impacts on society and have high personal and financial costs associated with those decisions. Decision models such as these function under a shared assumption of rational choice and utility maximization in the decision-making process. Discussion We contend that health policy decision makers are generally unable to attain the basic goals of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) and evidence-based policy making (EBPM) because humans make decisions with their naturally limited, faulty, and biased decision-making processes. A cognitive information processing framework is presented to support this argument, and subtle cognitive processing mechanisms are introduced to support the focal thesis: health policy makers' decisions are influenced by the subjective manner in which they individually process decision-relevant information rather than on the objective merits of the evidence alone. As such, subsequent health policy decisions do not necessarily achieve the goals of evidence-based policy making, such as maximizing health outcomes for society based on valid and reliable research evidence. Summary In this era of increasing adoption of evidence-based healthcare models, the rational choice, utility maximizing assumptions in EBDM and EBPM, must be critically evaluated to ensure effective and high-quality health policy decisions. The cognitive information processing framework presented here will aid health policy decision makers by identifying how their decisions might be subtly influenced by non-rational factors. In this paper, we identify some of the biases and potential intervention points and provide some initial suggestions about how the EBDM/EBPM process can be improved. PMID:20504357

Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers.

PubMed

McCaughey, Deirdre; Bruning, Nealia S

2010-05-26

Current healthcare systems have extended the evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach to health policy and delivery decisions, such as access-to-care, healthcare funding and health program continuance, through attempts to integrate valid and reliable evidence into the decision making process. These policy decisions have major impacts on society and have high personal and financial costs associated with those decisions. Decision models such as these function under a shared assumption of rational choice and utility maximization in the decision-making process. We contend that health policy decision makers are generally unable to attain the basic goals of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) and evidence-based policy making (EBPM) because humans make decisions with their naturally limited, faulty, and biased decision-making processes. A cognitive information processing framework is presented to support this argument, and subtle cognitive processing mechanisms are introduced to support the focal thesis: health policy makers' decisions are influenced by the subjective manner in which they individually process decision-relevant information rather than on the objective merits of the evidence alone. As such, subsequent health policy decisions do not necessarily achieve the goals of evidence-based policy making, such as maximizing health outcomes for society based on valid and reliable research evidence. In this era of increasing adoption of evidence-based healthcare models, the rational choice, utility maximizing assumptions in EBDM and EBPM, must be critically evaluated to ensure effective and high-quality health policy decisions. The cognitive information processing framework presented here will aid health policy decision makers by identifying how their decisions might be subtly influenced by non-rational factors. In this paper, we identify some of the biases and potential intervention points and provide some initial suggestions about how the EBDM/EBPM process can be improved.

Teachers' Academic Appraisals and Referral Decisions: The Effect of Sharing Health Information when Diabetes Is Present

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cunningham, Melissa M.; Wodrich, David L.

2012-01-01

Two prior studies showed that giving teachers more information about a student's illness led them to make better attributions about that student's classroom problems and better classroom accommodations. In this study, 235 teachers appraised academic competence and judged whether to seek help or make a referral for a hypothetical student with type…

Maximizing gait and balance: behaviors and decision-making processes of persons with multiple sclerosis and physical therapists.

PubMed

Held Bradford, Elissa; Finlayson, Marcia; White Gorman, Andrea; Wagner, Joanne

2018-05-01

To describe the behavioral decisions used by persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and physical therapists to maximize gait and balance following outpatient physical therapy. A multi-method case series with seven matched pairs (persons with MS-physical therapists). Quota sampling maximized variability among persons with MS (disease steps score range 3-6). Three of the four physical therapists were MS or neurology certified. Persons with MS completed a phone survey, follow-up interview, and standardized questionnaires. Physical therapists completed an interview. Data were collected 2-8 weeks following discharge. Content and constant comparison analyses were used for thematic development and triangulation. Core themes arose exemplifying the decision-making processes and actions of persons with MS (challenging self by pushing but respecting limits) and physical therapists (finding the right fit). One overarching theme, keeping their lived world large, or participation in valued life roles, emerged integrating both perspectives driving decision-making. Participants have a shared goal of maximizing gait and balance so persons with MS can participate in valued life roles. Understanding the differences in the behavioral decisions and optimizing skill sets in shared decision-making and self-management may enhance the therapeutic partnership and engagement in gait- and balance-enhancing behaviors. Implications for Rehabilitation Persons with MS and physical therapists have a shared goal of maximizing gait and balance so persons with MS can participate in valued activities and life roles, or more poetically, keep their lived world large. Knowledge that persons with MS aim to challenge themselves by pushing but respecting limits can provide physical therapists with greater insight in helping persons with MS resolve uncertainty, set meaningful goals, and build the routines and resilience needed for engagement in gait- and balance-enhancing behaviors. Enriching skill sets in shared decision-making, behavior change and self-management may optimize the physical therapist toolbox.

Improving accountability in vaccine decision-making.

PubMed

Timmis, James Kenneth; Black, Steven; Rappuoli, Rino

2017-11-01

Healthcare decisions, in particular those affecting entire populations, should be evidence-based and taken by decision-makers sharing broad alignment with affected stakeholders. However, criteria, priorities and procedures for decision-making are sometimes non-transparent, frequently vary considerably across equivalent decision-bodies, do not always consider the broader benefits of new health-measures, and therefore do not necessarily adequately represent the relevant stakeholder-spectrum. Areas covered: To address these issues in the context of the evaluation of new vaccines, we have proposed a first baseline set of core evaluation criteria, primarily selected by members of the vaccine research community, and suggested their implementation in vaccine evaluation procedures. In this communication, we review the consequences and utility of stakeholder-centered core considerations to increase transparency in and accountability of decision-making procedures, in general, and of the benefits gained by their inclusion in Multi-Criteria-Decision-Analysis tools, exemplified by SMART Vaccines, specifically. Expert commentary: To increase effectiveness and comparability of health decision outcomes, decision procedures should be properly standardized across equivalent (national) decision bodies. To this end, including stakeholder-centered criteria in decision procedures would significantly increase their transparency and accountability, support international capacity building to improve health, and reduce societal costs and inequity resulting from suboptimal health decision-making.

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.

Team Leadership and Cancer End-of-Life Decision Making.

