Sample records for shared decision-making process
-
Shared decision-making, gender and new technologies.
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.
-
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.
-
[Cancer screening in clinical practice: the value of shared decision-making].
Cornuz, Jacques; Junod, Noëlle; Pasche, Olivier; Guessous, Idris
2010-07-14
Shared decision-making approach to uncertain clinical situations such as cancer screening seems more appropriate than ever. Shared decision making can be defined as an interactive process where physician and patient share all the stages of the decision making process. For patients who wish to be implicated in the management of their health conditions, physicians might express difficulty to do so. Use of patient decision aids appears to improve such process of shared decision making.
-
Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review.
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 for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review
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
-
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.
-
Shared decision making in chronic care in the context of evidence based practice in nursing.
Friesen-Storms, Jolanda H H M; Bours, Gerrie J J W; van der Weijden, Trudy; Beurskens, Anna J H M
2015-01-01
In the decision-making environment of evidence-based practice, the following three sources of information must be integrated: research evidence of the intervention, clinical expertise, and the patient's values. In reality, evidence-based practice usually focuses on research evidence (which may be translated into clinical practice guidelines) and clinical expertise without considering the individual patient's values. The shared decision-making model seems to be helpful in the integration of the individual patient's values in evidence-based practice. We aim to discuss the relevance of shared decision making in chronic care and to suggest how it can be integrated with evidence-based practice in nursing. We start by describing the following three possible approaches to guide the decision-making process: the paternalistic approach, the informed approach, and the shared decision-making approach. Implementation of shared decision making has gained considerable interest in cases lacking a strong best-treatment recommendation, and when the available treatment options are equivalent to some extent. We discuss that in chronic care it is important to always invite the patient to participate in the decision-making process. We delineate the following six attributes of health care interventions in chronic care that influence the degree of shared decision making: the level of research evidence, the number of available intervention options, the burden of side effects, the impact on lifestyle, the patient group values, and the impact on resources. Furthermore, the patient's willingness to participate in shared decision making, the clinical expertise of the nurse, and the context in which the decision making takes place affect the shared decision-making process. A knowledgeable and skilled nurse with a positive attitude towards shared decision making—integrated with evidence-based practice—can facilitate the shared decision-making process. We conclude that nurses as well as other health care professionals in chronic care should integrate shared decision making with evidence-based practice to deliver patient-centred care. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Incentivizing shared decision making in the USA--where are we now?
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Brogan, Paula; Hasson, Felicity; McIlfatrick, Sonja
2018-01-01
Globally recommended in healthcare policy, Shared Decision-Making is also central to international policy promoting community palliative care. Yet realities of implementation by multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals who provide end-of-life care in the home are unclear. To explore multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals' perceptions and experiences of Shared Decision-Making at end of life in the home. Qualitative design using focus groups, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. A total of 43 participants, from multi-disciplinary community-based services in one region of the United Kingdom, were recruited. While the rhetoric of Shared Decision-Making was recognised, its implementation was impacted by several interconnecting factors, including (1) conceptual confusion regarding Shared Decision-Making, (2) uncertainty in the process and (3) organisational factors which impeded Shared Decision-Making. Multiple interacting factors influence implementation of Shared Decision-Making by professionals working in complex community settings at the end of life. Moving from rhetoric to reality requires future work exploring the realities of Shared Decision-Making practice at individual, process and systems levels.
-
Shared decision-making in epilepsy management.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Genital surgery for disorders of sex development: implementing a shared decision-making approach.
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.
-
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
-
Kim, Ho-Joong; Park, Jae-Young; Kang, Kyoung-Tak; Chang, Bong-Soon; Lee, Choon-Ki; Yeom, Jin S
2015-02-01
In a preference-based shared decision-making system, several subjective and/or objective factors such as pain severity, degree of disability, and the radiological severity of canal stenosis may influence the final surgical decision for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, our understanding of the shared decision-making process and the significance of each factor remain primitive. In the present study, we aimed to investigate which factors influence the surgical decision for the treatment of LSS when using a preference-based, shared decision-making process. We included 555 patients, aged 45-80 years, who used a preference-based shared decision-making process and were treated conservatively or surgically for chronic leg and/or back pain caused by LSS from April 2012 to December 2012. Univariate and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association of surgical decision making with age, sex, body mass index, symptom duration, radiologic stenotic grade, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Short Form-36 (SF-36) subscales, and motor weakness. In univariate analysis, the following variables were associated with a higher odds of a surgical decision for LSS: male sex; the VAS score for leg pain; ODI; morphological stenotic grades B, C, and D; motor weakness; and the physical function, physical role, bodily pain, social function, and emotional role of the SF-36 subscales. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex, ODI, morphological stenotic grades C and D, and motor weakness were significantly associated with a higher possibility of a surgical decision. Motor weakness, male sex, morphological stenotic grade, and the amount of disability are critical factors leading to a surgical decision for LSS when using a preference-based shared decision-making process.
-
Shared decision-making in medication management: development of a training intervention
Stead, Ute; Morant, Nicola; Ramon, Shulamit
2017-01-01
Shared decision-making is a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients make treatment decisions together. Although it is considered essential to patient-centred care, the adoption of shared decision-making into routine clinical practice has been slow, and there is a need to increase implementation. This paper describes the development and delivery of a training intervention to promote shared decision-making in medication management in mental health as part of the Shared Involvement in Medication Management Education (ShIMME) project. Three stakeholder groups (service users, care coordinators and psychiatrists) received training in shared decision-making, and their feedback was evaluated. The programme was mostly well received, with all groups rating interaction with peers as the best aspect of the training. This small-scale pilot shows that it is feasible to deliver training in shared decision-making to several key stakeholders. Larger studies will be required to assess the effectiveness of such training. PMID:28811918
-
Blyer, Kristina; Hulton, Linda
2016-01-01
This systematic review examines shared decision making to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for college students with respiratory tract infections. CINAL, Cochrane, PubMed, EBSCO, and PsycNET were searched in October 2014 using the following criteria: English language, human subjects, peer-reviewed, shared decision making for respiratory tract infections, adult patients or college students, and antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Twelve articles were selected for final review. College students and younger, more educated, adults prefer shared decision making. Shared decision making shows promise for decreasing antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Education, understanding, and provider-patient communication are important to the shared decision-making process. Shared decision making shows promise to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in college students and could be considered for future studies.
-
Shared decision-making in medication management: development of a training intervention.
Stead, Ute; Morant, Nicola; Ramon, Shulamit
2017-08-01
Shared decision-making is a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients make treatment decisions together. Although it is considered essential to patient-centred care, the adoption of shared decision-making into routine clinical practice has been slow, and there is a need to increase implementation. This paper describes the development and delivery of a training intervention to promote shared decision-making in medication management in mental health as part of the Shared Involvement in Medication Management Education (ShIMME) project. Three stakeholder groups (service users, care coordinators and psychiatrists) received training in shared decision-making, and their feedback was evaluated. The programme was mostly well received, with all groups rating interaction with peers as the best aspect of the training. This small-scale pilot shows that it is feasible to deliver training in shared decision-making to several key stakeholders. Larger studies will be required to assess the effectiveness of such training.
-
Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
National evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening.
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.
-
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.
-
Mutual influence in shared decision making: a collaborative study of patients and physicians.
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.
-
Understanding patient perceptions of shared decision making.
Shay, L Aubree; Lafata, Jennifer Elston
2014-09-01
This study aims to develop a conceptual model of patient-defined SDM, and understand what leads patients to label a specific, decision-making process as shared. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 primary care patients following a recent appointment. Patients were asked about the meaning of SDM and about specific decisions that they labeled as shared. Interviews were coded using qualitative content analysis. Patients' conceptual definition of SDM included four components of an interactive exchange prior to making the decision: both doctor and patient share information, both are open-minded and respectful, patient self-advocacy, and a personalized physician recommendation. Additionally, a long-term trusting relationship helps foster SDM. In contrast, when asked about a specific decision labeled as shared, patients described a range of interactions with the only commonality being that the two parties came to a mutually agreed-upon decision. There is no one-size-fits all process that leads patients to label a decision as shared. Rather, the outcome of "agreement" may be more important than the actual decision-making process for patients to label a decision as shared. Studies are needed to better understand how longitudinal communication between patient and physicians and patient self-advocacy behaviors affect patient perceptions of SDM. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
-
A Review of Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids in Radiation Oncology.
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.
-
Understanding shared decision making in pediatric otolaryngology.
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 – transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
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
-
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
-
Shepherd, Andrew; Shorthouse, Oliver; Gask, Linda
2014-05-01
Shared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications. A qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes.Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought. A total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician's beliefs regarding the service users' insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors, financial constraints as well as societal perceptions of mental disorder in general and antipsychotic medication in particular. This project has allowed identification of potential barriers to shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Further work is necessary to observe the decision making process in clinical practice and also to identify means in which the identified barriers, in particular 'lack of insight', may be more effectively managed.
-
Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?
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.
-
National Evidence on the Use of Shared Decision Making in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Working in partnership: the application of shared decision-making to health visitor practice.
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.
-
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.
-
A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions.
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.
-
How is shared decision-making defined among African-Americans with diabetes?
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.
-
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.
-
The Patient Experience With Shared Decision Making: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.
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 endocrinology: present and future directions.
Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene; Gionfriddo, Michael R; Ospina, Naykky Singh; Maraka, Spyridoula; Tamhane, Shrikant; Montori, Victor M; Brito, Juan P
2016-08-01
In medicine and endocrinology, there are few clinical circumstances in which clinicians can accurately predict what is best for their patients. As a result, patients and clinicians frequently have to make decisions about which there is uncertainty. Uncertainty results from limitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how treatments will fit into patients' daily lives. The work that patients and clinicians do together to address the patient's situation and engage in a deliberative dialogue about reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making. Decision aids are evidence-based tools that facilitate this process. Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians share information about the benefits, harms, and burden of different reasonable diagnostic and treatment options, and patients explain what matters to them in view of their particular values, preferences, and personal context. Beyond the ethical argument in support of this approach, decision aids have been shown to improve patients' knowledge about the available options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort. Decision aids also promote patient participation in the decision-making process. Despite accumulating evidence from clinical trials, policy support, and expert recommendations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemented in endocrine practice. Additional work is needed to enrich the number of available tools and to implement them in practice workflows. Also, although the evidence from randomised controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, and illnesses, the effect of this approach has been studied in a few endocrine disorders. Future pragmatic trials are needed to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endocrinology and primary care practice. With the available evidence, however, endocrinologists can now start to practice shared decision making, partner with their patients, and use their expertise to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the context of patients' lives. In this Personal View, we describe shared decision making, the evidence behind the approach, and why and how both endocrinologists and their patients could benefit from this approach. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Decision-making in Swiss home-like childbirth: A grounded theory study.
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.
-
Implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia and its influence on patient satisfaction.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Patient Preferences and Surrogate Decision Making in Neuroscience Intensive Care Units
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
-
Shared decision making in mental health: the importance for current clinical practice.
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.
-
Couple decision making and use of cultural scripts in Malawi.
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.
-
Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making.
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.
-
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.
-
Choosing to Decline: Finding Common Ground through the Perspective of Shared Decision Making.
Megregian, Michele; Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne
2018-05-18
Respectful communication is a key component of any clinical relationship. Shared decision making is the process of collaboration that occurs between a health care provider and patient in order to make health care decisions based upon the best available evidence and the individual's preferences. A midwife and woman (and her support persons) engage together to make health care decisions, using respectful communication that is based upon the best available evidence and the woman's preferences, values, and goals. Supporting a woman's autonomy, however, can be particularly challenging in maternity care when recommended treatments or interventions are declined. In the past, the real or perceived increased risk to a woman's health or that of her fetus as a result of that choice has occasionally resulted in coercion. Through the process of shared decision making, the woman's autonomy may be supported, including the choice to decline interventions. The case presented here demonstrates how a shared decision-making framework can support the health care provider-patient relationship in the context of informed refusal. © 2018 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.
-
How contextual issues can distort shared decision making.
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.
-
Complex Decision-Making in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis.
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.
-
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.
-
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 and outcomes of decision making for cancer clinical trial participation.
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.
-
Shared Decision-Making and Patient Empowerment in Preventive Cardiology.
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.
-
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.
-
How is Shared Decision-Making Defined among African-Americans with Diabetes?
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
-
Decision making in midwifery: rationality and intuition.
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.
-
Shared Decision-Making for Cancer Care Among Racial and Ethnic Minorities: A Systematic Review
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process
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
-
Shared decision making: empowering the bedside nurse.
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.
-
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
-
Légaré, France; Turcotte, Stéphane; Stacey, Dawn; Ratté, Stéphane; Kryworuchko, Jennifer; Graham, Ian D
2012-01-01
Shared decision making is the process in which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the health professional and the patient. Little is known about what patients view as effective or ineffective strategies to implement shared decision making in routine clinical practice. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice, as seen by patients. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from their inception to mid-March 2009. We found additional material by reviewing the reference lists of the studies found in the databases; systematic reviews of studies on shared decision making; the proceedings of various editions of the International Shared Decision Making Conference; and the transcripts of the Society for Medical Decision Making's meetings. In our study selection, we included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses in which patients evaluated interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making. The interventions in question consisted of the distribution of printed educational material; educational meetings; audit and feedback; reminders; and patient-mediated initiatives (e.g. patient decision aids). Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses considered categorical and continuous process measures. We computed the standardized effect size for each outcome at the 95% confidence interval. The primary outcome of interest was health professionals' adoption of shared decision making as reported by patients in a self-administered questionnaire. Of the 6764 search results, 21 studies reported 35 relevant comparisons. Overall, the quality of the studies ranged from 0% to 83%. Only three of the 21 studies reported a clinically significant effect for the primary outcome that favored the intervention. The first study compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with another patient-mediated intervention (median improvement of 74%). The second compared an educational meeting, a patient-mediated intervention, and audit and feedback with an educational meeting on an alternative topic (improvement of 227%). The third compared an educational meeting and a patient-mediated intervention with usual care (p = 0.003). All three studies were limited to the patient-physician dyad. To reduce bias, future studies should improve methods and reporting, and should analyze costs and benefits, including those associated with training of health professionals. Multifaceted interventions that include educating health professionals about sharing decisions with patients and patient-mediated interventions, such as patient decision aids, appear promising for improving health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice as seen by patients.
-
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.…
-
Cultural Challenges to Engaging Patients in Shared Decision Making
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.
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.
-
Using Option Grids: steps toward shared decision-making for neonatal circumcision.
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.
-
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)
-
A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
'My kidneys, my choice, decision aid': supporting shared decision making.
Fortnum, Debbie; Smolonogov, Tatiana; Walker, Rachael; Kairaitis, Luke; Pugh, Debbie
2015-06-01
For patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are progressing to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) a decision of whether to undertake dialysis or conservative care is a critical component of the patient journey. Shared decision making for complex decisions such as this could be enhanced by a decision aid, a practice which is well utilised in other disciplines but limited for nephrology. A multidisciplinary team in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) utilised current decision-making theory and best practice to develop the 'My Kidneys, My Choice', a decision aid for the treatment of kidney disease. A patient-centred, five-sectioned tool is now complete and freely available to all ANZ units to support the ESKD education and shared decision-making process. Distribution and education have occurred across ANZ and evaluation of the decision aid in practice is in the first phase. Development of a new tool such as an ESKD decision aid requires vision, multidisciplinary input and ongoing implementation resources. This tool is being integrated into ANZ, ESKD education practice and is promoting the philosophy of shared decision making. © 2014 European Dialysis and Transplant Nurses Association/European Renal Care Association.
-
Shared Decision-Making in the Management of Congenital Vascular Malformations.
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.
-
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…
-
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,…
-
Decision-making about prenatal genetic testing among pregnant Korean-American women.
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.
-
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.
-
Measuring Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Care
Salyers, Michelle P.; Matthias, Marianne S.; Fukui, Sadaaki; Holter, Mark C.; Collins, Linda; Rose, Nichole; Thompson, John; Coffman, Melinda; Torrey, William C.
2014-01-01
Objective Shared decision making is widely recognized to facilitate effective health care; tools are needed to measure the level of shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Methods A coding scheme assessing shared decision making in medical settings (1) was adapted, including creation of a manual. Trained raters analyzed 170 audio recordings of psychiatric medication check-up visits. Results Inter-rater reliability among three raters for a subset of 20 recordings ranged from 67% to 100% agreement for the presence of each of nine elements of shared decision making and 100% for the overall agreement between provider and consumer. Just over half of the decisions met minimum criteria for shared decision making. Shared decision making was not related to length of visit after controlling for complexity of decision. Conclusions The shared decision making rating scale appears to reliably assess shared decision making in psychiatric practice and could be helpful for future research, training, and implementation efforts. PMID:22854725
-
Medical students, clinical preventive services, and shared decision-making.
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.
-
Error affect inoculation for a complex decision-making task.
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.
-
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…
-
Shared decision making: relevant concepts and facilitating strategies.
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.
-
Patients' understanding of shared decision making in a mental health setting.
Eliacin, Johanne; Salyers, Michelle P; Kukla, Marina; Matthias, Marianne S
2015-05-01
Shared decision making is a fundamental component of patient-centered care and has been linked to positive health outcomes. Increasingly, researchers are turning their attention to shared decision making in mental health; however, few studies have explored decision making in these settings from patients' perspectives. We examined patients' accounts and understanding of shared decision making. We analyzed interviews from 54 veterans receiving outpatient mental health care at a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the United States. Although patients' understanding of shared decision making was consistent with accounts published in the literature, participants reported that shared decision making goes well beyond these components. They identified the patient-provider relationship as the bedrock of shared decision making and highlighted several factors that interfere with shared decision making. Our findings highlight the importance of the patient-provider relationship as a fundamental element of shared decision making and point to areas for potential improvement. © The Author(s) 2014.