PubMed

Waldfogel, Julie M; Battle, Dena J; Rosen, Michael; Knight, Louise; Saiki, Catherine B; Nesbit, Suzanne A; Cooper, Rhonda S; Browner, Ilene S; Hoofring, Laura H; Billing, Lynn S; Dy, Sydney M

2016-11-01

End-of-life decision making in cancer can be a complicated process. Patients and families encounter multiple providers throughout their cancer care. When the efforts of these providers are not well coordinated in teams, opportunities for high-quality, longitudinal goals of care discussions can be missed. This article reviews the case of a 55-year-old man with lung cancer, illustrating the barriers and missed opportunities for end-of-life decision making in his care through the lens of team leadership, a key principle in the science of teams. The challenges demonstrated in this case reflect the importance of the four functions of team leadership: information search and structuring, information use in problem solving, managing personnel resources, and managing material resources. Engaging in shared leadership of these four functions can help care providers improve their interactions with patients and families concerning end-of-life care decision making. This shared leadership can also produce a cohesive care plan that benefits from the expertise of the range of available providers while reflecting patient needs and preferences. Clinicians and researchers should consider the roles of team leadership functions and shared leadership in improving patient care when developing and studying models of cancer care delivery.

Independence and shared decision making: the role of smart home technology in empowering older adults.

PubMed

Demiris, George

2009-01-01

This study aims to explore the concepts of independence and shared decision making in the context of smart home technologies for older adults. We conducted a Delphi study with three rounds involving smart home designers, and researchers as well as community dwelling older adults. While there were differences in the way different stakeholders define these concepts, the study findings provide clear implications for the design, implementation and evaluation of smart home applications.

[Improving shared decision-making for hospital patients: Description and evaluation of a treatment intensity assessment tool].

PubMed

Amblàs-Novellas, Jordi; Casas, Sílvia; Catalán, Rosa María; Oriol-Ruscalleda, Margarita; Lucchetti, Gianni Enrico; Quer-Vall, Francesc Xavier

2016-01-01

Shared decision-making between patients and healthcare professionals is crucial to guarantee adequate coherence between patient values and preferences, caring aims and treatment intensity, which is key for the provision of patient-centred healthcare. The assessment of such interventions are essential for caring continuity purposes. To do this, reliable and easy-to-use assessment systems are required. This study describes the results of the implementation of a hospital treatment intensity assessment tool. The pre-implementation and post-implementation results were compared between two cohorts of patients assessed for one month. Some record of care was registered in 6.1% of patients in the pre-implementation group (n=673) compared to 31.6% of patients in the post-implementation group (n=832) (P<.01), with differences between services. Hospital mortality in both cohorts is 1.9%; in the pre-implementation group, 93.75% of deceased patients had treatment intensity assessment. In hospital settings, the availability of a specific tool seems to encourage very significantly shared decision-making processes between patients and healthcare professionals -multiplying by more than 5 times the treatment intensity assessment. Moreover, such tools help in the caring continuity processes between different teams and the personalisation of caring interventions to be monitored. More research is needed to continue improving shared decision-making for hospital patients. Copyright © 2015 SEGG. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.

Feasibility and acceptability of shared decision-making to promote alcohol behavior change among women Veterans: Results from focus groups.

PubMed

Abraham, Traci H; Wright, Patricia; White, Penny; Booth, Brenda M; Cucciare, Michael A

2017-01-01

Although rates of unhealthy drinking are high among women Veterans with mental health comorbidities, most women Veterans with mental comorbidities who present to primary care with unhealthy drinking do not receive alcohol-related care. Barriers to alcohol-related treatment could be reduced through patient-centered approaches to care, such as shared decision-making. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a telephone-delivered shared decision-making intervention for promoting alcohol behavior change in women Veterans with unhealthy drinking and co-morbid depression and/or probable post-traumatic stress disorder. We used 3, 2-hour focus group discussions with 19 women Veterans to identify barriers and solicit recommendations for using the intervention with women Veterans who present to primary care with unhealthy drinking and mental health comorbidities. Transcripts from the focus groups were qualitatively analyzed using template analysis. Although participants perceived that the intervention was feasible and acceptable for the targeted patient population, they identified the treatment delivery modality, length of telephone sessions, and some of the option grid content as potential barriers. Facilitators included strategies for enhancing the telephone-delivered shared decision-making sessions and diversifying the treatment options contained in the option grids. Focus group feedback resulted in preliminary adaptations to the intervention that are mindful of women Veterans' individual preferences for care and realistic in the everyday context of their busy lives.

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. Professionals can play a crucial role in facilitating the possibilities for a try-out period. PMID:29133329

Value Assessment at the Point of Care: Incorporating Patient Values throughout Care Delivery and a Draft Taxonomy of Patient Values.

PubMed

Armstrong, Melissa J; Mullins, C Daniel

2017-02-01

Incorporation of patient values is a key element of patient-centered care, but consistent incorporation of patient values at the point of care is lacking. Shared decision making encourages incorporation of patient values in decision making, but associated tools often lack guidance on value assessment. In addition, focusing on patient values relating only to specific decisions misses an opportunity for a more holistic approach to value assessment that could impact other aspects of clinical encounters, including health care planning, communication, and stakeholder involvement. In this commentary, we propose a taxonomy of values underlying patient decision making and provide examples of how these impact provision of health care. The taxonomy describes four categories of patient values: global, decisional, situational, and external. Global values are personal values impacting decision making at a universal level and can include value traits and life priorities. Decisional values are the values traditionally conceptualized in decision making, including considerations such as efficacy, toxicity, quality of life, convenience, and cost. Situational values are values tied to a specific moment in time that modify patients' existing global and decisional values. Finally, discussion of external values acknowledges that many patients consider values other than their own when making decisions. Recognizing the breadth of values impacting patient decision making has implications for both overall health care delivery and shared decision making because value assessments focusing only on decisional values may miss important patient considerations. This draft taxonomy highlights different values impacting decision making and facilitates a more complete value assessment at the point of care. Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The application of the heuristic-systematic processing model to treatment decision making about prostate cancer.

PubMed

Steginga, Suzanne K; Occhipinti, Stefano

2004-01-01

The study investigated the utility of the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model as a framework for the investigation of patient decision making. A total of 111 men recently diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were assessed using Verbal Protocol Analysis and self-report measures. Study variables included men's use of nonsystematic and systematic information processing, desire for involvement in decision making, and the individual differences of health locus of control, tolerance of ambiguity, and decision-related uncertainty. Most men (68%) preferred that decision making be shared equally between them and their doctor. Men's use of the expert opinion heuristic was related to men's verbal reports of decisional uncertainty and having a positive orientation to their doctor and medical care; a desire for greater involvement in decision making was predicted by a high internal locus of health control. Trends were observed for systematic information processing to increase when the heuristic strategy used was negatively affect laden and when men were uncertain about the probabilities for cure and side effects. There was a trend for decreased systematic processing when the expert opinion heuristic was used. Findings were consistent with the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model and suggest that this model has utility for future research in applied decision making about health.