-
[Shared decision-making in acute psychiatric medicine : Contraindication or a challenge?
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.
-
Developing and pilot testing a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice.
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Models based on value and probability in health improve shared decision making.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Zandstra, D; Busser, J A S; Aarts, J W M; Nieboer, T E
2017-04-01
This review studies women's preferences for shared decision-making about heavy menstrual bleeding treatment and evaluates interventions that support shared decision-making and their effectiveness. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Three research questions were predefined: 1) What is the range of perspectives gathered in studies that examine women facing a decision related to heavy menstrual bleeding management?; 2) What types of interventions have been developed to support shared decision-making for women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding?; and 3) In what way might women benefit from interventions that support shared decision-making? All original studies were included if the study population consisted of women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding. We used the TIDieR (Template for Intervention: Description and Replication) checklist to assess the quality of description and the reproducibility of interventions. Interventions were categorized using Grande et al. guidelines and collated and summarized outcomes measures into three categories: 1) patient-reported outcomes; 2) observer-reported outcomes; and 3) doctor-reported outcomes. Fifteen studies were included. Overall, patients preferred to decide together with their doctor (74%). Women's previsit preference was the strongest predictor for treatment choice in two studies. Information packages did not have a statistically significant effect on treatment choice or satisfaction. However, adding a structured interview or decision aid to increase patient involvement did show a positive effect on treatment choice and results, patient satisfaction and shared decision-making related outcomes. In conclusion shared decision-making is becoming more important in the care of women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Structured interviews or well-designed (computerized) tools such as decision aids seem to facilitate this process, but there is room for improvement. A shared treatment choice is only possible after careful provision of information, elicitation of patients' preferences and integrating those preferences. Interventions should be designed accordingly. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
-
Call for shared decision making in China: Challenges and opportunities.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Twelve myths about shared decision making.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Surgical Consultation as Social Process: Implications for Shared Decision Making.
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.
-
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…
-
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
-
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.
-
Patient and physician views of shared decision making in cancer.
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.
-
Measuring (shared) decision-making--a review of psychometric instruments.
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.
-
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.
-
[Evidence-based Risk and Benefit Communication for Shared Decision Making].
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.
-
Shared decision-making during surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital.
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.
-
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.
-
Ruohonen, Toni; Ennejmy, Mohammed
2013-01-01
Making reliable and justified operational and strategic decisions is a really challenging task in the health care domain. So far, the decisions have been made based on the experience of managers and staff, or they are evaluated with traditional methods, using inadequate data. As a result of this kind of decision-making process, attempts to improve operations usually have failed or led to only local improvements. Health care organizations have a lot of operational data, in addition to clinical data, which is the key element for making reliable and justified decisions. However, it is progressively problematic to access it and make usage of it. In this paper we discuss about the possibilities how to exploit operational data in the most efficient way in the decision-making process. We'll share our future visions and propose a conceptual framework for automating the decision-making process.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Chong, Wei Wen; Aslani, Parisa; Chen, Timothy F
2013-05-01
Shared decision-making is an essential element of patient-centered care in mental health. Since mental health services involve healthcare providers from different professions, a multiple perspective to shared decision-making may be valuable. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of different healthcare professionals on shared decision-making and current interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 healthcare providers from a range of professions, which included medical practitioners (psychiatrists, general practitioners), pharmacists, nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists and social workers. Findings indicated that healthcare providers supported the notion of shared decision-making in mental health, but felt that it should be condition dependent. Medical practitioners advocated a more active participation from consumers in treatment decision-making; whereas other providers (e.g. pharmacists, occupational therapists) focused more toward acknowledging consumers' needs in decisions, perceiving themselves to be in an advisory role in supporting consumers' decision-making. Although healthcare providers acknowledged the importance of interprofessional collaboration, only a minority discussed it within the context of shared decision-making. In conclusion, healthcare providers appeared to have differing perceptions on the level of consumer involvement in shared decision-making. Interprofessional roles to facilitate shared decision-making in mental health need to be acknowledged, understood and strengthened, before an interprofessional approach to shared decision-making in mental health can be effectively implemented.
-
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…
-
Treatment decision-making among breast cancer patients in Malaysia.
Nies, Yong Hui; Islahudin, Farida; Chong, Wei Wen; Abdullah, Norlia; Ismail, Fuad; Ahmad Bustamam, Ros Suzanna; Wong, Yoke Fui; Saladina, J J; Mohamed Shah, Noraida
2017-01-01
This study investigated breast cancer patients' involvement level in the treatment decision-making process and the concordance between patients' and physician's perspectives in decision-making. A cross-sectional study was conducted involving physicians and newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from three public/teaching hospitals in Malaysia. The Control Preference Scale (CPS) was administered to patients and physicians, and the Krantz Health Opinion Survey (KHOS) was completed by the patients alone. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between sociodemographic characteristics, the patients' involvement in treatment decision-making, and patients' preference for behavioral involvement and information related to their disease. The majority of patients preferred to share decision-making with their physicians (47.5%), while the second largest group preferred being passive (42.6%) and a small number preferred being active (9.8%). However, the physicians perceived that the majority of patients preferred active decision-making (56.9%), followed by those who desired shared decision-making (32.8%), and those who preferred passive decision-making (10.3%). The overall concordance was 26.5% (54 of 204 patient-physician dyads). The median of preference for information score and behavioral involvement score was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] =3-5) and 2 (IQR =2-3), respectively. In univariate analysis, the ethnicity and educational qualification of patients were significantly associated with the patients' preferred role in the process of treatment decision-making and the patients' preference for information seeking ( p >0.05). However, only educational qualification ( p =0.004) was significantly associated with patients' preference for information seeking in multivariate analysis. Physicians failed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences in treatment decision-making. The concordance between physicians' perception and patients' perception was quite low as the physicians perceived that more than half of the patients were active in treatment decision-making. In actuality, more than half of patients perceived that they shared decision-making with their physicians.
-
The potential for shared decision-making and decision aids in rehabilitation medicine.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
[Shared medical decision making in gynaecology].
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.
-
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.
-
Nordic couples' decision-making processes during assisted reproduction treatments.
Sol Olafsdottir, Helga; Wikland, Matts; Möller, Anders
2013-06-01
To study couples' perceptions of their decision-making process during the first three years of infertility treatments. This study is a part of a larger project studying the decision-making processes of 22 infertile heterosexual couples, recruited from fertility clinics in all five Nordic countries, over a three year period. A descriptive qualitative method was used. Process of decision-making during assisted reproduction treatments. Seventeen couples had succeeded in becoming parents after approximately three years. Our study suggests that the decision-making process during fertility treatments has three phases: (i) recognizing the decisions to be made, with subcategories; the driving force, mutual project, (ii) gathering knowledge and experience about the options, with subcategories; trust, patient competence, personalized support, and (iii) adapting decisions to possible options, with subcategories; strategic planning, adaption. The core category was "maintaining control in a situation of uncertainty." Two parallel processes affect couples' decision-making process, one within themselves and their relationship, and the other in their contact with the fertility clinic. Couples struggle to make decisions, trusting clinic personnel for guidance, knowledge, and understanding. Nevertheless, couples expressed disappointment with the clinics' reactions to their requests for shared decision-making. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
Patient Decision Control and the Use of Cardiac Catheterization
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
-
[Shared decision-making in medical practice--patient-centred communication skills].
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.
-
Shared governance in a clinic system.
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.
-
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.
-
Decision making in pediatric oncology: Views of parents and physicians in two European countries.
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.
-
Noguera, Antonio; Yennurajalingam, Sriram; Torres-Vigil, Isabel; Parsons, Henrique Afonseca; Duarte, Eva Rosina; Palma, Alejandra; Bunge, Sofia; Palmer, J. Lynn; Bruera, Eduardo
2017-01-01
Context Studies to determine the decisional control preferences (DCPs) in Hispanic patients receiving palliative care are limited. Objectives The aims of this study were to describe DCPs, disclosure of information, and satisfaction with decision making among Hispanics, and to determine the degree of concordance between patients’ DCPs and their self-reported decisions. Methods We surveyed 387 cancer patients referred to outpatient palliative care clinics in Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, and the U.S. DCPs were measured with the Control Preference Scale, disclosure preferences with the Disclosure of Information Preferences questionnaire, and satisfaction with care with the Satisfaction with Decision Scale. Results In this study, 182 patients (47.6%) preferred shared decisional control, 119 (31.2%) active decisional control, and 81 (21.2%) preferred a passive approach. Concerning diagnosis and prognosis, 345 (92%) patients wanted to know their diagnosis, and 355 (94%) wanted to know their prognosis. Three hundred thirty-seven (87%) patients were satisfied with the decision-making process. DCPs were concordant with the self-reported decision-making process in 264 (69%) patients (weighted kappa, 0.55). Patients’ greater satisfaction with the decision-making process was correlated with older age (P≤0.001) and with a preference for enhanced diagnostic disclosure (P≤0.024). Satisfaction did not correlate with concordance in the decision-making process. Conclusion The vast majority preferred a shared or active decision-making process and wanted information about their diagnosis and prognosis. Older patients and those who wanted to know their diagnosis seemed to be more satisfied with the way treatment decisions were made. PMID:24035071
-
Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters.
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.
-
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.
-
Légaré, France; Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, Nora; Drolet, Renée; Stacey, Dawn; Härter, Martin; Bastian, Hilda; Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique; Borduas, Francine; Charles, Cathy; Coulter, Angela; Desroches, Sophie; Friedrich, Gwendolyn; Gafni, Amiram; Graham, Ian D.; Labrecque, Michel; LeBlanc, Annie; Légaré, Jean; Politi, Mary; Sargeant, Joan; Thomson, Richard
2014-01-01
Shared decision making is now making inroads in health care professionals’ continuing education curriculum, but there is no consensus on what core competencies are required by clinicians for effectively involving patients in health-related decisions. Ready-made programs for training clinicians in shared decision making are in high demand, but existing programs vary widely in their theoretical foundations, length, and content. An international, interdisciplinary group of 25 individuals met in 2012 to discuss theoretical approaches to making health-related decisions, compare notes on existing programs, take stock of stakeholders concerns, and deliberate on core competencies. This article summarizes the results of those discussions. Some participants believed that existing models already provide a sufficient conceptual basis for developing and implementing shared decision making competency-based training programs on a wide scale. Others argued that this would be premature as there is still no consensus on the definition of shared decision making or sufficient evidence to recommend specific competencies for implementing shared decision making. However, all participants agreed that there were 2 broad types of competencies that clinicians need for implementing shared decision making: relational competencies and risk communication competencies. Further multidisciplinary research could broaden and deepen our understanding of core competencies for shared decision making training. PMID:24347105
-
Anarchist, Neoliberal, & Democratic Decision-Making: Deepening the Joy in Learning and Teaching
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Briscoe, Felecia M.
2012-01-01
Using a critical postmodern framework, this article analyzes the relationship of the decision-making processes of anarchism and neoliberalism to that of deep democracy. Anarchist processes are found to share common core principals with deep democracy; but neoliberal processes are found to be antithetical to deep democracy. To increase the joy in…
-
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.
-
A critical narrative analysis of shared decision-making in acute inpatient mental health care.
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.
-
Clark, Noreen M; Nelson, Belinda W; Valerio, Melissa A; Gong, Z. Molly; Taylor-Fishwick, Judith C; Fletcher, Monica
2009-01-01
As the number of individuals with chronic illness increases so has the need for strategies to enable nurses to engage them effectively in daily management of their conditions. Shared decision making between patients and nurses is one approach frequently discussed in the literature. This paper reviews recent studies of shared decision making and the meaning of findings for the nurse-patient relationship. Patients likely to prefer to engage in shared decision making are younger and have higher levels of education. However, there is a lack of evidence for the effect of shared decision making on patient outcomes. Further, studies are needed to examine shared decision making when the patient is a child. Nurses are professionally suited to engage their patients fully in treatment plans. More evidence for how shared decision making affects outcomes and how nurses can successfully achieve such engagement is needed. PMID:19855848
-
Participants' recall and understanding of genomic research and large-scale data sharing.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences.
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Shared decision-making and patient autonomy.
Sandman, Lars; Munthe, Christian
2009-01-01
In patient-centred care, shared decision-making is advocated as the preferred form of medical decision-making. Shared decision-making is supported with reference to patient autonomy without abandoning the patient or giving up the possibility of influencing how the patient is benefited. It is, however, not transparent how shared decision-making is related to autonomy and, in effect, what support autonomy can give shared decision-making. In the article, different forms of shared decision-making are analysed in relation to five different aspects of autonomy: (1) self-realisation; (2) preference satisfaction; (3) self-direction; (4) binary autonomy of the person; (5) gradual autonomy of the person. It is argued that both individually and jointly these aspects will support the models called shared rational deliberative patient choice and joint decision as the preferred versions from an autonomy perspective. Acknowledging that both of these models may fail, the professionally driven best interest compromise model is held out as a satisfactory second-best choice.
-
Deciding together? Best interests and shared decision-making in paediatric intensive care.
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.
-
Beyond shared decision-making: Collaboration in the age of recovery from serious mental illness.
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).
-
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
-
Building the Foundation for Data-Based Decision Making: Creating Consensus on Language and Concepts
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Crum, Karen
2009-01-01
Data Based Decision Making (DBDM), the process of gathering, analyzing, applying, and sharing data in order to promote school improvement, has recently become a prominent process in the quest to assist students in attaining educational success and helping schools meet accountability benchmarks (Wayman, 2005; Poynton & Carey, 2006). This…
-
The multiple resource inventory decision-making process
Victor A. Rudis
1993-01-01
A model of the multiple resource inventory decision-making process is presented that identifies steps in conducting inventories, describes the infrastructure, and points out knowledge gaps that are common to many interdisciplinary studies.Successful efforts to date suggest the need to bridge the gaps by sharing elements, maintain dialogue among stakeholders in multiple...
-
Elwyn, Glyn; Burstin, Helen; Barry, Michael J; Corry, Maureen P; Durand, Marie Anne; Lessler, Daniel; Saigal, Christopher
2018-04-27
Efforts to implement the use of patient decision aids to stimulate shared decision making are gaining prominence. Patient decision aids have been designed to help patients participate in making specific choices among health care options. Because these tools clearly influence decisions, poor quality, inaccurate or unbalanced presentations or misleading tools are a risk to patients. As payer interest in these tools increases, so does the risk that patients are harmed by the use of tools that are described as patient decision aids yet fail to meet established standards. To address this problem, the National Quality Forum (NQF) in the USA convened a multi-stakeholder expert panel in 2016 to propose national standards for a patient decision aid certification process. In 2017, NQF established an Action Team to foster shared decision making, and to call for a national certification process as one recommendation among others to stimulate improvement. A persistent barrier to the setup of a national patient decision aids certification process is the lack of a sustainable financial model to support the work. Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
-
Stacey, Dawn; Hill, Sophie; McCaffery, Kirsten; Boland, Laura; Lewis, Krystina B; Horvat, Lidia
2017-01-01
Basic health literacy is required for making health decisions. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the use of shared decision making interventions for supporting patient involvement in making health decisions. The chapter provides a definition of shared decision making and discusses the link between shared decision making and the three levels of health literacy: functional, communicative/interactive, and critical. The Interprofessional Shared Decision Making Model is used to identify the various players involved: the patient, the family/surrogate/significant others, decision coach, and health care professionals. When patients are involved in shared decision making, they have better health outcomes, better healthcare experiences, and likely lower costs. Yet, their degree of involvement is influenced by their level of health literacy. Interventions to facilitate shared decision making are patient decision aids, decision coaching, and question prompt lists. Patient decision aids have been shown to improve knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and chosen options congruent with patients' values. Decision coaching improves knowledge and patient satisfaction. Question prompts also improve satisfaction. When shared decision making interventions have been evaluated with patients presumed to have lower health literacy, they appeared to be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups compared to those with higher literacy or better socioeconomic status. However, special attention needs to be applied when designing these interventions for populations with lower literacy. Two case exemplars are provided to illustrate the design and choice of interventions to better support patients with varying levels of health literacy. Despite evidence indicating these interventions are effective for involving patients in shared decision making, few are used in routine clinical practice. To increase their uptake, implementation strategies need to overcome barriers interfering with their use. Implementation strategies include training health care professionals, adopting SDM interventions that target patients, such as patient decision aids, and monitor patients' decisional comfort using the SURE test. Integrating health literacy principles is important when developing interventions that facilitate shared decision making and essential to avoid inadvertently producing higher inequalities between patients with varying levels of health literacy.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Effects of an educational programme on shared decision-making among Korean nurses.
Jo, Kae-Hwa; An, Gyeong-Ju
2015-12-01
This study was conducted to examine the effects of an educational programme on shared decision-making on end-of-life care performance, moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making among Korean nurses. A quasi-experimental study with a non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design was used. Forty-one clinical nurses were recruited as participants from two different university hospitals located in Daegu, Korea. Twenty nurses in the control group received no intervention, and 21 nurses in the experimental group received the educational programme on shared decision-making. Data were collected with a questionnaire covering end-of-life care performance, moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making. Analysis of the data was done with the chi-square test, t-test and Fisher's exact test using SPSS/Win 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The experimental group showed significantly higher scores in moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making after the intervention compared with the control group. This study suggests that the educational programme on shared decision-making was effective in increasing the moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making among Korean nurses. © 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
-
Antibiotic and shared decision-making preferences among adolescents in Malaysia
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
-
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.
-
Noguera, Antonio; Yennurajalingam, Sriram; Torres-Vigil, Isabel; Parsons, Henrique Afonseca; Duarte, Eva Rosina; Palma, Alejandra; Bunge, Sofia; Palmer, J Lynn; Bruera, Eduardo
2014-05-01
Studies to determine the decisional control preferences (DCPs) in Hispanic patients receiving palliative care are limited. The aims of this study were to describe DCPs, disclosure of information, and satisfaction with decision making among Hispanics and to determine the degree of concordance between patients' DCPs and their self-reported decisions. We surveyed 387 cancer patients referred to outpatient palliative care clinics in Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, and the U.S. DCPs were measured with the Control Preference Scale, disclosure preferences with the Disclosure of Information Preferences questionnaire, and satisfaction with care with the Satisfaction with Decision Scale. In this study, 182 patients (47.6%) preferred shared decisional control, 119 (31.2%) preferred active decisional control, and 81 (21.2%) preferred a passive approach. Concerning their diagnosis and prognosis, 345 (92%) patients wanted to know their diagnosis, and 355 (94%) wanted to know their prognosis. Three hundred thirty-seven (87%) patients were satisfied with the decision-making process. DCPs were concordant with the self-reported decision-making process in 264 (69%) patients (weighted kappa = 0.55). Patients' greater satisfaction with the decision-making process was correlated with older age (P ≤ 0.001) and with a preference for enhanced diagnostic disclosure (P ≤ 0.024). Satisfaction did not correlate with concordance in the decision-making process. The vast majority preferred a shared or active decision-making process and wanted information about their diagnosis and prognosis. Older patients and those who wanted to know their diagnosis seemed to be more satisfied with the way treatment decisions were made. Copyright © 2014 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
What are the decision-making preferences of patients in vascular surgery? A mixed-methods study.
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/.
-
Ofstad, Eirik H; Frich, Jan C; Schei, Edvin; Frankel, Richard M; Gulbrandsen, Pål
2014-11-01
To identify and characterize physicians' statements that contained evidence of clinically relevant decisions in encounters with patients in different hospital settings. Qualitative analysis of 50 videotaped encounters from wards, the emergency room (ER) and outpatient clinics in a department of internal medicine at a Norwegian university hospital. Clinical decisions could be grouped in a temporal order: decisions which had already been made, and were brought into the encounter by the physician (preformed decisions), decisions made in the present (here-and-now decisions), and decisions prescribing future actions given a certain course of events (conditional decisions). Preformed decisions were a hallmark in the ward and conditional decisions a main feature of ER encounters. Clinical decisions related to a patient-physician encounter spanned a time frame exceeding the duration of the encounter. While a distribution of decisions over time and space fosters sharing and dilution of responsibility between providers, it makes the decision making process hard to access for patients. In order to plan when and how to involve patients in decisions, physicians need increased awareness of when clinical decisions are made, who usually makes them, and who should make them. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments-time to begin improving quality.
Elf, Marie; Fröst, Peter; Lindahl, Göran; Wijk, Helle
2015-03-21
Successful implementation of new methods and models of healthcare to achieve better patient outcomes and safe, person-centered care is dependent on the physical environment of the healthcare architecture in which the healthcare is provided. Thus, decisions concerning healthcare architecture are critical because it affects people and work processes for many years and requires a long-term financial commitment from society. In this paper, we describe and suggest several strategies (critical factors) to promote shared-decision making when planning and designing new healthcare environments. This paper discusses challenges and hindrances observed in the literature and from the authors extensive experiences in the field of planning and designing healthcare environments. An overview is presented of the challenges and new approaches for a process that involves the mutual exchange of knowledge among various stakeholders. Additionally, design approaches that balance the influence of specific and local requirements with general knowledge and evidence that should be encouraged are discussed. We suggest a shared-decision making and collaborative planning and design process between representatives from healthcare, construction sector and architecture based on evidence and end-users' perspectives. If carefully and systematically applied, this approach will support and develop a framework for creating high quality healthcare environments.
-
Shared Decision Making 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…
-
Marahrens, Lydia; Kern, Raimar; Ziemssen, Tjalf; Fritsche, Andreas; Martus, Peter; Ziemssen, Focke; Roeck, Daniel
2017-08-09
To assess factors associated with the preferred role of the attending ophthalmologist in the decision-making processes before treating diabetic retinopathy (DR). Cross-sectional study of 810 adults attending secondary diabetes care centers (NCT02311504). Diabetes patients were classified using a validated questionnaire in an ophthalmologist-dominant decision-making (ODM), shared decision-making (SDM) and patient-dominant decision-making (PDM) style. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with the decision-making process. A majority of 74.3% patients preferred SDM between ophthalmologist and patient, 17.4% patients wanted ODM, delegating the decision-making process to the ophthalmologist, 8.3% preferred the autonomous style of PDM. Patients wanting ODM were older (OR = 1.2 per decade, p = 0.013), had a lower level of education (OR = 1.4, p = 0.001) and had a higher frequency of consultations per year (OR = 1.3, p = 0.022). Patients with better basic knowledge in DR and memorizing their HbA 1 c level showed a higher propensity for SDM (OR = 1.1, p = 0.037). Patients wanting PDM had a significantly higher education (OR = 1.3, p = 0.036) and a greater desire for receiving information from self-help groups (OR = 1.3, p = 0.015). The first evaluation of the general patient wishes for the treatment of DR confirmed the concept of SDM, which was favored by three quarters. In particular, older patients with low educational attainment wanted to delegate the decision-making process to the ophthalmologist. Amelioration of ophthalmologic education in diabetic programs might take up patients' propensity for SDM. Regardless of the decision-making group, nearly all patients wanted the medical and scientific information to be transferred by and shared with the ophthalmologist. The study was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT02311504) on December 4th 2014.
-
Légaré, France; Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, Nora; Drolet, Renée; Stacey, Dawn; Härter, Martin; Bastian, Hilda; Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique; Borduas, Francine; Charles, Cathy; Coulter, Angela; Desroches, Sophie; Friedrich, Gwendolyn; Gafni, Amiram; Graham, Ian D; Labrecque, Michel; LeBlanc, Annie; Légaré, Jean; Politi, Mary; Sargeant, Joan; Thomson, Richard
2013-01-01
Shared decision making is now making inroads in health care professionals' continuing education curriculum, but there is no consensus on what core competencies are required by clinicians for effectively involving patients in health-related decisions. Ready-made programs for training clinicians in shared decision making are in high demand, but existing programs vary widely in their theoretical foundations, length, and content. An international, interdisciplinary group of 25 individuals met in 2012 to discuss theoretical approaches to making health-related decisions, compare notes on existing programs, take stock of stakeholders concerns, and deliberate on core competencies. This article summarizes the results of those discussions. Some participants believed that existing models already provide a sufficient conceptual basis for developing and implementing shared decision making competency-based training programs on a wide scale. Others argued that this would be premature as there is still no consensus on the definition of shared decision making or sufficient evidence to recommend specific competencies for implementing shared decision making. However, all participants agreed that there were 2 broad types of competencies that clinicians need for implementing shared decision making: relational competencies and risk communication competencies. Further multidisciplinary research could broaden and deepen our understanding of core competencies for shared decision making training. Copyright © 2013 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education, and the Council on CME, Association for Hospital Medical Education.
-
Has Lean improved organizational decision making?
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.
-
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.
-
[Treatment Decision-Making Process of Cancer Patients].
Lee, Shiu-Yu C Katie
2016-10-01
The decision-making process that is used by cancer patients to determine their treatment has become more multi-foci, difficult and complicated in recent years. This has in part been attributed to the increasing incidence rate of cancer in Taiwan and the rapid development of medical technologies and treatment modalities. Oncology nurses must assist patients and family to make informed and value-based treatment decisions. Decision-making is an information process that involves appraising one's own expectation and values based on his/her knowledge on cancer and treatment options. Because cancer treatment involves risks and uncertainties, and impacts quality of life, the treatment decision-making for cancer is often stressful, or even conflicting. This paper discusses the decision-making behaviors of cancer patients and the decisional conflict, participation, and informational needs that are involved in cancer treatment. The trend toward shared decision-making and decisional support will be also explored in order to facilitate the future development of appropriate clinical interventions and research.
-
Development of a safety decision-making scenario to measure worker safety in agriculture.
Mosher, G A; Keren, N; Freeman, S A; Hurburgh, C R
2014-04-01
Human factors play an important role in the management of occupational safety, especially in high-hazard workplaces such as commercial grain-handling facilities. Employee decision-making patterns represent an essential component of the safety system within a work environment. This research describes the process used to create a safety decision-making scenario to measure the process that grain-handling employees used to make choices in a safety-related work task. A sample of 160 employees completed safety decision-making simulations based on a hypothetical but realistic scenario in a grain-handling environment. Their choices and the information they used to make their choices were recorded. Although the employees emphasized safety information in their decision-making process, not all of their choices were safe choices. Factors influencing their choices are discussed, and implications for industry, management, and workers are shared.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Roh, Young Hak; Koh, Young Do; Kim, Jong Oh; Noh, Jung Ho; Gong, Hyun Sik; Baek, Goo Hyun
2018-04-01
Health literacy is the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information needed to make appropriate health decisions. The proper comprehension by patients regarding a given disease, its treatment, and the physician's instructions plays an important role in shared decision-making. Studies have disagreed over the degree to which differences in health literacy affect patients' preferences for shared decision-making; we therefore sought to evaluate this in the context of shared decision-making about carpal tunnel release. (1) Do patients with limited health literacy have different preferences of shared decision-making for carpal tunnel release than those with greater levels of health literacy? (2) How do patients with limited health literacy retrospectively perceive their role in shared decision-making after carpal tunnel release? Over a 32-month period, one surgeon surgically treated 149 patients for carpal tunnel syndrome. Patients were eligible if they had cognitive and language function to provide informed consent and complete a self-reported questionnaire and were not eligible if they had nerve entrapment other than carpal tunnel release or had workers compensation issues; based on those, 140 (94%) were approached for study. Of those, seven (5%) were lost to followup before 6 months, leaving 133 for analysis here. Their mean age was 55 years (range, 31-76 years), and 83% (111 of 133) were women. Thirty-three percent (44 of 133) of patients had less than a high school education. Health literacy was measured according to the Newest Vital Sign during the initial visit, and a score of ≤ 3 was considered limited health literacy. Forty-four percent of patients had limited health literacy. The Control Preferences Scale was used for patients to indicate their preferred role in surgical decision-making preoperatively and to assess their perceived level of involvement postoperatively. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine whether patients' clinical, demographic, and health literacy factors accounted for the preoperative preferences and postoperative assessments of their role in shared decision-making. A total of 133 patients would provide 94% power for a medium effect size for linear regression with five main predictors. We found no differences between patients with lower levels of health literacy and those with greater health literacy in terms of preferences of shared decision-making for carpal tunnel release (3.0 ± 1.6 versus 2.7 ± 1.4; mean difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, -0.2 to 0.8; p = 0.25). A history of surgical procedures (coefficient = -0.32, p < 0.01) and a lower Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (coefficient = 0.17, p = 0.02) were independently associated with a preference for an active role in shared decision-making. However, patients with limited health literacy (coefficient = -0.31, p = 0.01) and an absence of a caregiver (coefficient = -0.28, p = 0.03) perceived a more passive role in actual decision-making. Physicians should be aware of the discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of shared decision-making among patients with limited health literacy, and physicians should consider providing a decision aid tailored to basic levels of health literacy to help patients achieve their preferred role in decision-making. Level II, prognostic study.
-
Shared decision-making as an existential journey: Aiming for restored autonomous capacity.
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.
-
What is a good medical decision? A research agenda guided by perspectives from multiple stakeholders
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Decision-making without a brain: how an amoeboid organism solves the two-armed bandit.
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.
-
Epstein, Elizabeth G; Wolfe, Katherine
2016-11-01
The purpose of this study was to preliminarily evaluate ICU family members' trust and shared decision making using modified versions of the Wake Forest Trust Survey and the Shared Decision Making-9 Survey. Using a descriptive approach, the perceptions of family members of ICU patients (n=69) of trust and shared decision making were measured using the Wake Forest Trust Survey and the 9-item Shared Decision Making (SDM-9) Questionnaire. Both surveys were modified slightly to apply to family members of ICU patients and to include perceptions of nurses as well as physicians. Overall, family members reported high levels of trust and inclusion in decision making. Family members who lived with the patient had higher levels of trust than those who did not. Family members who reported strong agreement among other family about treatment decisions had higher levels of trust and higher SDM-9 scores than those who reported less family agreement. The modified surveys may be useful in evaluating family members' trust and shared decision making in ICU settings. Future studies should include development of a comprehensive patient-centered care framework that focuses on its central goal of maintaining provider-patient/family partnerships as an avenue toward effective shared decision making. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
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…
-
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.
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/
-
Torts to contract? Moving from informed consent to shared decision-making.
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.
-
High Levels of Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret When Making Decisions About Biologics.
Lipstein, Ellen A; Lovell, Daniel J; Denson, Lee A; Kim, Sandra C; Spencer, Charles; Ittenbach, Richard F; Britto, Maria T
2016-12-01
The aim of the study was to understand the association between parents' perceptions of the decision process and the decision outcomes in decisions about the use of biologics in pediatric chronic conditions. We mailed surveys to parents of children with inflammatory bowel disease or juvenile idiopathic arthritis who had started treatment with biologics in the prior 2 years and were treated at either of 2 children's hospitals. The survey included measures of the decision process, including decision control and physician engagement, and decision outcomes, including conflict and regret. We used means and frequencies to assess the response distributions. General linear models were used to test the associations between decision process and decision outcomes. We had 201 respondents (response rate 54.9%). Approximately 47.0% reported using shared decision making. Each physician engagement behavior was experienced by the majority of parents, with the highest percentage reporting that their child's physician used language they understood and listened to them. Approximately 48.5% of parents had decisional conflict scores of 25 or greater, indicating high levels of conflict. Approximately 28.2% had no regret, 31.8% had mild regret, and the remaining 40.0% had moderate to severe regret. Shared decision making was not associated with improved decisional conflict, but physician engagement behaviors were associated with both decisional conflict and regret. Improving decision outcomes will require more than just focusing on who parents perceive as controlling the final decision. Developing interventions that facilitate specific physician engagement behaviors may decrease parents' distress around decision making and improve decision outcomes.
-
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.
-
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…
-
Osei-Bonsu, Princess E; Bolton, Rendelle E; Wiltsey Stirman, Shannon; Eisen, Susan V; Herz, Lawrence; Pellowe, Maura E
2017-04-01
It is estimated that <15% of veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have engaged in two evidence-based psychotherapies highly recommended by VA-cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure (PE). CPT and PE guidelines specify which patients are appropriate, but research suggests that providers may be more selective than the guidelines. In addition, PTSD clinical guidelines encourage "shared decision-making," but there is little research on what processes providers use to make decisions about CPT/PE. Sixteen licensed psychologists and social workers from two VA medical centers working with ≥1 patient with PTSD were interviewed about patient factors considered and decision-making processes for CPT/PE use. Qualitative analyses revealed that patient readiness and comorbid conditions influenced decisions to use or refer patients with PTSD for CPT/PE. Providers reported mentally derived and instances of patient-involved decision-making around CPT/PE use. Continued efforts to assist providers in making informed and collaborative decisions about CPT/PE use are discussed.
-
Shared clinical decision making
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
-
[Impact of shared-decision making on patient satisfaction].
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.
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.
-
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
-
Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process.
Deegan, Patricia E; Drake, Robert E
2006-11-01
Mental health professionals commonly conceptualize medication management for people with severe mental illness in terms of strategies to increase compliance or adherence. The authors argue that compliance is an inadequate construct because it fails to capture the dynamic complexity of autonomous clients who must navigate decisional conflicts in learning to manage disorders over the course of years or decades. Compliance is rooted in medical paternalism and is at odds with principles of person-centered care and evidence-based medicine. Using medication is an active process that involves complex decision making and a chance to work through decisional conflicts. It requires a partnership between two experts: the client and the practitioner. Shared decision making provides a model for them to assess a treatment's advantages and disadvantages within the context of recovering a life after a diagnosis of a major mental disorder.
-
Comparativism and the Grounds for Person-Centered Care and Shared Decision Making.
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.
-
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.
-
Swarm intelligence: when uncertainty meets conflict.
Conradt, Larissa; List, Christian; Roper, Timothy J
2013-11-01
Good decision making is important for the survival and fitness of stakeholders, but decisions usually involve uncertainty and conflict. We know surprisingly little about profitable decision-making strategies in conflict situations. On the one hand, sharing decisions with others can pool information and decrease uncertainty (swarm intelligence). On the other hand, sharing decisions can hand influence to individuals whose goals conflict. Thus, when should an animal share decisions with others? Using a theoretical model, we show that, contrary to intuition, decision sharing by animals with conflicting goals often increases individual gains as well as decision accuracy. Thus, conflict-far from hampering effective decision making-can improve decision outcomes for all stakeholders, as long as they share large-scale goals. In contrast, decisions shared by animals without conflict were often surprisingly poor. The underlying mechanism is that animals with conflicting goals are less correlated in individual choice errors. These results provide a strong argument in the interest of all stakeholders for not excluding other (e.g., minority) factions from collective decisions. The observed benefits of including diverse factions among the decision makers could also be relevant to human collective decision making.