Resisting Prescribed Opioids: A Qualitative Study of Decision Making in Patients Taking Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain.

PubMed

Paterson, Charlotte; Ledgerwood, Kay; Arnold, Carolyn; Hogg, Malcolm; Xue, Charlie; Zheng, Zhen

2016-04-01

Opioids are increasingly prescribed for chronic noncancer pain across the developed world. Clinical guidelines for management of these patients focus on over-use. However, research into other types of long-term medication indicates that many patients minimize drug use whenever possible. To identify the varying influences on patients' decisions about their use of prescribed opioids and explore whether concepts of resistance and minimization of intake apply to these patients. A multiprofessional team performed a qualitative interview study using the constant-comparative method. Patient's decision making was explored in depth and with a thematic analysis utilizing a published "Model of medicine-taking." A purposive sample of 20 participants drawn from two pain clinics in Melbourne, Australia. The sample was biased toward patients interested in nonmedication pain management options. Patients' needs to obtain relief from severe pain, maintain function, and minimize side effects could lead to under-use as well as over-use of prescribed opioids. In keeping with the published Model of medicine-taking, resistance to taking opioids was a common and important influence on behavior. In the face of severe chronic pain, many participants used a variety of strategies to evaluate, avoid, reduce, self-regulate, and replace opioids. Furthermore, participants perceived a resistance to opioids within the system and among some healthcare professionals. This sometimes adversely affected their adherence. Both patients and doctors exhibit aspects of resistance to the use of prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain, suggesting that this shared concern could be the basis of a productive therapeutic alliance to improve communication and shared decision making. Clinical guidelines for opioids use for chronic noncancer pain focus on over-use. Our qualitative interview study found that many patients resisted and minimized the use of opioids. Using a published "Model of medicine-taking," we identified various influences on patient decision making. Both patients and doctors had concerns about using opioids for chronic noncancer pain. These could be the basis of a productive therapeutic alliance to improve communication and shared decision making. © 2015 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

End-of-life decision-making for children with severe developmental disabilities: The parental perspective.

PubMed

Zaal-Schuller, I H; de Vos, M A; Ewals, F V P M; van Goudoever, J B; Willems, D L

2016-01-01

The objectives of this integrative review were to understand how parents of children with severe developmental disorders experience their involvement in end-of-life decision-making, how they prefer to be involved and what factors influence their decisions. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The search was limited to articles in English or Dutch published between January 2004 and August 2014. We included qualitative and quantitative original studies that directly investigated the experiences of parents of children aged 0-18 years with severe developmental disorders for whom an end-of-life decision had been considered or made. We identified nine studies that met all inclusion criteria. Reportedly, parental involvement in end-of-life decision-making varied widely, ranging from having no involvement to being the sole decision-maker. Most parents preferred to actively share in the decision-making process regardless of their child's specific diagnosis or comorbidity. The main factors that influenced parents in their decision-making were: their strong urge to advocate for their child's best interests and to make the best (possible) decision. In addition, parents felt influenced by their child's visible suffering, remaining quality of life and the will they perceived in their child to survive. Most parents of children with severe developmental disorders wish to actively share in the end-of-life decision-making process. An important emerging factor in this process is the parents' feeling that they have to stand up for their child's interests in conversations with the medical team. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Do patients want to participate in medical decision making?

PubMed

Strull, W M; Lo, B; Charles, G

1984-12-07

Although shared decision making by patients and clinicians has been advocated, little is known about the degree of participation in decision making that patients actually prefer or about clinicians' appreciation of these preferences. We administered questionnaires about three aspects of decision making to 210 hypertensive outpatients and to their 50 clinicians, who represented three types of medical practices. We found that 41% of patients preferred more information about hypertension; clinicians underestimated patient preferences for discussion about therapy in 29% of cases and overestimated 11% (k = .22); and 53% of patients preferred to participate in making decisions, while clinicians believed that their patients desired to participate in 78% of cases. Many patients who preferred not to make initial therapeutic decisions did want to participate in ongoing evaluation of therapy. Thus, clinicians underestimate patients' desire for information and discussion but overestimate patients' desire to make decisions. Awareness of this discrepancy may facilitate communication and decision making.

The availability and effectiveness of tools supporting shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer care: a review.

PubMed

Spronk, Inge; Burgers, Jako S; Schellevis, François G; van Vliet, Liesbeth M; Korevaar, Joke C

2018-05-11

Shared decision-making (SDM) in the management of metastatic breast cancer care is associated with positive patient outcomes. In daily clinical practice, however, SDM is not fully integrated yet. Initiatives to improve the implementation of SDM would be helpful. The aim of this review was to assess the availability and effectiveness of tools supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer care. Literature databases were systematically searched for articles published since 2006 focusing on the development or evaluation of tools to improve information-provision and to support decision-making in metastatic breast cancer care. Internet searches and experts identified additional tools. Data from included tools were extracted and the evaluation of tools was appraised using the GRADE grading system. The literature search yielded five instruments. In addition, two tools were identified via internet searches and consultation of experts. Four tools were specifically developed for supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer, the other three tools focused on metastatic cancer in general. Tools were mainly applicable across the care process, and usable for decisions on supportive care with or without chemotherapy. All tools were designed for patients to be used before a consultation with the physician. Effects on patient outcomes were generally weakly positive although most tools were not studied in well-designed studies. Despite its recognized importance, only two tools were positively evaluated on effectiveness and are available to support patients with metastatic breast cancer in SDM. These tools show promising results in pilot studies and focus on different aspects of care. However, their effectiveness should be confirmed in well-designed studies before implementation in clinical practice. Innovation and development of SDM tools targeting clinicians as well as patients during a clinical encounter is recommended.

Trait anxiety affects decision-making differently in healthy men and women: towards gender-specific endophenotypes of anxiety.

PubMed

de Visser, L; van der Knaap, L J; van de Loo, A J A E; van der Weerd, C M M; Ohl, F; van den Bos, R

2010-05-01

Excessive levels of trait anxiety are a risk factor for psychiatric conditions, including anxiety disorders and substance abuse. High trait anxiety has been associated with altered cognitive functioning, in particular with an attentional bias towards aversive stimuli. Decision-making is a crucial aspect of cognitive functioning that relies on the correct processing and control of emotional stimuli. Interestingly, anxiety and decision-making share underlying neural substrates, involving cortico-limbic pathways, including the amygdala, striatum and medial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices. In the present study, we investigated the relationship between trait anxiety, measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and complex decision-making, measured by the Iowa Gambling Task, in healthy male and female volunteers. The main focus of this study was the inclusion of gender as a discriminative factor. Indeed, we found distinct gender-specific effects of trait anxiety: in men, both low and high anxiety groups showed impaired decision-making compared to medium anxiety individuals, whereas in women only high anxiety individuals performed poorly. Furthermore, anxiety affected decision-making in men early in the task, i.e. the exploration phase, as opposed to an effect on performance in women during the second part of the test, i.e. the exploitation phase. These findings were related to different profiles of trait anxiety in men and women, and were independent of performance in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and cortisol levels. Our data show gender-specific effects of trait anxiety on emotional decision-making. We suggest gender-specific endophenotypes of anxiety to exist, that differentially affect cognitive functioning. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Patient-centered interventions to improve medication management and adherence: a qualitative review of research findings

PubMed Central

Kuntz, Jennifer L.; Safford, Monika M.; Singh, Jasvinder A.; Phansalkar, Shobha; Slight, Sarah P.; Her, Qoua Liang; Lapointe, Nancy Allen; Mathews, Robin; O’Brien, Emily; Brinkman, William B.; Hommel, Kevin; Farmer, Kevin C.; Klinger, Elissa; Maniam, Nivethietha; Sobko, Heather J.; Bailey, Stacy C.; Cho, Insook; Rumptz, Maureen H.; Vandermeer, Meredith L.; Hornbrook, Mark C.

2018-01-01

Objective Patient-centered approaches to improving medication adherence hold promise, but evidence of their effectiveness is unclear. This review reports the current state of scientific research around interventions to improve medication management through four patient-centered domains: shared decision-making, methods to enhance effective prescribing, systems for eliciting and acting on patient feedback about medication use and treatment goals, and medication-taking behavior. Methods We reviewed literature on interventions that fell into these domains and were published between January 2007 and May 2013. Two reviewers abstracted information and categorized studies by intervention type. Results We identified 60 studies, of which 40% focused on patient education. Other intervention types included augmented pharmacy services, decision aids, shared decision-making, and clinical review of patient adherence. Medication adherence was an outcome in most (70%) of the studies, although 50% also examined patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions We identified a large number of medication management interventions that incorporated patient-centered care and improved patient outcomes. We were unable to determine whether these interventions are more effective than traditional medication adherence interventions. Practice Implications Additional research is needed to identify effective and feasible approaches to incorporate patient-centeredness into the medication management processes of the current health care system, if appropriate. PMID:25264309

Multimedia Case-Based Instruction in Literacy: Pedagogy, Effectiveness, and Perceptions

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Baker, Elizabeth A.

2009-01-01

Effective literacy teachers share a variety of instructional traits such as the ability to kidwatch, pedagogically reflect, and make informed decisions based on ill-structured and complex data. Teacher educators face the challenge of helping preservice teachers develop such traits so as to prepare them to be successful literacy teachers. One…

A shared decision-making tool for obstructive sleep apnea without tonsillar hypertrophy: A randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Bergeron, Mathieu; Duggins, Angela L; Cohen, Aliza P; Tiemeyer, Karin; Mullen, Lisa; Crisalli, Joseph; McArthur, Angela; Ishman, Stacey L

2018-04-01

Shared decision-making is a process whereby patients and clinicians jointly establish a treatment plan integrating clinical evidence and patient values and preferences. Although this approach has been successfully employed in numerous medical disciplines, often using shared decision-making tools, otolaryngologic research assessing its use is scant. Our primary objective was therefore to determine if the tools we developed reduced decisional conflict for children with obstructive sleep apnea without tonsillar hypertrophy. Prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. We enrolled consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria who were referred to our multidisciplinary upper airway center. Study patients used a shared decision-making tool whereas controls did not. Measures of decisional conflict (SURE [Sure of myself, Understanding information, Risk benefit ratio, Encouragement], CollaboRATE, and the Decisional Conflict Scale [DCS]) were obtained pre- and postvisit. We assessed 50 families (study group = 24, controls = 26). The mean age was 8.8 ± 6.6 years, 44% were female, 86% were white, and the mean obstructive apnea-hypopnea index was 12.7 ± 15.6 events/hour. The previsit mean DCS score was similar for controls (42.7) and study patients (40.8) (P = .38). The postvisit mean DCS score for controls was 13.3 and for study patients 6.1 (P = .034). Improvement in this score was greater in the study group (P = .03). At previsit evaluation, 63% of controls and 58% of study patients were unsure about their options. Postvisit, this improved to 4.1% and 0%, respectively. Families counseled regarding treatment options using shared decision-making tools had significantly less decisional conflict than those who did not use these tools. These positive outcomes suggest that clinicians should consider integrating this approach into clinical practice. 1b. Laryngoscope, 128:1007-1015, 2018. © 2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Patient-Centered Imaging: Shared Decision Making for Cardiac Imaging Procedures with Exposure to Ionizing Radiation

PubMed Central

Einstein, Andrew J.; Berman, Daniel S.; Min, James K.; Hendel, Robert C.; Gerber, Thomas C.; Carr, J. Jeffrey; Cerqueira, Manuel D.; Cullom, S. James; DeKemp, Robert; Dickert, Neal; Dorbala, Sharmila; Garcia, Ernest V.; Gibbons, Raymond J.; Halliburton, Sandra S.; Hausleiter, Jörg; Heller, Gary V.; Jerome, Scott; Lesser, John R.; Fazel, Reza; Raff, Gilbert L.; Tilkemeier, Peter; Williams, Kim A.; Shaw, Leslee J.

2014-01-01

Objective To identify key components of a radiation accountability framework fostering patient-centered imaging and shared decision-making in cardiac imaging. Background An NIH-NHLBI/NCI-sponsored symposium was held in November 2012 to address these issues. Methods Symposium participants, working in three tracks, identified key components of a framework to target critical radiation safety issues for the patient, the laboratory, and the larger population of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Results Use of ionizing radiation during an imaging procedure should be disclosed to all patients by the ordering provider at the time of ordering, and reinforced by the performing provider team. An imaging protocol with effective dose ≤3mSv is considered very low risk, not warranting extensive discussion or written consent. However, a protocol effective dose <20mSv was proposed as a level requiring particular attention in terms of shared decision-making and either formal discussion or written informed consent. Laboratory reporting of radiation dosimetry is a critical component of creating a quality laboratory fostering a patient-centered environment with transparent procedural methodology. Efforts should be directed to avoiding testing involving radiation, in patients with inappropriate indications. Standardized reporting and diagnostic reference levels for computed tomography and nuclear cardiology are important for the goal of public reporting of laboratory radiation dose levels in conjunction with diagnostic performance. Conclusions The development of cardiac imaging technologies revolutionized cardiology practice by allowing routine, noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion and anatomy. It is now incumbent upon the imaging community to create an accountability framework to safely drive appropriate imaging utilization. PMID:24530677

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting.