-
Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Ravenwood, Clare; Stephens, Derek; Walton, Graham
2015-01-01
Many factors and pressures affect decisions made in UK university libraries on opening hours especially 24/7. This article reports on a project to examine the decision-making process, influential factors, and stakeholders. A workshop for senior library managers in the East Midlands was held to gather data and share experiences. From analysis of…
-
The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.
Gärtner, Fania R; Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna; Smith, Ian P; Scholl, Isabelle; Stiggelbout, Anne M; Pieterse, Arwen H
2018-01-01
To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.
-
Sibling relationships as a resource for coping with traumatic events.
Perricone, Giovanna; Fontana, Valentina; Burgio, Sofia; Polizzi, Concetta
2014-01-01
The study investigated the correlation between the perception of sibling relationship to cope an adverse occurrence - the partial collapse of a primary school - and the indicators related to the traumatic impact set off by the event, by soliciting the child's reminiscence of the catastrophic experience. One hundred trauma-exposed children were recruited from a Sicilian primary school and were administered the following research instruments: the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC-A), to investigate the traumatized response that can be triggered in the children involved; the Brother as a Resource Questionnaire (BRQ), to delve into the perception of sibling relationship as a resource. The outcomes showed statistically significant negative correlations between the Anxiety scale of the TSCC-A and the Scaffolding factors (r = -.260, p < .05) and Decision making process (r = -.315, p < 05) of the BRQ; between the Depression scale and the Scaffolding factors (r = -.147, p < .05), Emotional sharing (r = -.168, p < .05) and Decision making process (r = -.281, p < .05). The Anger scale correlated negatively with the Emotional sharing (r = -187, p < .05), the Decision making process (r = -.182, p < .05) and the Scaffolding factors (r = -.279, p < .05); the Post-traumatic Stress correlated negatively with the Scaffolding factors (r = -.203, p < .05) and the Decision making process (r = -.238, p < .05). Lastly, the Dissociation correlated negatively with the Decision making process (r = -.270, p < .05).
-
Transforming organizational culture through nursing shared governance.
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.
-
Geessink, Noralie H; Schoon, Yvonne; Olde Rikkert, Marcel Gm; van Goor, Harry
2017-01-01
Treatment decision-making in older patients with colorectal (CRC) or pancreatic cancer (PC) needs improvement. We introduced the EASYcare in Geriatric Onco-surgery (EASY-GO) intervention to optimize the shared decision-making (SDM) process among these patients. The EASY-GO intervention comprised a working method with geriatric assessment and SDM training for surgeons. A non-equivalent control group design was used. Newly diagnosed CRC/PC patients aged ≥65 years were included. Primary patient-reported experiences were the quality of SDM (SDM-Q-9, range 0-100), involvement in decision-making (Visual Analog Scale for Involvement in the decision-making process [range 0-10]), satisfaction about decision-making (Visual Analog Scale for Satisfaction concerning the decision-making process [range 0-10]), and decisional regret (Decisional Regret Scale [DRS], range 0-100). Only for DRS, lower scores are better. A total of 71.4% of the involved consultants and 42.9% of the involved residents participated in the EASY-GO training. Only 4 trained surgeons consulted patients both before (n=19) and after (n=19) training and were consequently included in the analyses. All patient-reported experience measures showed a consistent but non-significant change in the direction of improved decision-making after training. According to surgeons, decisions were significantly more often made together with the patient after training (before, 38.9% vs after, 73.7%, p =0.04). Sub-analyses per diagnosis showed that patient experiences among older PC patients consistent and clinically relevant changed in the direction of improved decision-making after training (SDM-Q-9 +13.4 [95% CI -7.9; 34.6], VAS-I +0.27 [95% CI -1.1; 1.6], VAS-S +0.88 [95% CI -0.5; 2.2], DRS -10.3 [95% CI -27.8; 7.1]). This pilot study strengthens the practical potential of the intervention's concept among older surgical cancer patients.
-
Shared decision making for patients living with inflammatory arthritis.
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].
Westermann, G M A; Maurer, J M G
2015-01-01
In the communication and interaction between doctor and patient in Western health care there has been a paradigm shift from the paternalistic approach to shared decision-making. To summarise the background situation, recent developments and the current level of shared decision-making in (youth) mental health care. We conducted a critical review of the literature relating to the methodology development, research and the use of counselling and decision-making in mental health care. The majority of patients, professionals and other stakeholders consider shared decision-making to be desirable and important for improving the quality and efficiency of care. Up till recently most research and studies have concentrated on helping patients to develop decision-making skills and on showing patients how and where to access information. At the moment more attention is being given to the development of skills and circumstances that will increase patients' interaction with care professionals and patients' emotional involvement in shared decision-making. In mental health for children and adolescents, more often than in adult mental health care, it has been customary to give more attention to these aspects of shared decision-making, particularly during counselling sessions that mark the transition from diagnosis to treatment. This emphasis has been apparent for a long time in textbooks, daily practice, methodology development and research in youth mental health care. Currently, a number of similar developments are taking place in adult mental health care. Although most health professionals support the policy of shared decision-making, the implementation of the policy in mental health care is still at an early stage. In practice, a number of obstacles still have to be surmounted. However, the experience gained with counselling and decision-making in (youth) mental health care may serve as an example to other sections of mental health care and play an important role in the further development of shared decision-making.
-
Shared governance in the endoscopy department.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Shared Decision-Making as the Future of Emergency Cardiology.
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.
-
Evaluation of Implementation of School/Community-Based Management. Final Report.
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Hawaii Business Roundtable, Honolulu.
A formative evaluation was conducted of two elementary schools that have been engaged in the School/Community-Based Management (SCBM) process in Hawaii. The evaluation process was aligned with the SCBM philosophy, which promotes shared decision making, shared responsibility, and collaboration. Stakeholders contributed to the evaluation, which…
-
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.
-
Shared Decision Making: Improving Care for Children with Autism
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Golnik, Allison; Maccabee-Ryaboy, Nadia; Scal, Peter; Wey, Andrew; Gaillard, Philippe
2012-01-01
We assessed the extent to which parents of children with autism spectrum disorder report that they are engaged in shared decision making. We measured the association between shared decision making and (a) satisfaction with care, (b) perceived guidance regarding controversial issues in autism spectrum disorder, and (c) perceived assistance…
-
Shared decision making as part of value based care: New U.S. policies challenge our readiness.
Spatz, Erica S; Elwyn, Glyn; Moulton, Benjamin W; Volk, Robert J; Frosch, Dominick L
2017-06-01
Shared decision making in the United States is increasingly being recognized as part of value-based care. During the last decade, several state and federal initiatives have linked shared decision making with reimbursement and increased protection from litigation. Additionally, private and public foundations are increasingly funding studies to identify best practices for moving shared decision making from the research world into clinical practice. These shifts offer opportunities and challenges for ensuring effective implementation. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.
-
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.
-
Wunderlich, Tracy; Cooper, Gregory; Divine, George; Flocke, Susan; Oja-Tebbe, Nancy; Stange, Kurt; Lafata, Jennifer Elston
2010-09-01
To compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions. Study physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. 70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication. Inconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening. Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Wunderlich, Tracy; Cooper, Gregory; Divine, George; Flocke, Susan; Oja-Tebbe, Nancy; Stange, Kurt; Lafata, Jennifer Elston
2010-01-01
Objective To compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions. Methods Study physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. Results 70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication. Conclusion Inconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening. Practice Implications Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions. PMID:20667678
-
Patient's decision making in selecting a hospital for elective orthopaedic surgery.
Moser, Albine; Korstjens, Irene; van der Weijden, Trudy; Tange, Huibert
2010-12-01
The admission to a hospital for elective surgery, like arthroplasty, can be planned ahead. The elective nature of arthroplasty and the increasing stimulus of the public to critically select a hospital raise the issue of how patients actually take such decisions. The aim of this paper is to describe the decision-making process of selecting a hospital as experienced by people who underwent elective joint arthroplasty and to understand what factors influenced the decision-making process. Qualitative descriptive study with 18 participants who had a hip or knee replacement within the last 5 years. Data were gathered from eight individual interviews and four focus group interviews and analysed by content analysis. Three categories that influenced the selection of a hospital were revealed: information sources, criteria in decision making and decision-making styles within the GP- patient relationship. Various contextual aspects influenced the decision-making process. Most participants gave higher priority to the selection of a medical specialist than to the selection of a hospital. Selecting a hospital for arthroplasty is extremely complex. The decision-making process is a highly individualized process because patients have to consider and assimilate a diversity of aspects, which are relevant to their specific situation. Our findings support the model of shared decision making, which indicates that general practitioners should be attuned to the distinct needs of each patient at various moments during the decision making, taking into account personal, medical and contextual factors. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
-
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.
-
Informed use of patients' records on trusted health care services.
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.
-
Brom, Linda; De Snoo-Trimp, Janine C; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Bregje D; Widdershoven, Guy A M; Stiggelbout, Anne M; Pasman, H Roeline W
2017-02-01
Patients' preferences and expectations should be taken into account in treatment decision making in the last phase of life. Shared decision making (SDM) is regarded as a way to give the patient a central role in decision making. Little is known about how SDM is used in clinical practice in advanced cancer care. To examine whether and how the steps of SDM can be recognized in decision making about second- and third-line chemotherapy. Fourteen advanced cancer patients were followed over time using face-to-face in-depth interviews and observations of the patients' out-clinic visits. Interviews and outpatient clinic visits in which treatment options were discussed or decisions made were transcribed verbatim and analysed using open coding. Patients were satisfied with the decision-making process, but the steps of SDM were barely seen in daily practice. The creation of awareness about available treatment options by physicians was limited and not discussed in an equal way. Patients' wishes and concerns were not explicitly assessed, which led to different expectations about improved survival from subsequent lines of chemotherapy. To reach SDM in daily practice, physicians should create awareness of all treatment options, including forgoing treatment, and communicate the risk of benefit and harm. Open and honest communication is needed in which patients' expectations and concerns are discussed. Through this, the difficult process of decision making in the last phase of life can be facilitated and the focus on the best care for the specific patient is strengthened. © 2015 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
An introduction to behavioural decision-making theories for paediatricians.
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.
-
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.
-
How shared is shared decision-making? A care-ethical view on the role of partner and family.
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/.
-
Vernazza, Christopher R; Rousseau, Nikki; Steele, Jimmy G; Ellis, Janice S; Thomason, John Mark; Eastham, Jane; Exley, Catherine
2015-02-01
The decision-making process within health care has been widely researched, with shared decision-making, where both patients and clinicians share technical and personal information, often being cited as the ideal model. To date, much of this research has focused on systems where patients receive their care and treatment free at the point of contact (either in government-funded schemes or in insurance-based schemes). Oral health care often involves patients making direct payments for their care and treatment, and less is known about how this payment affects the decision-making process. It is clear that patient characteristics influence decision-making, but previous evidence suggests that clinicians may assume characteristics rather than eliciting them directly. The aim was to explore the influences on how dentists' engaged in the decision-making process surrounding a high-cost item of health care, dental implant treatments (DITs). A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was undertaken using a purposive sample of primary care dentists (n = 25). Thematic analysis was undertaken to reveal emerging key themes. There were differences in how dentists discussed and offered implants. Dentists made decisions about whether to offer implants based on business factors, professional and legal obligations and whether they perceived the patient to be motivated to have treatment and their ability to pay. There was evidence that assessment of these characteristics was often based on assumptions derived from elements such as the appearance of the patient, the state of the patient's mouth and demographic details. The data suggest that there is a conflict between three elements of acting as a healthcare professional: minimizing provision of unneeded treatment, trying to fully involve patients in shared decisions and acting as a business person with the potential for financial gain. It might be expected that in the context of a high-cost healthcare intervention for which patients pay the bill themselves, that decision-making would be closer to an informed than a paternalistic model. Our research suggests that paternalistic decision-making is still practised and is influenced by assumptions about patient characteristics. Better tools and training may be required to support clinicians in this area of practice. © 2014 The Authors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
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…
-
Ricci, Karen A; Griffin, Anne R; Heslin, Kevin C; Kranke, Derrick; Dobalian, Aram
2015-06-01
Hospital-evacuation decisions are rarely straightforward in protracted advance-warning events. Previous work provides little insight into the decision-making process around evacuation. This study was conducted to identify factors that most heavily influenced the decisions to evacuate the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New York Harbor Healthcare System's (NYHHS; New York USA) Manhattan Campus before Hurricane Irene in 2011 and before Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Semi-structured interviews with 11 senior leaders were conducted on the processes and factors that influenced the evacuation decisions prior to each event. The most influential factor in the decision to evacuate the Manhattan Campus before Hurricane Irene was New York City's (NYC's) hospital-evacuation mandate. As a federal facility, the Manhattan VA medical center (VAMC) was exempt from the city's order, but decision makers felt compelled to comply. In the case of Superstorm Sandy, corporate memory of a similar 1992 storm that crippled the Manhattan facility drove the decision to evacuate before the storm hit. Results suggest that hospital-evacuation decisions are confounded by political considerations and are influenced by past disaster experience. Greater shared situational awareness among at-risk hospitals, along with a more coordinated approach to evacuation decision making, could reduce pressure on hospitals to make these high-stakes decisions. Systematic mechanisms for collecting, documenting, and sharing lessons learned from past disasters are sorely needed at the institutional, local, and national levels.
-
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.
-
Neural basis of quasi-rational decision making.
Lee, Daeyeol
2006-04-01
Standard economic theories conceive homo economicus as a rational decision maker capable of maximizing utility. In reality, however, people tend to approximate optimal decision-making strategies through a collection of heuristic routines. Some of these routines are driven by emotional processes, and others are adjusted iteratively through experience. In addition, routines specialized for social decision making, such as inference about the mental states of other decision makers, might share their origins and neural mechanisms with the ability to simulate or imagine outcomes expected from alternative actions that an individual can take. A recent surge of collaborations across economics, psychology and neuroscience has provided new insights into how such multiple elements of decision making interact in the brain.
-
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.
-
Sharing the Diagnostic Process in the Clinical Teaching Environment: A Case Study
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Cuello-Garcia; Carlos
2005-01-01
Revealing or visualizing the thinking involved in making clinical decisions is a challenge. A case study is presented with a visual implement for sharing the diagnostic process. This technique adapts the Bayesian approach to the case presentation. Pretest probabilities and likelihood ratios are gathered to obtain post-test probabilities of every…
-
Teachers' Thoughts on Student Decision Making during Engineering Design Lessons
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Meyer, Helen
2018-01-01
In this paper, I share the results of a study of teachers' ideas about student decision-making at entry into a professional development program to integrate engineering into their instruction. The framework for the Engineering Design Process (EDP) was based on a Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) model. The EDP embedded within the CBL model suggests…
-
Ahluwalia, Sangeeta C; Harris, Benjamin J; Lewis, Valerie A; Colla, Carrie H
2018-06-01
To measure the extent to which accountable care organizations (ACOs) have adopted end-of-life (EOL) care planning processes and characterize those ACOs that have established processes related to EOL. This study uses data from three waves (2012-2015) of the National Survey of ACOs. Respondents were 397 ACOs participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial ACO contracts. This is a cross-sectional survey study using multivariate ordered logit regression models. We measured the extent to which the ACO had adopted EOL care planning processes as well as organizational characteristics, including care management, utilization management, health informatics, and shared decision-making capabilities, palliative care, and patient-centered medical home experience. Twenty-one percent of ACOs had few or no EOL care planning processes, 60 percent had some processes, and 19.6 percent had advanced processes. ACOs with a hospital in their system (OR: 3.07; p = .01), and ACOs with advanced care management (OR: 1.43; p = .02), utilization management (OR: 1.58, p = .00), and shared decision-making capabilities (OR: 16.3, p = .000) were more likely to have EOL care planning processes than those with no hospital or few to no capabilities. There remains considerable room for today's ACOs to increase uptake of EOL care planning, possibly by leveraging existing care management, utilization management, and shared decision-making processes. © Health Research and Educational Trust.
-
The Experience of Older People in the Shared Decision-Making Process in Advanced Kidney Care.
Thomas, Nicola; Jenkins, Karen; McManus, Breeda; Gracey, Brian
2016-01-01
Introduction . This qualitative descriptive study was designed to understand the experiences of older people (>70 years) when making a decision about renal replacement therapy. This was a coproduced study, whereby patients and carers were involved in all aspects of the research process. Methods . A Patient and Carer Group undertook volunteer and research training. The group developed the interview questions and interviewed 29 people who had commenced dialysis or made a decision not to have dialysis. Interview data were transcribed and analysed, and common themes were identified. Results . 22 men and 7 women (mean age 77.4 yrs) from two hospitals were interviewed. 18 had chosen haemodialysis, 6 peritoneal dialysis, and 5 supportive care. The majority of patients were involved in the dialysis decision. Most were satisfied with the amount of information that they received, although some identified that the quality of the information could be improved, especially how daily living can be affected by dialysis. Conclusion . Our findings show that overall older patients were involved in the dialysis decision along with their families. Our approach is innovative because it is the first time that patients and carers have been involved in a coproduced study about shared decision-making.
-
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 in Local School Planning: An Urban School System's Experience.
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Elenbogen, Janet C.; Hiestand, Nancy I.
The practices and perceptions of a shared planning team decision-making model and the effects on student achievement and attendance are examined in this study. Survey results, test scores, and background data on schools were utilized to analyze the relationships among the degree of shared decision-making and planning effectiveness ratings, student…
-
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
-
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 and communication theory: grounding the tango].