PubMed

Harris, Claire; Allen, Kelly; Brooke, Vanessa; Dyer, Tim; Waller, Cara; King, Richard; Ramsey, Wayne; Mortimer, Duncan

2017-05-25

This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment. Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed. Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised. This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

Improving access to shared decision-making for Hispanics/Latinos with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

PubMed Central

Davidson, Jaime A; Rosales, Aracely; Shillington, Alicia C; Bailey, Robert A; Kabir, Chris; Umpierrez, Guillermo E

2015-01-01

Purpose To describe the cultural and linguistic adaptation and Spanish translation of an English-language patient decision aid (PDA) for use in supporting shared decision-making in Hispanics/Latinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a group at a high risk for complications. Patients and methods A steering committee of endocrinologists, a primary care physician, a certified diabetes educator, and a dietician, each with extensive experience in providing care to Hispanics/Latinos was convened to assess a PDA developed for English-speaking patients with T2DM. English content was reviewed for cultural sensitivity and appropriateness for a Hispanic/Latino population. A consensus-building process and iterative version edits incorporated clinician perspectives. The content was adapted to be consistent with traditional Hispanic/Latino cultural communication precepts (eg, avoidance of hostile confrontation; value for warm interaction; respect for authority; value of family support for decisions). The PDA was translated by native-speaking individuals with diabetes expertise. Results The PDA underwent testing during cognitive interviews with ten Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM to ensure that the content is reflective of the experience, understanding, and language Hispanic/Latino patients use to describe diabetes and treatment. Content edits were made to assure a literacy level appropriate to the audience, and the PDA was produced for online video dissemination. Conclusion High-quality, well-developed tools to facilitate shared decision-making in populations with limited access to culturally sensitive information can narrow gaps and align care with individual patient preferences. A newly developed PDA is available for shared decision-making that provides culturally appropriate treatment information for inadequately controlled Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM. The impact on the overall health of patients and care management of T2DM requires further study. PMID:25995623

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.

Factors associated with confidence in decision making and satisfaction with risk communication among patients with atrial fibrillation.

PubMed

Hedberg, Berith; Malm, Dan; Karlsson, Jan-Erik; Årestedt, Kristofer; Broström, Anders

2018-06-01

Atrial fibrillation is a prevalent cardiac arrhythmia. Effective communication of risks (e.g. stroke risk) and benefits of treatment (e.g. oral anticoagulants) is crucial for the process of shared decision making. The aim of this study was to explore factors associated with confidence in decision making and satisfaction with risk communication after a follow-up visit among patients who three months earlier had visited an emergency room for atrial fibrillation related symptoms. A cross-sectional design was used and 322 patients (34% women), mean age 66.1 years (SD 10.5 years) with atrial fibrillation were included in the south of Sweden. Clinical examinations were done post an atrial fibrillation episode. Self-rating scales for communication (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision Making Effectiveness), uncertainty in illness (Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale-Community), mastery of daily life (Mastery Scale), depressive symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and vitality, physical health and mental health (36-item Short Form Health Survey) were used to collect data. Decreased vitality and mastery of daily life, as well as increased uncertainty in illness, were independently associated with lower confidence in decision making. Absence of hypertension and increased uncertainty in illness were independently associated with lower satisfaction with risk communication. Clinical atrial fibrillation variables or depressive symptoms were not associated with satisfaction with confidence in decision making or satisfaction with risk communication. The final models explained 29.1% and 29.5% of the variance in confidence in decision making and satisfaction with risk communication. Confidence in decision making is associated with decreased vitality and mastery of daily life, as well as increased uncertainty in illness, while absence of hypertension and increased uncertainty in illness are associated with risk communication satisfaction.

The context influences doctors' support of shared decision-making in cancer care.

PubMed

Shepherd, H L; Tattersall, M H N; Butow, P N

2007-07-02

Most cancer patients in westernised countries now want all information about their situation, good or bad, and many wish to be involved in decision-making. The attitudes to and use of shared decision-making (SDM) by cancer doctors is not well known. Australian cancer clinicians treating breast, colorectal, gynaecological, haematological, or urological cancer were surveyed to identify their usual approach to decision-making and their comfort with different decision-making styles when discussing treatment with patients. A response rate of 59% resulted in 624 complete surveys, which explored usual practice in discussing participation in decision-making, providing information, and perception of the role patients want to play. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of use of SDM. Most cancer doctors (62.4%) reported using SDM and being most comfortable with this approach. Differences were apparent between reported high comfort with SDM and less frequent usual practice. Multivariate analysis showed that specialisation in breast or urological cancers compared to other cancers (AOR 3.02), high caseload of new patients per month (AOR 2.81) and female gender (AOR 1.87) were each independently associated with increased likelihood of use of SDM. Barriers exist to the application of SDM by doctors according to clinical situation and clinician characteristics.

Involving youth in program decision-making: how common and what might it do for youth?

PubMed

Akiva, Thomas; Cortina, Kai S; Smith, Charles

2014-11-01

The strategy of sharing program decision-making with youth in youth programs, a specific form of youth-adult partnership, is widely recommended in practitioner literature; however, empirical study is relatively limited. We investigated the prevalence and correlates of youth program decision-making practices (e.g., asking youth to help decide what activities are offered), using single-level and multilevel methods with a cross-sectional dataset of 979 youth attending 63 multipurpose after-school programs (average age of youth = 11.4, 53 % female). The prevalence of such practices was relatively high, particularly for forms that involved low power sharing such as involving youth in selecting the activities a program offers. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed positive associations between youth program decision-making practices and youth motivation to attend programs. We also found positive correlations between decision-making practices and youth problem-solving efficacy, expression efficacy, and empathy. Significant interactions with age suggest that correlations with problem solving and empathy are more pronounced for older youth. Overall, the findings suggest that involving youth in program decision-making is a promising strategy for promoting youth motivation and skill building, and in some cases this is particularly the case for older (high school-age) youth.

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 evidence and local findings. Local factors, some unanticipated and some unavoidable, were the main barriers to successful implementation. All three proposed support services hold promise as facilitators of EBP in the local healthcare setting. The findings from this study will inform further exploration.

Effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) for type 2 diabetes on knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict.