Kasper, Jürgen; Légaré, France; Scheibler, Fülöp; Geiger, Friedemann
2010-01-01
Shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to overcome outdated social role models in the health care system. The concept, however, adheres to archaic epistemological assumptions as can be inferred from the rudimentary stage of the measurement methods used and from the information monopoly that the physician still holds in this concept. Advantages of an up-to-date model of knowledge for understanding and operationalising SDM are outlined. To this purpose, essential definitions of the concept are reflected in terms of epistemology. Accordingly, information emerges through a process of social construction. Likewise, interpersonal relations do not represent a static condition; rather, they develop anew with each interaction. Therefore, constructs suitable to focus on dyadic interaction processes can be used as indicators of sharing in SDM. Theories and methods of the interpersonal paradigm are advocated. Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier GmbH.
-
Improving shared decision-making in adolescents through antibiotic education.
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.
-
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,…
-
Volk, Robert J; Shokar, Navkiran K; Leal, Viola B; Bulik, Robert J; Linder, Suzanne K; Mullen, Patricia Dolan; Wexler, Richard M; Shokar, Gurjeet S
2014-11-01
Although research suggests that patients prefer a shared decision making (SDM) experience when making healthcare decisions, clinicians do not routinely implement SDM into their practice and training programs are needed. Using a novel case-based strategy, we developed and pilot tested an online educational program to promote shared decision making (SDM) by primary care clinicians. A three-phased approach was used: 1) development of a conceptual model of the SDM process; 2) development of an online teaching case utilizing the Design A Case (DAC) authoring template, a well-tested process used to create peer-reviewed web-based clinical cases across all levels of healthcare training; and 3) pilot testing of the case. Participants were clinician members affiliated with several primary care research networks across the United States who answered an invitation email. The case used prostate cancer screening as the clinical context and was delivered online. Post-intervention ratings of clinicians' general knowledge of SDM, knowledge of specific SDM steps, confidence in and intention to perform SDM steps were also collected online. Seventy-nine clinicians initially volunteered to participate in the study, of which 49 completed the case and provided evaluations. Forty-three clinicians (87.8%) reported the case met all the learning objectives, and 47 (95.9%) indicated the case was relevant for other equipoise decisions. Thirty-one clinicians (63.3%) accessed supplementary information via links provided in the case. After viewing the case, knowledge of SDM was high (over 90% correctly identified the steps in a SDM process). Determining a patient's preferred role in making the decision (62.5% very confident) and exploring a patient's values (65.3% very confident) about the decisions were areas where clinician confidence was lowest. More than 70% of the clinicians intended to perform SDM in the future. A comprehensive model of the SDM process was used to design a case-based approach to teaching SDM skills to primary care clinicians. The case was favorably rated in this pilot study. Clinician skills training for helping patients clarify their values and for assessing patients' desire for involvement in decision making remain significant challenges and should be a focus of future comparative studies.
-
Schroy, Paul C; Duhovic, Emir; Chen, Clara A; Heeren, Timothy C; Lopez, William; Apodaca, Danielle L; Wong, John B
2016-05-01
Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own. To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option. Randomized controlled trial. Asymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014. The primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction. Although providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates. Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making. Providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN. © The Author(s) 2016.
-
Knox, Lucy; Douglas, Jacinta M; Bigby, Christine
2015-01-01
To understand how the spouses of individuals with severe TBI experience the process of supporting their partners with decision-making. This study adopted a constructivist grounded theory approach, with data consisting of in-depth interviews conducted with spouses over a 12-month period. Data were analysed through an iterative process of open and focused coding, identification of emergent categories and exploration of relationships between categories. Participants were four spouses of individuals with severe TBI (with moderate-severe disability). Spouses had shared committed relationships (marriage or domestic partnerships) for at least 4 years at initial interview. Three spouses were in relationships that had commenced following injury. Two main themes emerged from the data. The first identified the saliency of the relational space in which decision-making took place. The second revealed the complex nature of decision-making within the spousal relationship. Spouses experience decision-making as a complex multi-stage process underpinned by a number of relational factors. Increased understanding of this process can guide health professionals in their provision of support for couples in exploring decision-making participation after injury.
-
Shared decision-making in neonatology: an utopia or an attainable goal?
D'Aloja, Ernesto; Floris, Laura; Muller, Mima; Birocchi, Francesca; Fanos, Vassilios; Paribello, Francesco; Demontis, Roberto
2010-10-01
Medical decision making is sometimes considered as a relatively simple process in which a decision may be made by the physician, by the patient, or by both patient and physician working together. There are three main models of decision making--paternalism, patient informed choice, and shared decision-making (SDM), having each one of these drawbacks and limitations. Historically, the most adopted one was the paternalism (strongly 'Doctor knows best'), where the professional made the decision based on what he/she considered to be as the patient's best interest, not necessarily contemplating patient's will and wishes. Currently, at the antipodes, the patient informed choice, where the patient makes his/her decision based on information received from the physician with no possible interference of professional's own preferences, seems to be the preferred relationship standard. SDM represents an intermediate approach between the two above-mentioned opposite models, being a medical process that involves actively the doctor and the patient who both bring their own facts and preferences to reach an agreement on the decision on if, when and how to treat a disease. This model, being characterized by elements pertaining to both the others, is gaining popularity in several medical and surgical scenarios whenever a competent patient is able to actively participate into the decisional process. On this basis can this model be implemented also in a Neonatology Intensive Care Unit where little patients are--by nature--incompetent, being the diagnostic/therapeutic choices taken by parents? We focused on this complex item considering four possible different scenarios and it seems to us that it could be possible to introduce such an approach, providing that parents' empowerment, a good physician's communication skill and consideration of all cultural, religious, economic, and ethic values of every single actor have been fairly taken into account.
-
Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy.
Kim, W C; Mauborgne, R
1997-01-01
Unlike the traditional factors of production--land, labor, and capital--knowledge is a resource that can't be forced out of people. But creating and sharing knowledge is essential to fostering innovation, the key challenge of the knowledge-based economy. To create a climate in which employees volunteer their creativity and expertise, managers need to look beyond the traditional tools at their disposal. They need to build trust. The authors have studied the links between trust, idea sharing, and corporate performance for more than a decade. They have explored the question of why managers of local subsidiaries so often fail to share information with executives at headquarters. They have studied the dynamics of idea sharing in product development teams, joint ventures, supplier partnerships, and corporate transformations. They offer an explanation for why people resist change even when it would benefit them directly. In every case, the decisive factor was what the authors call fair process--fairness in the way a company makes and executes decisions. The elements of fair process are simple: Engage people's input in decisions that directly affect them. Explain why decisions are made the way they are. Make clear what will be expected of employees after the changes are made. Fair process may sound like a soft issue, but it is crucial to building trust and unlocking ideas. Without it, people are apt to withhold their full cooperation and their creativity. The results are costly: ideas that never see daylight and initiatives that are never seized.
-
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
-
The Effect of Shared Information on Pilot/Controller And Controller/Controller Interactions
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Hansman, R. John
1999-01-01
In order to respond to the increasing demand on limited airspace system resources, a number of applications of information technology have been proposed, or are under investigation, to improve the efficiency, capacity and reliability of ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) operations. Much of the attention in advanced ATM technology has focused on advanced automation systems or decision aiding systems to improve the performance of individual Pilots or Controllers. However, the most significant overall potential for information technology appears to he in increasing the shared information between human agents such as Pilots, Controllers or between interacting Controllers or traffic flow managers. Examples of proposed shared information systems in the US include; Controller Pilot Databank Communication (CPDLC), Traffic Management Advisor (TMA); Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS); Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) and NAS Level Common Information Exchange. Air Traffic Management is fundamentally a human centered process consisting of the negotiation, execution and monitoring of contracts between human agents for the allocation of limited airspace, runway and airport surface resources. The decision processes within ATM tend to be Semistructured. Many of the routine elements in ATM decision making on the part of the Controllers or Pilots are well Structured and can be represented by well defined rules or procedures. However in disrupted conditions, the ATM decision processes are often Unstructured and cannot be reduced to a set of discrete rules. As a consequence, the ability to automate ATM processes will be limited and ATM will continue to be a human centric process where the responsibility and the authority for the negotiation will continue to rest with human Controllers and Pilots. The use of information technology to support the human decision process will therefore be an important aspect of ATM modernization. The premise of many of the proposed shared information systems is that the performance of ATM operations will improve with an increase in Shared Situation Awareness between agents (Pilots, Controller, Dispatchers). This will allow better informed control decisions and an improved ability to negotiate between agents. A common information basis may reduce communication load and may increase the level of collaboration in the decision process. In general, information sharing is expected to have advantages for all agents within the system. However there are important questions which remain to be,addressed. For example: What shared information is most important for developing effective Shared Situation Awareness? Are there issues of information saturation? Does information parity create ambiguity in control authority? Will information sharing induce undesirable or unstable gaming behavior between agents? This paper will explore the effect of current and proposed information sharing between different ATM agents. The paper will primarily concentrate on bilateral tactical interactions between specific agents (Pilot/Controller; Controller/Controller; Pilot/Dispatcher; Controller/Dispatcher) however it will also briefly discuss multilateral interaction and more strategic interactions.
-
The effect of simulated narratives that leverage EMR data on shared decision-making: a pilot study.
Zeng-Treitler, Qing; Gibson, Bryan; Hill, Brent; Butler, Jorie; Christensen, Carrie; Redd, Douglas; Shao, Yijun; Bray, Bruce
2016-07-22
Shared decision-making can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. To participate in shared decision-making, patients need information about the potential risks and benefits of treatment options. Our team has developed a novel prototype tool for shared decision-making called hearts like mine (HLM) that leverages EHR data to provide personalized information to patients regarding potential outcomes of different treatments. These potential outcomes are presented through an Icon array and/or simulated narratives for each "person" in the display. In this pilot project we sought to determine whether the inclusion of simulated narratives in the display affects individuals' decision-making. Thirty subjects participated in this block-randomized study in which they used a version of HLM with simulated narratives and a version without (or in the opposite order) to make a hypothetical therapeutic decision. After each decision, participants completed a questionnaire that measured decisional confidence. We used Chi square tests to compare decisions across conditions and Mann-Whitney U tests to examine the effects of narratives on decisional confidence. Finally, we calculated the mean of subjects' post-experiment rating of whether narratives were helpful in their decision-making. In this study, there was no effect of simulated narratives on treatment decisions (decision 1: Chi squared = 0, p = 1.0; decision 2: Chi squared = 0.574, p = 0.44) or Decisional confidence (decision 1, w = 105.5, p = 0.78; decision 2, w = 86.5, p = 0.28). Post-experiment, participants reported that narratives helped them to make decisions (mean = 3.3/4). We found that simulated narratives had no measurable effect on decisional confidence or decisions and most participants felt that the narratives were helpful to them in making therapeutic decisions. The use of simulated stories holds promise for promoting shared decision-making while minimizing their potential biasing effect.
-
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
-
Team Leadership and Cancer End-of-Life Decision Making.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nguyen, Florence; Moumjid, Nora; Charles, Cathy; Gafni, Amiram; Whelan, Tim; Carrère, Marie-Odile
2014-02-01
To explore attitudes of French surgeons and their patients towards treatment decision-making (TDM) in the medical encounter. Surgeons involved in early stage breast cancer and their patients treated in a French cancer care network received a cross-sectional survey questionnaire containing examples of four different approaches to TDM: paternalistic, "some sharing", informed TDM and, shared TDM. Surgeons' interaction styles were clearly distributed among paternalistic, shared and mixed. The paternalistic approach seemed to be associated with private rather than public practice and with less professional experience. Patients reported a rather low level of participation in TDM, varying by socio-demographic characteristics. One third of patients were dissatisfied with the way their treatment decision had been made. Most surgeons reported adopting the "some sharing" approach. However, one patient out of three reported that they would have liked to participate more in the TDM process. Surgeons need to ask patients what their preferences for involvement in TDM are and then think about ways to accommodate both their own and patients' preferences regarding the TDM process to be used in each encounter. In addition, decision aids could be offered to surgeons to help them discuss treatment options with their patients. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Enhances Information Sharing and Group Decision Making Quality.
De Wilde, Tim R W; Ten Velden, Femke S; De Dreu, Carsten K W
2017-01-11
Groups can make better decisions than individuals when members cooperatively exchange and integrate their uniquely held information and insights. However, under conformity pressures group members are biased towards exchanging commonly known information, and away from exchanging unique information, thus undermining group decision-making quality. At the neurobiological level, conformity associates with the neuropeptide oxytocin. A double-blind placebo controlled study found no evidence for oxytocin induced conformity. Compared to placebo groups, three-person groups whose members received intranasal oxytocin, focused more on unique information (i) and repeated this information more often (ii). These findings reveal oxytocin as a neurobiological driver of group decision-making processes.
-
The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Enhances Information Sharing and Group Decision Making Quality
De Wilde, Tim R. W.; Ten Velden, Femke S.; De Dreu, Carsten K. W.
2017-01-01
Groups can make better decisions than individuals when members cooperatively exchange and integrate their uniquely held information and insights. However, under conformity pressures group members are biased towards exchanging commonly known information, and away from exchanging unique information, thus undermining group decision-making quality. At the neurobiological level, conformity associates with the neuropeptide oxytocin. A double-blind placebo controlled study found no evidence for oxytocin induced conformity. Compared to placebo groups, three-person groups whose members received intranasal oxytocin, focused more on unique information (i) and repeated this information more often (ii). These findings reveal oxytocin as a neurobiological driver of group decision-making processes. PMID:28074896
-
Shared decision-making in the paediatric field: a literature review and concept analysis.
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.
-
Gorini, Alessandra; Mazzocco, Ketti; Pravettoni, Gabriella
2015-01-01
Due to the lack of other treatment options, patient candidates for participation in phase I clinical trials are considered the most vulnerable, and many ethical concerns have emerged regarding the informed consent process used in the experimental design of such trials. Starting with these considerations, this nonsystematic review is aimed at analyzing the decision-making processes underlying patients' decision about whether to participate (or not) in phase I trials in order to clarify the cognitive and emotional aspects most strongly implicated in this decision. Considering that there is no uniform decision calculus and that many different variables other than the patient-physician relationship (including demographic, clinical, and personal characteristics) may influence patients' preferences for and processing of information, we conclude that patients' informed decision-making can be facilitated by creating a rigorously developed, calibrated, and validated computer tool modeled on each single patient's knowledge, values, and emotional and cognitive decisional skills. Such a tool will also help oncologists to provide tailored medical information that is useful to improve the shared decision-making process, thereby possibly increasing patient participation in clinical trials. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
-
The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review
Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna; Smith, Ian P.; Scholl, Isabelle; Stiggelbout, Anne M.; Pieterse, Arwen H.
2018-01-01
Objective To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. Methods In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. Results We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. Conclusions Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument’s content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations. PMID:29447193
-
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
-
Smith, Michael A; Clayman, Marla L; Frader, Joel; Arenson, Melanie; Haber-Barker, Natalie; Ryan, Claire; Emanuel, Linda; Michelson, Kelly
2018-06-19
Little is known about how decision-making conversations occur during pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) family conferences (FCs). Describe the decision-making process and implementation of shared decision making (SDM) during PICU FCs. Observational study. University-based tertiary care PICU, including 31 parents and 94 PICU healthcare professionals involved in FCs. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed 14 PICU FCs involving decision-making discussions. We used a modified grounded theory and content analysis approach to explore the use of traditionally described stages of decision making (DM) (information exchange, deliberation, and determining a plan). We also identified the presence or absence of predefined SDM elements. DM involved the following modified stages: information exchange; information-oriented deliberation; plan-oriented deliberation; and determining a plan. Conversations progressed through stages in a nonlinear manner. For the main decision discussed, all conferences included a presentation of the clinical issues, treatment alternatives, and uncertainty. A minority of FCs included assessing the family's understanding (21%), assessing the family's need for input from others (28%), exploring the family's desired decision-making role (35%), and eliciting the family's opinion (42%). In the FCs studied, we found that DM is a nonlinear process. We also found that several SDM elements that could provide information about parents' perspectives and needs did not always occur, identifying areas for process improvement.
-
What is known about parents' treatment decisions? A narrative review of pediatric decision making.
Lipstein, Ellen A; Brinkman, William B; Britto, Maria T
2012-01-01
With the increasing complexity of decisions in pediatric medicine, there is a growing need to understand the pediatric decision-making process. To conduct a narrative review of the current research on parent decision making about pediatric treatments and identify areas in need of further investigation. Articles presenting original research on parent decision making were identified from MEDLINE (1966-6/2011), using the terms "decision making," "parent," and "child." We included papers focused on treatment decisions but excluded those focused on information disclosure to children, vaccination, and research participation decisions. We found 55 papers describing 52 distinct studies, the majority being descriptive, qualitative studies of the decision-making process, with very limited assessment of decision outcomes. Although parents' preferences for degree of participation in pediatric decision making vary, most are interested in sharing the decision with the provider. In addition to the provider, parents are influenced in their decision making by changes in their child's health status, other community members, prior knowledge, and personal factors, such as emotions and faith. Parents struggle to balance these influences as well as to know when to include their child in decision making. Current research demonstrates a diversity of influences on parent decision making and parent decision preferences; however, little is known about decision outcomes or interventions to improve outcomes. Further investigation, using prospective methods, is needed in order to understand how to support parents through the difficult treatment decisions.
-
Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist review protocol.