PubMed

Bailey, Robert A; Pfeifer, Michael; Shillington, Alicia C; Harshaw, Qing; Funnell, Martha M; VanWingen, Jeffrey; Col, Nanada

2016-01-14

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) often have poor glycemic control on first-line pharmacologic therapy and require treatment intensification. Intensification decisions can be difficult because of many available options and their many benefits and risks. The American Diabetes Association recommends patient-centered, evidence-based tools supporting shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. We developed a patient decision aid (PDA) targeting decisions about treatment intensification for T2DM. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of this PDA for patients with T2DM on metformin who require treatment intensification. This study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in 27 US primary care and endocrinology clinics. Subjects were English-speaking adults with T2DM receiving metformin with persistent hyperglycemia who were recommended to consider medication intensification. Subjects were randomized to receive either the PDA or usual care (UC). Main outcome measures were change in knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict. Of 225 subjects enrolled, 114 were randomized to the PDA and 111 to UC. Mean [SD] age was 52 [1] years, time since T2DM diagnosis was 6 [+/-6] years, 45.3% were male, and most (55.5%) were non-Caucasian. Compared to UC, PDA users had significantly larger knowledge gains (35.0% [22.3] vs 9.9% [22.2]; P < 0.0001) and larger improvements in self-efficacy (3.7 [16.7] vs-3.9 [19.2]; P < 0.0001) and decisional conflict (-22.2 [20.6] vs-7.5 [16.6]; P < 0.0001). The PDA resulted in substantial and significant improvements in knowledge, decisional conflict and decisional self-efficacy. Decisional conflict scores after PDA use were within the range that correlates with effective decision-making. This PDA has the potential to facilitate shared-decision-making for patients with T2DM. NCT02110979.

Evaluator-blinded trial evaluating nurse-led immunotherapy DEcision Coaching In persons with relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (DECIMS) and accompanying process evaluation: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

PubMed

Rahn, Anne Christin; Köpke, Sascha; Kasper, Jürgen; Vettorazzi, Eik; Mühlhauser, Ingrid; Heesen, Christoph

2015-03-21

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic neurological condition usually starting in early adulthood and regularly leading to severe disability. Immunotherapy options are growing in number and complexity, while costs of treatments are high and adherence rates remain low. Therefore, treatment decision-making has become more complex for patients. Structured decision coaching, based on the principles of evidence-based patient information and shared decision-making, has the potential to facilitate participation of individuals in the decision-making process. This cluster randomised controlled trial follows the assumption that decision coaching by trained nurses, using evidence-based patient information and preference elicitation, will facilitate informed choices and induce higher decision quality, as well as better decisional adherence. The decision coaching programme will be evaluated through an evaluator-blinded superiority cluster randomised controlled trial, including 300 patients with suspected or definite relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, facing an immunotherapy decision. The clusters are 12 multiple sclerosis outpatient clinics in Germany. Further, the trial will be accompanied by a mixed-methods process evaluation and a cost-effectiveness study. Nurses in the intervention group will be trained in shared decision-making, coaching, and evidence-based patient information principles. Patients who meet the inclusion criteria will receive decision coaching (intervention group) with up to three face-to-face coaching sessions with a trained nurse (decision coach) or counselling as usual (control group). Patients in both groups will be given access to an evidence-based online information tool. The primary outcome is 'informed choice' after six months, assessed with the multi-dimensional measure of informed choice including the sub-dimensions risk knowledge (questionnaire), attitude concerning immunotherapy (questionnaire), and immunotherapy uptake (telephone survey). Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict, adherence to immunotherapy decisions, autonomy preference, planned behaviour, coping self-efficacy, and perceived involvement in coaching and decisional encounters. Safety outcomes are comprised of anxiety and depression and disease-specific quality of life. This trial will assess the effectiveness of a new model of patient decision support concerning MS-immunotherapy options. The delegation of treatment information provision from physicians to trained nurses bears the potential to change current doctor-focused practice in Germany. Current Controlled Trials (identifier: ISRCTN37929939 ), May 27, 2014.

Transforming organizational culture through nursing shared governance.

PubMed

Newman, Karen Profitt

2011-03-01

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

Research Using In Vivo Simulation of Meta-Organizational Shared Decision Making (SDM). Task 3: Testing the Shared Decision Making Framework in Vivo

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-12-01

developed to address the two main research questions (see Annex A). Exact wording of the questions varied during interviews to accommodate the...centre at DMS 3rd floor. All electronic files (including digital audio and video recordings) with participant data are being encrypted and password...locked filing cabinet at the University of Ottawa. Electronic files will remain encrypted, password protected and stored on a server to which only the

On the scene: St Mary's Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

PubMed

Baker, Christine; Beglinger, Joan Ellis; Derosa, Jody; Griffin, Carla; Laham, Mary; Leonard, Mary Kay; Vanderkolk, Caprice

2009-01-01

In this article, we discuss Shared Governance as the foundation of our nursing professional practice model. Through the use of case examples and reflections from our management team, we demonstrate how this accountability-based practice model promotes excellence through developing, connecting, and engaging people, clarifying and communicating goals, using data to make decisions, and even shaping our organizational response to a critical incident. We close with a look to our future as our hospital embraces whole-system shared decision making.

Housing Options for Older Adults: A Guide for Making Housing Decisions

MedlinePlus

... from house sharing may have on eligibility for public benefits. ■ The effect of receiving Medicaid services on the ... facilities and whether the facility accepts individuals whose costs are paid by Medicaid. Benefits: Group housing options offer a wide range of ...

Faculty Perceptions of Organizational Politics

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lawrence, Janet; Ott, Molly

2013-01-01

This study focuses on a contested area of shared governance, intercollegiate athletics. The researchers consider how faculty perceptions of organizational politics shape their orientations toward collaborative decision-making in this domain. The results provide insights into ways social cognitions about campus-level decision-making affect faculty…

Of blind men and elephants: suggesting SDM-MASS as a compound measure for shared decision making integrating patient, physician and observer views.

PubMed

Geiger, Friedemann; Kasper, Jürgen

2012-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) between patient and physician is an interpersonal process. Most SDM measures use the view of one party (patient, physician or observer) as a proxy to capture this process although these views typically diverge. This study suggests the compound measure SDM(MASS) (SDM Meeting its concept's ASSumptions) integrating these three perspectives in one single index. SDM(MASS) was derived theoretically and compared empirically to unilateral perspectives of patients, physicians and observers by application to a data set of 10 physicians (40 consultations) receiving an SDM training. The constituting parts of SDM(MASS) were highly reliable (Cronbach's alpha .94; interrater reliability .74-.87). Unilateral appraisal of training effects was divergent. SDM(MASS) revealed no effect. SDM(MASS) combines noteworthy information about SDM processes from different viewpoints and thereby delivers plausible assessments. It could overcome immanent shortcomings of unilateral approaches. However, it is a complex measure needing further validation. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

More Heads Are Better than One: School-Based Decision-Making in Varied School Environments

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mokoena, Sello; Machaisa, Rebotile

2018-01-01

In this multi-case qualitative study the degree to which school-based decision-making (SBDM) is understood and conceptualised by the members of school governing bodies (SGBs)--educators, chairpersons of SGBs, principals, and learner representative councils-as well the extent to which decisions were shared among the various groups represented on…

Decision Making Regarding the Place of End-of-Life Cancer Care: The Burden on Bereaved Families and Related Factors.