Groot, Gary; Waldron, Tamara; Carr, Tracey; McMullen, Linda; Bandura, Lori-Ann; Neufeld, Shelley-May; Duncan, Vicky
2017-06-17
The practicality of applying evidence to healthcare systems with the aim of implementing change is an ongoing challenge for practitioners, policy makers, and academics. Shared decision- making (SDM), a method of medical decision-making that allows a balanced relationship between patients, physicians, and other key players in the medical decision process, is purported to improve patient and system outcomes. Despite the oft-mentioned benefits, there are gaps in the current literature between theory and implementation that would benefit from a realist approach given the value of this methodology to analyze complex interventions. In this protocol, we outline a study that will explore: "In which situations, how, why, and for whom does SDM between patients and health care providers contribute to improved decision making?" A seven step iterative process will be described including preliminary theory development, establishment of a search strategy, selection and appraisal of literature, data extraction, analysis and synthesis of extracted results from literature, and formation of a revised program theory with the input of patients, physicians, nurse navigators, and policy makers from a stakeholder session. The goal of the realist review will be to identify and refine a program theory for SDM through the identification of mechanisms which shape the characteristics of when, how, and why SDM will, and will not, work. PROSPERO CRD42017062609.
-
Shared Decisions & Technology-Assisted Learning
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Jacobs, Mary
2005-01-01
In this short article, the author discusses how Henderson Middle School in Jackson, Georgia used shared decision making to improve student achievement through the use of laptop computers. With effective use of technology and shared decision making, administrators at Henderson believe that they can continue to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress under…
-
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.
-
Tan, Judy Y; Xu, Lucy J; Lopez, Fanny Y; Jia, Justin L; Pho, Mai T; Kim, Karen E; Chin, Marshall H
2016-10-01
Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of patient-provider communication. Little is known about the role of SDM in health disparities among Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM). We illustrate how issues at the intersection of AAPI and SGM identities affect SDM processes and health outcomes. We discuss experiences of AAPI SGM that are affected by AAPI heterogeneity, SGM stigma, multiple minority group identities, and sources of discrimination. Recommendations for clinical practice, research, policy, community development, and education are offered.
-
Midwives׳ decision making about transfers for 'slow' labour in rural New Zealand.
Patterson, Jean; Skinner, Joan; Foureur, Maralyn
2015-06-01
Midwives who provided Lead Maternity Care (LMC) to women in rural areas were invited to share their experiences of decision making around transfer in labour. Ethics approval was obtained from the NZ National Ethics Committee. to explore midwives׳ decision making processes when making transfer decisions for slow labour progress from rural areas to specialist care. individual and group interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of rural midwives. The recalled decision processes of the midwives were subjected to a content and thematic analysis to expose experiences in common and to highlight aspects of probabilistic (normative), heuristic (behavioural), and group decision making theory within the rural context. New Zealand. 15 midwives who provided LMC services to women in their rural areas. 'making the mind shift', 'sitting on the boundary', 'timing the transfer' and 'the community interest' emerged as key themes. The decision processes were also influenced by the woman׳s preferences and the distance and time involved in the transfer. the findings contribute insights into the challenge of making transfer decisions in rural units; particularly for otherwise well women who were experiencing slow labour progress. Knowledge of the fallibility of our heuristic decision making strategies may encourage the practitioner to step back and take a more deliberative, probabilistic view of the situation. In addition to the clinical picture, this process should include the relational and aspirational aspects for the woman, and any logistical challenges of the particular rural context. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Kim, Young Mi; Kols, Adrienne; Martin, Antonieta; Silva, David; Rinehart, Ward; Prammawat, Sarah; Johnson, Sarah; Church, Kathryn
2005-12-01
The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a decision-making tool to be used by providers and clients during family planning visits to improve the quality of services. It is important to examine the tool's usability and its impact on counseling and decision-making processes during family planning consultations. Thirteen providers in Mexico City were videotaped with family planning clients three months before and one month after attending a training session on the WHO decision-making tool. The videotapes were coded for client-provider communication and eye contact, and decision-making behaviors were rated. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions explored clients' and providers' opinions of the tool. After providers began using the decision-making tool, they gave clients more information on family planning, tailored that information more closely to clients' situations and more often discussed HIV/AIDS prevention, dual protection and condom use. Client involvement in the decision-making process and client active communication increased, contributing to a shift from provider-dominated to shared decision making. Clients reported that the tool helped them understand the provider's explanations and made them feel more comfortable talking and asking questions during consultations. After one month of practice with the decision-making tool, most providers felt comfortable with it and found it useful; however, they recommended some changes to the tool to help engage clients in the decision-making process. The decision-making tool was useful both as a job aid for providers and as a decision aid for clients.
-
Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.
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.
-
Padilla-Garrido, N; Aguado-Correa, F; Ortega-Moreno, M; Bayo-Calero, J; Bayo-Lozano, E
2017-04-30
In Spain there is no clear knowledge about the degree to which Shared Decision Making (SDM) is carried out in the normal practice of oncology. Our article analyses the preferred role and the perceived role of oncological patients and measures the SDM process from their perspective. Descriptive transversal study using a self-conducted questionnaire with patients with different types of cancer. To evaluate the role preferred and perceived by the patient we used The Control Preference Scales (CPS) and to measure SDM we used The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Out of the 132 patients surveyed, only 118 provided analysable data. No evidence was found that sex, age, educational level or type of tumour affected the preferred role or the perceived role. Only 59.3% was in agreement with the role exercised. All of those who preferred a passive role achieved this (21.2%), while out of those who wanted a shared role (78.8%), this was achieved by only 48.39% while the remaining 51.61% played a passive role. None preferred or played an active role. The set of patients evaluated the SDM process with a score of 41.07±5.94, on a scale of 0 to 100, with the highest score of 61.39 ± 13.24 reached by urological patients. Our study found no evidence that, from the point of view of the oncological patient, the SDM model is being implemented in practice.
-
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.
-
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.
-
My Experience with Alcohol, a 17th-Century Mathematician, and a Personal Decision
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Eaton, Dennis R.; Rector, Sheila M.
2009-01-01
This writing shares the first author's personal experience with alcohol, the negative consequences of his choices, and the ultimate answering of the question, "Am I an alcoholic and should I drink again?" The decision-making process and the eventual answer come from Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century mathematician. This process is explained and…
-
Family health care decision making and self-efficacy with patients with ALS at the end of life
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
-
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.
-
Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.
Kane, Heather L; Halpern, Michael T; Squiers, Linda B; Treiman, Katherine A; McCormack, Lauren A
2014-01-01
Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice. © 2014 American Cancer Society, Inc.
-
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.
-
Multimorbidity and Decision-Making Preferences Among Older Adults.
Chi, Winnie C; Wolff, Jennifer; Greer, Raquel; Dy, Sydney
2017-11-01
Understanding individuals' preferences for participating in health care decisions is foundational to delivering person-centered care. We aimed to (1) explore preferences for health care decision making among older adults, and (2) identify multimorbidity profiles associated with preferring less active, ie, passive, participation among older US adults. Ours was a cross-sectional, nationally representative study of 2,017 National Health and Aging Trends Study respondents. Passive decision-making preference was defined as preferring to leave decisions to physicians. Multimorbidity profiles, based on 13 prevalent chronic conditions, were examined as (1) presence of 2 or more conditions, (2) a simple conditions count, and (3) a condition clusters count. Multiple logistic regression was used with adjustment for age, sex, education, English proficiency, and mobility limitation. Most older adults preferred to participate actively in making health care decisions. Older adults with 4 or more conditions, however, and those with multiple condition clusters are relatively less likely to prefer active decision making. Primary care physicians should initiate a shared decision-making process with older adults with 4 or more conditions or multiple condition clusters. Physicians should anticipate variation in decision-making preferences among older adults and adapt a decision-making process that suits individuals' preferences for participation to ensure person-centered care delivery. © 2017 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
-
Theory of mind and decision-making processes are impaired in Parkinson's disease.
Xi, Chunhua; Zhu, Youling; Mu, Yanfang; Chen, Bing; Dong, Bin; Cheng, Huaidong; Hu, Panpan; Zhu, Chunyan; Wang, Kai
2015-02-15
Prefrontal cortex plays a vital role in the theory of mind (ToM) and decision making, as shown in functional brain imaging and lesion studies. Considering the primary neuropathology of Parkinson's disease (PD) involving the frontal lobe system, patients with PD are expected to exhibit deficits in ToM and social decision making. The aim of this study was to investigate affective ToM and decision making in patients with PD and healthy controls (HC) in a task assessing affective ToM (Reading the Mind in the Eyes, RME) and two decision-making tasks (Iowa Gambling Task, IGT; Game of Dice Task, GDT). Consistent with previous findings, patients with PD were impaired in the affective ToM task, and when making decisions under ambiguity and in risk situations. The score of emotion recognition in the RME task was negatively correlated with the severity of the disease and positively correlated with the total number of advantageous cards chosen in the IGT. However, the final capital in the GDT was correlated with memory impairment. The present study implies that affective ToM and decision making under ambiguity may share similar neural mechanisms, while decision making under ambiguity and decision making under risk may involve processing within different neural networks. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
-
Shared decision-making using personal health record technology: a scoping review at the crossroads.
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
-
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.
-
Characterizing the orthodontic patient's purchase decision: A novel approach using netnography.
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.
-
Barber, Andrew; Puryer, James; Leary, Sam; McNally, Lisa; O’Sullivan, Dominic
2016-01-01
The aim of this study was to describe Dental Foundation year one dentists’ attitudes towards prosthodontic decision making for edentulous patients, and identify whether there are gender differences in these attitudes. All South West Deanery trainees were invited to take part in the study between May and June 2011 and a previously piloted questionnaire was administered to the trainees by their training programme directors. The questionnaire posed questions based upon a clinical scenario of discussing treatment options with patients. Seventy-two questionnaires were used in the analysis (91% overall response rate). Trainees perceived their own values to be less important than the patient’s values (p < 0.001) in decision making, but similar to the patient’s friend’s/relative’s values (p = 0.1). In addition, the trainees perceived the patient’s values to be less important than their friend’s/relatives (p < 0.001). Sixty-six per cent of trainees acknowledged an influence from their own personal values on their presentation of material to patients who are in the process of choosing among different treatment options, and 87% thought their edentulous patients were satisfied with the decision making process when choosing among different treatment options. Fifty-eight per cent of trainees supported a strategy of negotiation between patients and clinicians (shared decision making). There was no strong evidence to suggest gender had an influence on the attitudes towards decision making. The finding of a consensus towards shared decision making in the attitudes of trainees, and no gender differences is encouraging and is supportive of UK dental schools’ ability to foster ethical and professional values among dentists. PMID:29563454
-
Health decision making: lynchpin of evidence-based practice.
Spring, Bonnie
2008-01-01
Health decision making is both the lynchpin and the least developed aspect of evidence-based practice. The evidence-based practice process requires integrating the evidence with consideration of practical resources and patient preferences and doing so via a process that is genuinely collaborative. Yet, the literature is largely silent about how to accomplish integrative, shared decision making. for evidence-based practice are discussed for 2 theories of clinician decision making (expected utility and fuzzy trace) and 2 theories of patient health decision making (transtheoretical model and reasoned action). Three suggestions are offered. First, it would be advantageous to have theory-based algorithms that weight and integrate the 3 data strands (evidence, resources, preferences) in different decisional contexts. Second, patients, not providers, make the decisions of greatest impact on public health, and those decisions are behavioral. Consequently, theory explicating how provider-patient collaboration can influence patient lifestyle decisions made miles from the provider's office is greatly needed. Third, although the preponderance of data on complex decisions supports a computational approach, such an approach to evidence-based practice is too impractical to be widely applied at present. More troublesomely, until patients come to trust decisions made computationally more than they trust their providers' intuitions, patient adherence will remain problematic. A good theory of integrative, collaborative health decision making remains needed.
-
Health Decision Making: Lynchpin of Evidence-Based Practice
Spring, Bonnie
2008-01-01
Health decision making is both the lynchpin and the least developed aspect of evidence-based practice. The evidence-based practice process requires integrating the evidence with consideration of practical resources and patient preferences and doing so via a process that is genuinely collaborative. Yet, the literature is largely silent about how to accomplish integrative, shared decision making. Implications for evidence-based practice are discussed for 2 theories of clinician decision making (expected utility and fuzzy trace) and 2 theories of patient health decision making (transtheoretical model and reasoned action). Three suggestions are offered. First, it would be advantageous to have theory-based algorithms that weight and integrate the 3 data strands (evidence, resources, preferences) in different decisional contexts. Second, patients, not providers, make the decisions of greatest impact on public health, and those decisions are behavioral. Consequently, theory explicating how provider-patient collaboration can influence patient lifestyle decisions made miles from the provider's office is greatly needed. Third, although the preponderance of data on complex decisions supports a computational approach, such an approach to evidence-based practice is too impractical to be widely applied at present. More troublesomely, until patients come to trust decisions made computationally more than they trust their providers’ intuitions, patient adherence will remain problematic. A good theory of integrative, collaborative health decision making remains needed. PMID:19015288
-
Decision-making on shared sanitation in the informal settlements of Kisumu, Kenya.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Communication and Decision-Making About End-of-Life Care in the Intensive Care Unit.
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.
-
The Experience of Older People in the Shared Decision-Making Process in Advanced Kidney Care
Jenkins, Karen; McManus, Breeda; Gracey, Brian
2016-01-01
Introduction. This qualitative descriptive study was designed to understand the experiences of older people (>70 years) when making a decision about renal replacement therapy. This was a coproduced study, whereby patients and carers were involved in all aspects of the research process. Methods. A Patient and Carer Group undertook volunteer and research training. The group developed the interview questions and interviewed 29 people who had commenced dialysis or made a decision not to have dialysis. Interview data were transcribed and analysed, and common themes were identified. Results. 22 men and 7 women (mean age 77.4 yrs) from two hospitals were interviewed. 18 had chosen haemodialysis, 6 peritoneal dialysis, and 5 supportive care. The majority of patients were involved in the dialysis decision. Most were satisfied with the amount of information that they received, although some identified that the quality of the information could be improved, especially how daily living can be affected by dialysis. Conclusion. Our findings show that overall older patients were involved in the dialysis decision along with their families. Our approach is innovative because it is the first time that patients and carers have been involved in a coproduced study about shared decision-making. PMID:27990438
-
The Choice Project: Peer Workers Promoting Shared Decision Making at a Youth Mental Health Service.
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.
-
Bernstein, Joseph; Kupperman, Eli; Kandel, Leonid Ari; Ahn, Jaimo
2016-07-01
Through shared decision making, the physician and patient exchange information to arrive at an agreement about the patient's preferred treatment. This process is predicated on the assumption that there is a single preferred treatment, and the goal of the dialog is to discover it. In contrast, psychology theory (ie, prospect theory) suggests that people can make decisions both analytically and intuitively through parallel decision-making processes, and depending on how the choice is framed, the two processes may not agree. Thus, patients may not have a single preferred treatment, but rather separate intuitive and analytic preferences. The research question addressed here is whether subjects might reveal different therapeutic preferences based on how a decision is framed. Five clinical scenarios on the management of tibial plateau fractures were constructed. Healthy volunteers were asked to select among treatments offered. Four weeks later, the scenarios were presented again; the facts of the scenario were unchanged, but the description was altered to test the null hypothesis that minor changes in wording would not lead the subjects to change their decision about treatment. For example, incomplete improvement after surgery was described first as a gain from the preoperative state and then as a loss from the preinjury state. In all five cases, the variation predicted by psychology theory was detected. Respondents were affected by whether choices were framed as avoided losses versus potential gains; by emotional cues; by choices reported by others (ie, bandwagon effect); by the answers proposed to them in the question (ie, anchors); and by seemingly irrelevant options (ie, decoys). The influence of presentation on preferences can be highly significant in orthopaedic surgery. The presence of parallel decision-making processes implies that the standard methods of obtaining informed consent may require further refinement. Furthermore, if the way that information is portrayed makes surgery more or less appealing, the use of services may be subject to unwanted influence. If surgery were accepted preoperatively by the patient's intuitive process but evaluated after the fact by the analytic process (or vice versa), well-indicated and well-performed surgery may still fail to provide patient satisfaction.
-
Why shared decision making is not good enough: lessons from patients.
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.…
-
Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions.
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.
-
Rapaport, Sivan; Leshno, Moshe; Fink, Lior
2014-12-01
Shared decision making (SDM) encourages the patient to play a more active role in the process of medical consultation and its primary objective is to find the best treatment for a specific patient. Recent findings, however, show that patient preferences cannot be easily or accurately judged on the basis of communicative exchange during routine office visits, even for patients who seek to expand their role in medical decision making (MDM). The objective of this study is to improve the quality of patient-physician communication by developing a novel design process for SDM and then demonstrating, through a case study, the applicability of this process in enabling the use of a normative model for a specific medical situation. Our design process goes through the following stages: definition of medical situation and decision problem, development/identification of normative model, adaptation of normative model, empirical analysis and development of decision support systems (DSS) tools that facilitate the SDM process in the specific medical situation. This study demonstrates the applicability of the process through the implementation of the general normative theory of MDM under uncertainty for the medical-financial dilemma of choosing a physician to perform amniocentesis. The use of normative models in SDM raises several issues, such as the goal of the normative model, the relation between the goals of prediction and recommendation, and the general question of whether it is valid to use a normative model for people who do not behave according to the model's assumptions. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
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.