PubMed

Yamamoto, Sena; Arao, Harue; Masutani, Eiko; Aoki, Miwa; Kishino, Megumi; Morita, Tatsuya; Shima, Yasuo; Kizawa, Yoshiyuki; Tsuneto, Satoru; Aoyama, Maho; Miyashita, Mitsunori

2017-05-01

Decision making regarding the place of end-of-life (EOL) care is an important issue for patients with terminal cancer and their families. It often requires surrogate decision making, which can be a burden on families. To explore the burden on the family of patients dying from cancer related to the decisions they made about the place of EOL care and investigate the factors affecting this burden. This was a cross-sectional mail survey using a self-administered questionnaire. Participants were 700 bereaved family members of patients with cancer from 133 palliative care units in Japan. The questionnaire covered decisional burdens, depression, grief, and the decision-making process. Participants experienced emotional pressure as the highest burden. Participants with a high decisional burden reported significantly higher scores for depression and grief (both P < 0.001). Multiple regression analyses revealed that higher burden was associated with selecting a place of EOL care that differed from that desired by participants (P < 0.001) and patients (P = 0.034), decision making without knowing the patient's wishes and values (P < 0.001) and without participants sharing their wishes and values with the patient's doctors and/or nurses (P = 0.022), and making the decision because of a due date for discharge from a former facility or hospital (P = 0.005). Decision making regarding the place of EOL care was recalled as burdensome for family decision makers. An early decision-making process that incorporates sharing patients' and family members' values that are relevant to the desired place of EOL care is important. Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Characterizing the orthodontic patient's purchase decision: A novel approach using netnography.

PubMed

Pittman, Joseph W; Bennett, M Elizabeth; Koroluk, Lorne D; Robinson, Stacey G; Phillips, Ceib L

2017-06-01

A deeper and more thorough characterization of why patients do or do not seek orthodontic treatment is needed for effective shared decision making about receiving treatment. Previous orthodontic qualitative research has identified important dimensions that influence treatment decisions, but our understanding of patients' decisions and how they interpret benefits and barriers of treatment are lacking. The objectives of this study were to expand our current list of decision-making dimensions and to create a conceptual framework to describe the decision-making process. Discussion boards, rich in orthodontic decision-making data, were identified and analyzed with qualitative methods. An iterative process of data collection, dimension identification, and dimension refinement were performed to saturation. A conceptual framework was created to describe the decision-making process. Fifty-four dimensions captured the ideas discussed in regard to a patient's decision to receive orthodontic treatment. Ten domains were identified: function, esthetics, psychosocial benefits, diagnosis, finances, inconveniences, risks of treatment, individual aspects, societal attitudes, and child-specific influences, each containing specific descriptive and conceptual dimensions. A person's desires, self-perceptions, and viewpoints, the public's views on esthetics and orthodontics, and parenting philosophies impacted perceptions of benefits and barriers associated with orthodontic treatment. We identified an expanded list of dimensions, created a conceptual framework describing the orthodontic patient's decision-making process, and identified dimensions associated with yes and no decisions, giving doctors a better understanding of patient attitudes and expectations. Copyright © 2017 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

Uncharted terrain: preference construction at the end of life.

PubMed

White, Mary T

2014-01-01

Respect for patients' self-determination has long been considered central to efforts to improve end-of-life care, yet efforts to promote advance directives or engage patients in end-of-life discussions are often unsuccessful. In this article, I contend that this is because the shared decision-making approach typically used in healthcare assumes patients' capacity to make rational choices, which is not always possible in end-of-life decisions. Drawing on decision theory, behavioral psychology, and related studies of end-of-life care, I present a growing body of evidence that suggests the novelty, complexity, and uncertainty of end-of-life circumstances make rational and stable preferences difficult to establish. I argue that an effective decision-making approach for the terminally ill must recognize and respond to the unique characteristics of end-of-life choices, including their nonrational dimensions. I conclude with a description of an initiative that appears to do so, resulting in increased patients' satisfaction. Copyright 2014 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.

Shared Decision Making in Education Governance Using Business Portals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Peoples, Adrian L.

2009-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Fitzgerald, Sallyanne H.

1998-01-01

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

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.

Prostate cancer screening and shared decision-making preferences among African-American members of the Prince Hall Masons.

PubMed

Williams, Randi M; Zincke, Nicole L; Turner, Ralph O; Davis, Jackson L; Davis, Kimberly M; Schwartz, Marc D; Johnson, Lenora; Kerner, Jon F; Taylor, Kathryn L

2008-10-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended as one method to assist men in making an informed decision about prostate cancer screening (PCS). SDM preferences for PCS have not been evaluated among African-American (AA) men. Given AA men's increased risk and the uncertainty surrounding screening, it is critical to determine how to assist AA men in making an informed decision. We assessed the extent to which a sample of AA men wished to engage in SDM regarding PCS and the demographic and psychological characteristics associated with SDM preferences. Participants completed a telephone interview that covered demographic and medical information, SDM preferences, PCS knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with previous screening decisions. Subjects included 286 AA men aged 40-70, who were members of a Masonic organization. Fifty-seven percent preferred SDM, 36% preferred to make their own decision, and 7% wanted their doctor to decide. A higher level of education and older age were associated with preferring SDM (p<0.05), while men with greater PCS knowledge were more likely to prefer to make the decision independently (p<0.05). Results suggest that physicians need to be prepared to discuss PCS with their patients. Further, more attention may be needed to engage younger, less educated, and less knowledgeable men as they may be less likely to discuss PCS. This understanding of AA men's preferences for PCS decisions helps to clarify the issues that health professionals need to consider when attempting to assist AA men in making a PCS decision. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Valuing information for sewer replacement decisions.

PubMed

van Riel, Wouter; Langeveld, Jeroen; Herder, Paulien; Clemens, François

Decision-making for sewer asset management is partially based on intuition and often lacks explicit argumentation, hampering decision transparency and reproducibility. This is not to be preferred in light of public accountability and cost-effectiveness. It is unknown to what extent each decision criterion is appreciated by decision-makers. Further insight into this relative importance improves understanding of decision-making of sewer system managers. As such, a digital questionnaire (response ratio 43%), containing pairwise comparisons between 10 relevant information sources, was sent to all 407 municipalities in the Netherlands to analyse the relative importance and assess whether a shared frame of reasoning is present. Thurstone's law of comparative judgment was used for analysis, combined with several consistency tests. Results show that camera inspections were valued highest, while pipe age was considered least important. The respondents were pretty consistent per individual and also showed consistency as a group. This indicated a common framework of reasoning among the group. The feedback of the group showed, however, the respondents found it difficult to make general comparisons without having a context. This indicates decision-making in practice is more likely to be steered by other mechanisms than purely combining information sources.