-
Rost, Michael; Wangmo, Tenzin; Niggli, Felix; Hartmann, Karin; Hengartner, Heinz; Ansari, Marc; Brazzola, Pierluigi; Rischewski, Johannes; Beck-Popovic, Maja; Kühne, Thomas; Elger, Bernice S
2017-12-01
The goal is to present how shared decision-making in paediatric oncology occurs from the viewpoints of parents and physicians. Eight Swiss Pediatric Oncology Group centres participated in this prospective study. The sample comprised a parent and physician of the minor patient (<18 years). Surveys were statistically analysed by comparing physicians' and parents' perspectives and by evaluating factors associated with children's actual involvement. Perspectives of ninety-one parents and twenty physicians were obtained for 151 children. Results indicate that for six aspects of information provision examined, parents' and physicians' perceptions differed. Moreover, parents felt that the children were more competent to understand diagnosis and prognosis, assessed the disease of the children as worse, and reported higher satisfaction with decision-making on the part of the children. A patient's age and gender predicted involvement. Older children and girls were more likely to be involved. In the decision-making process, parents held a less active role than they actually wanted. Physicians should take measures to ensure that provided information is understood correctly. Furthermore, they should work towards creating awareness for systematic differences between parents and physicians with respect to the perception of the child, the disease, and shared decision-making.
-
Clinical errors that can occur in the treatment decision-making process in psychotherapy.
Park, Jake; Goode, Jonathan; Tompkins, Kelley A; Swift, Joshua K
2016-09-01
Clinical errors occur in the psychotherapy decision-making process whenever a less-than-optimal treatment or approach is chosen when working with clients. A less-than-optimal approach may be one that a client is unwilling to try or fully invest in based on his/her expectations and preferences, or one that may have little chance of success based on contraindications and/or limited research support. The doctor knows best and the independent choice models are two decision-making models that are frequently used within psychology, but both are associated with an increased likelihood of errors in the treatment decision-making process. In particular, these models fail to integrate all three components of the definition of evidence-based practice in psychology (American Psychological Association, 2006). In this article we describe both models and provide examples of clinical errors that can occur in each. We then introduce the shared decision-making model as an alternative that is less prone to clinical errors. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved
-
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.
-
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
-
2012-01-01
First, parallels are drawn between the conduct of clinical trials and a few events in history that share a management style known as “top-down” management or a hierarchal decision-making process. The author suggests that this process isolates investigative sites from sponsors and contributes to the failure of clinical trials. Trial design, patient recruitment, site selection, the use of electronic data devices, and enrollment timelines are examined in greater detail. Suggestions for a more open or shared process are offered, with the belief that fewer trials might fail and fewer questions might remain in the case of those that do. Next, in the companion commentary, some of the problems arising in drug development and clinical trials are mentioned along with a partial listing of solution providers. An outline of circumstances involved in the decision-making process in drug development are presented along with some factors leading to decreased signal detection. PMID:22468240
-
What Is Known about Parents’ Treatment Decisions? A Narrative Review of Pediatric Decision Making
Lipstein, Ellen A.; Brinkman, William B.; Britto, Maria T.
2013-01-01
Background With the increasing complexity of decisions in pediatric medicine, there is a growing need to understand the pediatric decision-making process. Objective To conduct a narrative review of the current research on parent decision making about pediatric treatments and identify areas in need of further investigation. Methods Articles presenting original research on parent decision making were identified from MEDLINE (1966–6/2011), using the terms “decision making,” “parent,” and “child.” We included papers focused on treatment decisions but excluded those focused on information disclosure to children, vaccination, and research participation decisions. Results We found 55 papers describing 52 distinct studies, the majority being descriptive, qualitative studies of the decision-making process, with very limited assessment of decision outcomes. Although parents’ preferences for degree of participation in pediatric decision making vary, most are interested in sharing the decision with the provider. In addition to the provider, parents are influenced in their decision making by changes in their child’s health status, other community members, prior knowledge, and personal factors, such as emotions and faith. Parents struggle to balance these influences as well as to know when to include their child in decision making. Conclusions Current research demonstrates a diversity of influences on parent decision making and parent decision preferences; however, little is known about decision outcomes or interventions to improve outcomes. Further investigation, using prospective methods, is needed in order to understand how to support parents through the difficult treatment decisions. PMID:21969136
-
Every Voice Counts: Holding a Shared Leadership Event To Make Decisions Together.
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Strauss, Jessica
Shared leadership is a process empowering parents to exercise their civil rights, build leadership skills, and guide the design of policy positions and programs meant to improve their lives and the well-being of their children. Based on principles of family support practice, this book describes how to plan and host a 1- to 3-day shared leadership…
-
The Cognitive Processes Used in Team Collaboration During Asynchronous, Distributed Decision Making
2004-06-01
Transfer Conventions (IPtcp) IP: Solution Alternatives (IPsa) KB: Collaborative Knowledge (KBck) KB: Shared Understanding ( KBsu ) KB: Domain...Gill.” KBsu : Knowledge Building (shared understanding) = using facts to justify a solution. “I think Eddie did it because he was hard of hearing...KB: Collaborative Knowledge (KBck) KB: Shared Understanding ( KBsu ) KB: Domain Expertise (IPde) * * ** ** ** = significant Results 15
-
Dehlendorf, Christine; Fitzpatrick, Judith; Steinauer, Jody; Swiader, Lawrence; Grumbach, Kevin; Hall, Cara; Kuppermann, Miriam
2017-07-01
We developed and formatively evaluated a tablet-based decision support tool for use by women prior to a contraceptive counseling visit to help them engage in shared decision making regarding method selection. Drawing upon formative work around women's preferences for contraceptive counseling and conceptual understanding of health care decision making, we iteratively developed a storyboard and then digital prototypes, based on best practices for decision support tool development. Pilot testing using both quantitative and qualitative data and cognitive testing was conducted. We obtained feedback from patient and provider advisory groups throughout the development process. Ninety-six percent of women who used the tool in pilot testing reported that it helped them choose a method, and qualitative interviews indicated acceptability of the tool's content and presentation. Compared to the control group, women who used the tool demonstrated trends toward increased likelihood of complete satisfaction with their method. Participant responses to cognitive testing were used in tool refinement. Our decision support tool appears acceptable to women in the family planning setting. Formative evaluation of the tool supports its utility among patients making contraceptive decisions, which can be further evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
-
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).
-
Decision making: the neuroethological turn
Pearson, John M.; Watson, Karli K.; Platt, Michael L.
2014-01-01
Neuroeconomics applies models from economics and psychology to inform neurobiological studies of choice. This approach has revealed neural signatures of concepts like value, risk, and ambiguity, which are known to influence decision-making. Such observations have led theorists to hypothesize a single, unified decision process that mediates choice behavior via a common neural currency for outcomes like food, money, or social praise. In parallel, recent neuroethological studies of decision-making have focused on natural behaviors like foraging, mate choice, and social interactions. These decisions strongly impact evolutionary fitness and thus are likely to have played a key role in shaping the neural circuits that mediate decision-making. This approach has revealed a suite of computational motifs that appear to be shared across a wide variety of organisms. We argue that the existence of deep homologies in the neural circuits mediating choice may have profound implications for understanding human decision-making in health and disease. PMID:24908481
-
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.
-
Zaal-Schuller, I H; Willems, D L; Ewals, F V P M; van Goudoever, J B; de Vos, M A
2016-12-01
End-of-life decisions (EoLD) often concern children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD). Yet, little is known about how parents and physicians discuss and make these decisions. The objective of this research was to investigate the experiences of the parents and the involved physician during the end-of-life decision-making (EoLDM) process for children with PIMD. In a retrospective, qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the physicians and parents of 14 children with PIMD for whom an EoLD was made within the past two years. A long-lasting relationship appeared to facilitate the EoLDM process, although previous negative healthcare encounters could also lead to distrust. Parents and physicians encountered disagreements during the EoLDM process, but these disagreements could also improve the decision-making process. Most parents, as well as most physicians, considered the parents to be the experts on their child. In making an EoLD, both parents and physicians preferred a shared decision-making approach, although they differed in what they actually meant by this concept. The EoLDM process for children with PIMD can be improved if physicians are more aware of the specific situation and of the roles and expectations of the parents of children with PIMD. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
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
-
Xu, Lucy J.; Lopez, Fanny Y.; Jia, Justin L.; Pho, Mai T.; Kim, Karen E.; Chin, Marshall H.
2016-01-01
Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of patient-provider communication. Little is known about the role of SDM in health disparities among Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM). We illustrate how issues at the intersection of AAPI and SGM identities affect SDM processes and health outcomes. We discuss experiences of AAPI SGM that are affected by AAPI heterogeneity, SGM stigma, multiple minority group identities, and sources of discrimination. Recommendations for clinical practice, research, policy, community development, and education are offered. PMID:27158858
-
Ischemic Stroke: Advances in Diagnosis and Management.
Cassella, Courtney R; Jagoda, Andy
2017-11-01
Acute ischemic stroke carries the risk of morbidity and mortality. Since the advent of intravenous thrombolysis, there have been improvements in stroke care and functional outcomes. Studies of populations once excluded from thrombolysis have begun to elucidate candidates who might benefit and thus should be engaged in the process of shared decision-making. Imaging is evolving to better target the ischemic penumbra salvageable with prompt reperfusion. Availability and use of computed tomography angiography identifies large-vessel occlusions, and new-generation endovascular therapy devices are improving outcomes in these patients. With this progress in stroke treatment, risk stratification tools and shared decision-making are fundamental. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
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
-
Stenner, Rob; Swinkels, Annette; Mitchell, Theresa; Palmer, Shea
2016-12-01
Providing an effective exercise prescription process for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a challenging task. Emerging research has indicated that partnership in care and shared decision making are important for people with NSCLBP and calls for further investigation into the approaches used to prescribe exercise. To explore how shared decision making and patient partnership are addressed by physiotherapists in the process of exercise prescription for patients with NSCLBP. A qualitative study using a philosophical hermeneutic approach. Eight physiotherapists were each observed on three occasions undertaking their usual clinical activities (total n=24 observations). They conducted brief interviews after each observation and a later in depth semi-structured interview. Iterative hermeneutic strategies were used to interpret the texts and identify the characteristics and processes of exercise prescription for patients with NSCLBP. The findings revealed how physiotherapy practice often resulted in unequal possibilities for patient participation which were in turn linked to the physiotherapists' assumptions about the patients, clinical orientation, cognitive and decision making processes. Three linked themes emerged: (1) I want them to exercise, (2) which exercise? - the tension between evidence and everyday practice and (3) compliance-orientated more than concordance based. This research, by focusing on a patient-centred approach, makes an important contribution to the body of evidence relating to the management of NSCLBP. It challenges physiotherapists to critically appraise their approaches to the prescription of exercise therapy in order to improve outcomes for these patients. Copyright © 2015 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Respecting Patient Autonomy When Seconds Count.
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.
-
Liebherz, Sarah; Tlach, Lisa; Härter, Martin; Dirmaier, Jörg
2015-01-01
Patient decision aids are one possibility for enabling and encouraging patients to participate in medical decisions. This paper aims to describe patients' information and decision-making needs as a prerequisite for the development of high-quality, web-based patient decision aids for affective disorders. We conducted an online cross-sectional survey by using a self-administered questionnaire including items on Internet use, online health information needs, role in decision making, and important treatment decisions, performing descriptive and comparative statistical analyses. A total of 210 people with bipolar disorder/mania as well as 112 people with unipolar depression participated in the survey. Both groups specified general information search as their most relevant information need and decisions on treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) as well as decisions on pharmacological treatment as the most difficult treatment decisions. For participants with unipolar depression, decisions concerning psychotherapeutic treatment were also especially difficult. Most participants of both groups preferred shared decisions but experienced less shared decisions than desired. Our results show the importance of information for patients with affective disorders, with a focus on pharmacological treatment and on the different treatment settings, and highlight patients' requirements to be involved in the decision-making process. Since our sample reported a chronic course of disease, we do not know if our results are applicable for newly diagnosed patients. Further studies should consider how the reported needs could be addressed in health care practice.
-
Game Methods of Collective Decision Making in Management Consulting.
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Prigozhin, Arkadii Il'ich
1991-01-01
Explores former Soviet management consultants' increased use of social psychological game methods. Identifies such games as means of involving segments of client organizations in accomplishing shared tasks. Proposes a "practical" business game, designed to shape the process of formulating new management decisions at a radical level.…
-
Implementation of a participatory management model: analysis from a political perspective.
Bernardes, Andrea; G Cummings, Greta; Gabriel, Carmen Silvia; Martinez Évora, Yolanda Dora; Gomes Maziero, Vanessa; Coleman-Miller, Glenda
2015-10-01
To analyse experiences of managers and nursing staff in the implementation of participatory management, specifically processes of decision-making, communication and power in a Canadian hospital. Implementing a Participatory Management Model involves change because it is focused on the needs of patients and encourages decentralisation of power and shared decisions. The study design is qualitative using observational sessions and content analysis for data analysis. We used Bolman and Deal's four-frame theoretical framework to interpret our findings. Participatory management led to advances in care, because it allowed for more dialogue and shared decision making. However, the biggest challenge has been that all major changes are still being decided centrally by the provincial executive board. Managers and directors are facing difficulties related to this change process, such as the resistance to change by some employees and limited input to decision-making affecting their areas of responsibility; however, they and their teams are working to utilise the values and principles underlying participatory management in their daily work practices. Innovative management models encourage accountability, increased motivation and satisfaction of nursing staff, and improve the quality of care. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
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
-
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.
-
Primum Non Nocere: is shared decision-making the answer?
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.
-
Gökce, Mehmet İlker; Esen, Barış; Sancı, Adem; Akpınar, Cağrı; Süer, Evren; Gülpınar, Ömer
2017-07-01
Stone disease is an important health problem, and patients have different treatment choices. Shared decision making is recommended for deciding the treatment type, but patient education is necessary. Decision aids (DAs) are used for this aim, and herein, we developed a novel DA for patients with symptomatic nonlower pole renal stones <20 mm in diameter. The DA development process was established based on the recommended guides. General characteristics of the stone disease and details of the shockwave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery were included in the content of the DA. The DA was further revised based on the suggestions of different physician groups and patients. The DA was evaluated by three physicians (Delphi assessment-International Patient Decision Aid Standards [IPDAS] Collaboration standards) and 25 patients (questionnaire of six questions with five-point Likert scale). The DA was designed as a booklet, and Delphi group assessment resulted in a total score of 50/54. Patient evaluation of the DA resulted in favorable outcomes, and patients generally recommended its use by other patients. This novel DA for patients with a symptomatic nonlower pole renal stone <20 mm showed promising results and was well accepted by the patients. We believe that this DA will have a positive impact on patients' level of knowledge. Increased level of knowledge will also improve the patients' contribution to the shared decision-making process. A further prospective randomized trial to compare with the standard patient informing process is also planned.
-
Shared decision making in the safety net: where do we go from here?
Bouma, Angelique B; Tiedje, Kristina; Poplau, Sara; Boehm, Deborah H; Shah, Nilay D; Commers, Matthew J; Linzer, Mark; Montori, Victor M
2014-01-01
Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process between clinicians and patients in which both share information, deliberate together, and make clinical decisions. Clinics serving safety net patients face special challenges, including fewer resources and more challenging work environments. The use of SDM within safety net institutions has not been well studied. We recruited a convenience sample of 15 safety net primary care clinicians (13 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners). Each answered a 9-item SDM questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview. From the transcribed interviews and questionnaire data, we identified themes and suggestions for introducing SDM into a safety net environment. Clinicians reported only partially fulfilling the central components of SDM (sharing information, deliberating, and decision making). Most clinicians expressed interest in SDM by stating that they "selected a treatment option together" with patients (8 of 15 in strong or complete agreement), but only a minority (3 of 15) "thoroughly weighed the different treatment options" together with patients. Clinicians attributed this gap to many barriers, including time pressure, overwhelming visit content, patient preferences, and lack of available resources. All clinicians believed that lack of time made it difficult to practice SDM. To increase use of SDM in the safety net, efficient SDM interventions designed for this environment, team care, and patient engagement in SDM will need further development. Future studies should focus on adapting SDM to safety net settings and determine whether SDM can reduce health care disparities.
-
Food Culture, Preferences and Ethics in Dysphagia Management.
Kenny, Belinda
2015-11-01
Adults with dysphagia experience difficulties swallowing food and fluids with potentially harmful health and psychosocial consequences. Speech pathologists who manage patients with dysphagia are frequently required to address ethical issues when patients' food culture and/ or preferences are inconsistent with recommended diets. These issues incorporate complex links between food, identity and social participation. A composite case has been developed to reflect ethical issues identified by practising speech pathologists for the purposes of illustrating ethical concerns in dysphagia management. The case examines a speech pathologist's role in supporting patient autonomy when patients and carers express different goals and values. The case presents a 68-year-old man of Australian/Italian heritage with severe swallowing impairment and strong values attached to food preferences. The case is examined through application of the dysphagia algorithm, a tool for shared decision-making when patients refuse dietary modifications. Case analysis revealed the benefits and challenges of shared decision-making processes in dysphagia management. Four health professional skills and attributes were identified as synonymous with shared decision making: communication, imagination, courage and reflection. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
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
-
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Dunn, Patricia C.; Marple, Jennifer; Knight, Sharon M.
2000-01-01
Explains the responsibilities of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and its decision making process as to who receives an organ for transplant. Presents an activity exploring ethics, human values, and human anatomy. (YDS)
-
Substitute consent to data sharing: a way forward for international dementia research?