Self-Stigma and Consumer Participation in Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Services.

PubMed

Hamann, Johannes; Bühner, Markus; Rüsch, Nicolas

2017-08-01

People with mental illness struggle with symptoms and with public stigma. Some accept common prejudices and lose self-esteem, resulting in shame and self-stigma, which may affect their interactions with mental health professionals. This study explored whether self-stigma and shame are associated with consumers' preferences for participation in medical decision making and their behavior in psychiatric consultations. In a cross-sectional study conducted in Germany, 329 individuals with a diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder or an affective disorder and their psychiatrists provided sociodemographic and illness-related information. Self-stigma, shame, locus of control, and views about clinical decision making were assessed by self-report. Psychiatrists rated their impression of the decision-making behavior of consumers. Regression analyses and structural equation modeling were used to determine the association of self-stigma and shame with clinical decision making. Self-stigma was not related to consumers' participation preferences, but it was associated with some aspects of communicative behavior. Active and critical behavior (for example, expressing views, daring to challenge the doctor's opinion, and openly speaking out about disagreements with the doctor) was associated with less shame, less self-stigma, more self-responsibility, less attribution of external control to powerful others, and more years of education. Self-stigma and shame were associated with less participative and critical behavior, which probably leads to clinical encounters that involve less shared decision making and more paternalistic decision making. Paternalistic decision making may reinforce self-stigma and lead to poorer health outcomes. Therefore, interventions that reduce self-stigma and increase consumers' critical and participative communication may improve health outcomes.

Relationship power, decision making, and sexual relations: an exploratory study with couples of Mexican origin.

PubMed

Harvey, S Marie; Beckman, Linda J; Browner, Carole H; Sherman, Christy A

2002-11-01

This study explored how couples of Mexican origin define power in intimate relationships, what makes men and women feel powerful in relationships, and the role of each partner in decision making about sexual and reproductive matters. Interviews were conducted with each partner of 39 sexually active couples and data were analyzed using content analysis. Results indicate that power is perceived as control over one s partner and the ability to make decisions. Women say they feel more powerful in relationships when they make unilateral decisions and have economic independence. Men feel powerful when they have control over their partner and bring home money. Respondents agreed that women make decisions about household matters and children, while men make decisions related to money. Findings indicate that whereas couples share decision making about sexual activities and contraceptive use, men are seen as initiators of sexual activity and women are more likely to suggest condom use.

Rethinking autonomy: decision making between patient and surgeon in advanced illnesses

PubMed Central

Hinshaw, Daniel B.

2016-01-01

Patients with advanced illness such as advanced stage cancer presenting with the need for possible surgical intervention can be some of the most challenging cases for a surgeon. Often there are multiple factors influencing the decisions made. For patients they are facing not just the effects of the disease on their body, but the stark realization that the disease will also limit their life. Not only are these factors a consideration when patients are making decisions, but also the desire to make the decision that is best for themselves, the autonomous decision. Also included in this process for the patient facing the possible need for an intervention is the surgeon. While patient autonomy remains one of the main principles within medicine, guiding treatment decisions, there is also the surgeon’s autonomy to be considered. Surgeons determine if there is even a possible intervention to be offered to patients, a decision making process that respects surgeons’ autonomous choices and includes elements of paternalism as surgeons utilize their expertise to make decisions. Included in the treatment decisions that are made and the care of the patient is the impact patients’ outcomes have on the surgeon, the inherent drive to be the best for the patient and desire for good outcomes for the patient. While both the patient’s and surgeon’s autonomy are a dynamic interface influencing decision making, the main goal for the patient facing a palliative procedure is that of making treatment decisions based on the concept of shared decision making, always giving primary consideration to the patient’s goals and values. Lastly, regardless of the decision made, it is the responsibility of surgeons to their patients to be a source of support through this challenging time. PMID:27004224

The neglected topic: presentation of cost information in patient decision AIDS.

PubMed

Blumenthal-Barby, J S; Robinson, Emily; Cantor, Scott B; Naik, Aanand D; Russell, Heidi Voelker; Volk, Robert J

2015-05-01

Costs are an important component of patients' decision making, but a comparatively underemphasized aspect of formal shared decision making. We hypothesized that decision aids also avoid discussion of costs, despite their being tools designed to facilitate shared decision making about patient-centered outcomes. We sought to define the frequency of cost-related information and identify the common modes of presenting cost and cost-related information in the 290 decision aids catalogued in the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's Decision Aid Library Inventory (DALI) system. We found that 56% (n = 161) of the decision aids mentioned cost in some way, but only 13% (n = 37) gave a specific price or range of prices. We identified 9 different ways in which cost was mentioned. The most common approach was as a "pro" of one of the treatment options (e.g., "you avoid the cost of medication"). Of the 37 decision aids that gave specific prices or ranges of prices for treatment options, only 2 were about surgery decisions despite the fact that surgery decision aids were the most common. Our findings suggest that presentation of cost information in decision aids is highly variable. Evidence-based guidelines should be developed by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. © The Author(s) 2015.

What is a good medical decision? A research agenda guided by perspectives from multiple stakeholders

PubMed Central

Hamilton, Jada G.; Lillie, Sarah E.; Alden, Dana L.; Scherer, Laura; Oser, Megan; Rini, Christine; Tanaka, Miho; Baleix, John; Brewster, Mikki; Lee, Simon Craddock; Goldstein, Mary K.; Jacobson, Robert M.; Myers, Ronald E.; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.; Waters, Erika A.

2016-01-01

Informed and shared decision making are critical aspects of patient-centered care, which has contributed to an emphasis on decision support interventions to promote good medical decision making. However, researchers and healthcare providers have not reached a consensus on what defines a good decision, nor how to evaluate it. This position paper, informed by conference sessions featuring diverse stakeholders held at the 2015 Society of Behavioral Medicine and Society for Medical Decision Making annual meetings, describes key concepts that influence the decision making process itself and that may change what it means to make a good decision: interpersonal factors, structural constraints, affective influences, and values clarification methods. This paper also proposes specific research questions within each of these priority areas, with the goal of moving medical decision making research to a more comprehensive definition of a good medical decision, and enhancing the ability to measure and improve the decision making process. PMID:27566316

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.