Thorogood, Adrian; Deschênes St-Pierre, Constance; Knoppers, Bartha Maria
2017-01-01
Abstract A deluge of genetic and health-related data is being generated about patients with dementia. International sharing of these data accelerates dementia research. Seeking consent to data sharing is a challenge for dementia research where patients have lost or risk losing legal capacity. The laws of most countries enable substitute decision makers (SDMs) to consent on behalf of incapable adults to research participation. We compare regulatory frameworks governing capacity, research, and personal data protection across eight countries to determine when SDMs can consent to data sharing. In most countries, an SDM can consent to data sharing in the incapable adult's best interests. Best interests typically include consideration of the individual's previously expressed wishes, values and beliefs; well-being; and inclusion in decision making. Countries differ in how these considerations are balanced. A clear previous consent or refusal to share data typically binds the discretion of an SDM. Though generally permissive, National patchworks of laws and guidelines cause confusion. Clarity on the applicable law and processes to enhance ethical decision making are needed to facilitate substitute consent. Researchers can encourage patients to communicate their research preferences before a loss of capacity, and educate SDMs about their ethical and legal duties. The research community must also continue to promote the importance of data sharing in dementia. PMID:28852560
-
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.
-
Decision-making regarding organ donation in Korean adults: A grounded-theory study.
Yeun, Eun Ja; Kwon, Young Mi; Kim, Jung A
2015-06-01
The aim of this study was to identify the hidden patterns of behavior leading toward the decision to donate organs. Thirteen registrants at the Association for Organ Sharing in Korea were recruited. Data were collected using in-depth interview and the interview transcripts were analyzed using Glaserian grounded-theory methodology. The main problem of participants was "body attachment" and the core category (management process) was determined to be "pursuing life." The theme consisted of four phases, which were: "hesitating," "investigating," "releasing," and "re-discovering. " Therefore, to increase organ donations, it is important to find a strategy that will create positive attitudes about organ donation through education and public relations. These results explain and provide a deeper understanding of the main problem that Korean people have about organ donation and their management of decision-making processes. These findings can help care providers to facilitate the decision-making process and respond to public needs while taking into account the sociocultural context within which decisions are made. © 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
-
Assessing the Effects of Financial Literacy on Patient Engagement.
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.
-
Corgnet, Brice; Espín, Antonio M.; Hernán-González, Roberto
2017-01-01
Groups make decisions on both the production and the distribution of resources. These decisions typically involve a tension between increasing the total level of group resources (i.e. social efficiency) and distributing these resources among group members (i.e. individuals' relative shares). This is the case because the redistribution process may destroy part of the resources, thus resulting in socially inefficient allocations. Here we apply a dual-process approach to understand the cognitive underpinnings of this fundamental tension. We conducted a set of experiments to examine the extent to which different allocation decisions respond to intuition or deliberation. In a newly developed approach, we assess intuition and deliberation at both the trait level (using the Cognitive Reflection Test, henceforth CRT) and the state level (through the experimental manipulation of response times). To test for robustness, experiments were conducted in two countries: the USA and India. Despite absolute-level differences across countries, in both locations we show that: (i) time pressure and low CRT scores are associated with individuals' concerns for their relative shares and (ii) time delay and high CRT scores are associated with individuals' concerns for social efficiency. These findings demonstrate that deliberation favours social efficiency by overriding individuals' intuitive tendency to focus on relative shares. PMID:28386421
-
Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy
Brown, Katrina; Crissman, Charles; De Young, Cassandra; Gooch, Margaret; James, Craig; Jessen, Sabine; Johnson, Dave; Marshall, Paul; Wachenfeld, Dave; Wrigley, Damian
2017-01-01
Failure to stem trends of ecological disruption and associated loss of ecosystem services worldwide is partly due to the inadequate integration of the human dimension into environmental decision-making. Decision-makers need knowledge of the human dimension of resource systems and of the social consequences of decision-making if environmental management is to be effective and adaptive. Social scientists have a central role to play, but little guidance exists to help them influence decision-making processes. We distil 348 years of cumulative experience shared by 31 environmental experts across three continents into advice for social scientists seeking to increase their influence in the environmental policy arena. Results focus on the importance of process, engagement, empathy and acumen and reveal the importance of understanding and actively participating in policy processes through co-producing knowledge and building trust. The insights gained during this research might empower a science-driven cultural change in science-policy relations for the routine integration of the human dimension in environmental decision making; ultimately for an improved outlook for earth’s ecosystems and the billions of people that depend on them. PMID:28278238
-
Enhancing Group Decision Making: An Exercise to Reduce Shared Information Bias
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Baker, Diane F.
2010-01-01
Research on shared information bias has shown that group members involved in a decision-making task tend to undervalue information that a single member shares with the group, especially when that information conflicts with their prior conclusions. The group activity in this article is intended to heighten awareness of this shared information bias…
-
Shared decision making in the management of children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia.
Beck, Carolyn E; Boydell, Katherine M; Stasiulis, Elaine; Blanchette, Victor S; Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary; Birken, Catherine S; Breakey, Vicky R; Parkin, Patricia C
2014-10-01
This study aimed to examine the treatment decision-making process for children hospitalized with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Using focus groups, we studied children with ITP, parents of children with ITP, and health care professionals, inquiring about participants' experience with decision support and decision making in newly diagnosed ITP. Data were examined using thematic analysis. Themes that emerged from children were feelings of "anxiety, fear, and confusion"; the need to "understand information"; and "treatment choice," the experience of which was age dependent. For parents, "anxiety, fear, and confusion" was a dominant theme; "treatment choice" revealed that participants felt directed toward intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) for initial treatment. For health care professionals, "comfort level" highlighted factors contributing to professionals' comfort with offering options; "assumptions" were made about parental desire for participation in shared decision making (SDM) and parental acceptance of treatment options; "providing information" was informative regarding modes of facilitating SDM; and "treatment choice" revealed a discrepancy between current practice (directed toward IVIG) and the ideal of SDM. At our center, families of children with newly diagnosed ITP are not experiencing SDM. Our findings support the implementation of SDM to facilitate patient-centered care for the management of pediatric ITP.
-
Büchi, S; Straub, S; Schwager, U
2010-12-01
Although there is much talk about shared decision making and individualized goal setting, there is a lack of knowledge and knowhow in their realization in daily clinical practice. There is a lack in tools for easy applicable tools to ameliorate person-centred individualized goal setting processes. In three selected psychiatric inpatients the semistructured, theory driven use of PRISM (Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure) in patients with complex psychiatric problems is presented and discussed. PRISM sustains a person-centred individualized process of goal setting and treatment and reinforces the active participation of patients. The process of visualisation and synchronous documentation is validated positively by patients and clinicians. The visual goal setting requires 30 to 45 minutes. In patients with complex psychiatric illness PRISM was used successfully to ameliorate individual goal setting. Specific effects of PRISM-visualisation are actually evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.
-
American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
... 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 ...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nijhuis, Frouke A P; van Heek, Jolien; Bloem, Bastiaan R; Post, Bart; Faber, Marjan J
2016-07-25
In advanced Parkinson's disease (PD), neurologists and patients face a complex decision for an advanced therapy. When choosing a treatment, the best available evidence should be combined with the professional's expertise and the patient's preferences. The objective of this study was to explore current decision-making in advanced PD. We conducted focus group discussions and individual interviews with patients (N = 20) who had received deep brain stimulation, Levodopa-Carbidopa intestinal gel, or subcutaneous apomorphine infusion, and with their caregivers (N = 16). Furthermore, we conducted semi-structured interviews with neurologists (N = 7) and PD nurse specialists (N = 3) to include the perspectives of all key players in this decision-making process. Data were analyzed by two researchers using a qualitative thematic analysis approach. Four themes representing current experiences with the decision-making process were identified: 1) information and information needs, 2) factors influencing treatment choice and individual decision strategies, 3) decision-making roles, and 4) barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making (SDM). Patient preferences were taken into account, however patients were not always provided with adequate information. The professional's expertise influenced the decision-making process in both positive and negative ways. Although professionals and patients considered SDM essential for the decision of an advanced treatment, they mentioned several barriers for the implementation in current practice. In this study we found several factors explaining why in current practice, evidence-based decision-making in advanced PD is not optimal. An important first step would be to develop objective information on all treatment options.
-
Fischhoff, Baruch
2010-09-01
The study of judgment and decision making entails three interrelated forms of research: (1) normative analysis, identifying the best courses of action, given decision makers' values; (2) descriptive studies, examining actual behavior in terms comparable to the normative analyses; and (3) prescriptive interventions, helping individuals to make better choices, bridging the gap between the normative ideal and the descriptive reality. The research is grounded in analytical foundations shared by economics, psychology, philosophy, and management science. Those foundations provide a framework for accommodating affective and social factors that shape and complement the cognitive processes of decision making. The decision sciences have grown through applications requiring collaboration with subject matter experts, familiar with the substance of the choices and the opportunities for interventions. Over the past half century, the field has shifted its emphasis from predicting choices, which can be successful without theoretical insight, to understanding the processes shaping them. Those processes are often revealed through biases that suggest non-normative processes. The practical importance of these biases depends on the sensitivity of specific decisions and the support that individuals have in making them. As a result, the field offers no simple summary of individuals' competence as decision makers, but a suite of theories and methods suited to capturing these sensitivities. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Shared Decision Making: The Need For Patient-Clinician Conversation, Not Just Information.
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.
-
Decision support systems in health economics.
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.
-
Mahone, Irma H.; Farrell, Sarah P.; Hinton, Ivora; Johnson, Robert; Moody, David; Rifkin, Karen; Moore, Kenneth; Becker, Marcia; Barker, Margaret
2011-01-01
Summary An academic-community partnership between a school of nursing (SON) at a public university (the University of Virginia, or UVA) and a public mental health clinic developed around a shared goal of finding an acceptable shared decision making (SDM) intervention targeting medication use by persons with serious mental illness. The planning meetings of the academic-community partnership were recorded and analyzed. Issues under the partnership process included 1) clinic values and priorities, 2) research agenda, 3) ground rules, and 4) communication. Issues under the SDM content included: 1) barriers, 2) information exchange, 3) positive aspects of shared decision making, and 4) technology. Using participatory-action research (PAR), the community clinic was able to raise questions and concerns throughout the process, be actively involved in research activities (such as identifying stakeholders and co-leading focus groups), participate in the reflective activities on the impact of SDM on practice and policy, and feel ownership of the SDM intervention. PMID:22163075
-
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.
-
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.
-
Temporal lobe epilepsy surgery: what do patients want to know?
Choi, Hyunmi; Pargeon, Kim; Bausell, Rebecca; Wong, John B; Mendiratta, Anil; Bakken, Suzanne
2011-11-01
Patients with pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) contemplating brain surgery must make a complex treatment decision involving trade-offs. Patient decision aids, containing information on the risks and benefits of treatment interventions, increase patient knowledge and facilitate shared decision making between patients and physicians. We conducted five focus groups to describe the information patients need to make informed decisions about TLE surgery. Twenty patients who had undergone TLE surgery described the information used in their decision-making process, and evaluated the potential for a patient decision aid to assist other patients who are considering surgery. Thematic analysis revealed information needs that were both experiential (i.e., learning about other patients' experiences through testimonials) and factual (i.e., individualized statistical information). Patients also made suggestions on how this information should be delivered to patients. These data will accelerate the development of a patient decision aid designed to assist TLE patients in their decision making about epilepsy surgery. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
-
Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice.
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.
-
Stacey, Dawn; Légaré, France; Lyddiatt, Anne; Giguere, Anik M C; Yoganathan, Manosila; Saarimaki, Anton; Pardo, Jordi Pardo; Rader, Tamara; Tugwell, Peter
2016-12-01
The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids. A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid. The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids. Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids.
-
Callon, Wynne; Beach, Mary Catherine; Links, Anne R; Wasserman, Carly; Boss, Emily F
2018-03-11
We aimed to develop a comprehensive, descriptive framework to measure shared decision making (SDM) in clinical encounters. We combined a top-down (theoretical) approach with a bottom-up approach based on audio-recorded dialogue to identify all communication processes related to decision making. We coded 55 pediatric otolaryngology visits using the framework and report interrater reliability. We identified 14 clinician behaviors and 5 patient behaviors that have not been previously described, and developed a new SDM framework that is descriptive (what does happen) rather than normative (what should happen). Through the bottom-up approach we identified three broad domains not present in other SDM frameworks: socioemotional support, understandability of clinician dialogue, and recommendation-giving. We also specify the ways in which decision-making roles are assumed implicitly rather than discussed explicitly. Interrater reliability was >75% for 92% of the coded behaviors. This SDM framework allows for a more expansive understanding and analysis of how decision making takes place in clinical encounters, including new domains and behaviors not present in existing measures. We hope that this new framework will bring attention to a broader conception of SDM and allow researchers to further explore the new domains and behaviors identified. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.
-
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…
-
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.
-
Cravens, Amanda E
2016-02-01
Environmental managers and planners have become increasingly enthusiastic about the potential of decision support tools (DSTs) to improve environmental decision-making processes as information technology transforms many aspects of daily life. Discussions about DSTs, however, rarely recognize the range of ways software can influence users' negotiation, problem-solving, or decision-making strategies and incentives, in part because there are few empirical studies of completed processes that used technology. This mixed-methods study-which draws on data from approximately 60 semi-structured interviews and an online survey--examines how one geospatial DST influenced participants' experiences during a multi-year marine planning process in California. Results suggest that DSTs can facilitate communication by creating a common language, help users understand the geography and scientific criteria in play during the process, aid stakeholders in identifying shared or diverging interests, and facilitate joint problem solving. The same design features that enabled the tool to aid in decision making, however, also presented surprising challenges in certain circumstances by, for example, making it difficult for participants to discuss information that was not spatially represented on the map-based interface. The study also highlights the importance of the social context in which software is developed and implemented, suggesting that the relationship between the software development team and other participants may be as important as technical software design in shaping how DSTs add value. The paper concludes with considerations to inform the future use of DSTs in environmental decision-making processes.
-
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Cravens, Amanda E.
2016-02-01
Environmental managers and planners have become increasingly enthusiastic about the potential of decision support tools (DSTs) to improve environmental decision-making processes as information technology transforms many aspects of daily life. Discussions about DSTs, however, rarely recognize the range of ways software can influence users' negotiation, problem-solving, or decision-making strategies and incentives, in part because there are few empirical studies of completed processes that used technology. This mixed-methods study—which draws on data from approximately 60 semi-structured interviews and an online survey—examines how one geospatial DST influenced participants' experiences during a multi-year marine planning process in California. Results suggest that DSTs can facilitate communication by creating a common language, help users understand the geography and scientific criteria in play during the process, aid stakeholders in identifying shared or diverging interests, and facilitate joint problem solving. The same design features that enabled the tool to aid in decision making, however, also presented surprising challenges in certain circumstances by, for example, making it difficult for participants to discuss information that was not spatially represented on the map-based interface. The study also highlights the importance of the social context in which software is developed and implemented, suggesting that the relationship between the software development team and other participants may be as important as technical software design in shaping how DSTs add value. The paper concludes with considerations to inform the future use of DSTs in environmental decision-making processes.
-
Brody, Janet L; Scherer, David G; Annett, Robert D; Turner, Charles; Dalen, Jeanne
2006-08-01
There is considerable ethical and legal ambiguity surrounding the role of adolescents in the decision-making process for research participation. Depending on the nature of the study and the regulations involved, adolescents may have independent responsibility for providing informed consent, they may be asked to provide their assent, or they may be completely excluded from the decision-making process. This study examined parent and adolescent perceptions of decision-making authority and sources of influence on adolescent research participation decisions, and examined whether perceptions of influence differed based on adolescent gender and level of research risk. Adolescents (n = 36) with asthma and their parents reviewed 9 pediatric research protocols, decided whether they would choose to participate, rated the extent they would be responsible for the actual decision, and indicated the ability of family and physician to influence their decisions. Multivariate analyses of variance were used to evaluate differences in perceptions of decision-making authority and sources of influence on the decisions. Adolescents were less willing to cede decision making authority to parents than parents anticipated. Parents and adolescents acknowledged a greater openness to influence from physicians than from family for above minimal risk studies. Parents were more willing to consider opinions from male adolescents. Adolescents desire responsibility for research participation decisions, though parents may not share these views. Physicians' views on research participation are important to families, especially for above minimal risk studies. Parents may grant more decision-making autonomy to adolescent males than to females. Researchers, physicians, and institutions play a key role in facilitating the ethical enrollment of adolescents into biomedical research. Educational, policy, and oversight processes that support both adolescent autonomy and parental responsibility for research participation decision-making in biomedical research are discussed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Montgomery, Jeffrey S; Rovner, David R; Scherer, Laura D; Whitfield, Jesse; Kahn, Valerie C; Merkle, Edgar C; Ubel, Peter A; Fagerlin, Angela
2015-11-01
Little is known about how physicians present diagnosis and treatment planning in routine practice in preference-sensitive treatment decisions. We evaluated completeness and quality of informed decision making in localized prostate cancer post biopsy encounters. We analyzed audio-recorded office visits of 252 men with presumed localized prostate cancer (Gleason 6 and Gleason 7 scores) who were seeing 45 physicians at 4 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Data were collected between September 2008 and May 2012 in a trial of 2 decision aids (DAs). Braddock's previously validated Informed Decision Making (IDM) system was used to measure quality. Latent variable models for ordinal data examined the relationship of IDM score to treatment received. Mean IDM score showed modest quality (7.61±2.45 out of 18) and high variability. Treatment choice and risks and benefits were discussed in approximately 95% of encounters. However, in more than one-third of encounters, physicians provided a partial set of treatment options and omitted surveillance as a choice. Informing quality was greater in patients treated with surveillance (β = 1.1, p = .04). Gleason score (7 vs 6) and lower age were often cited as reasons to exclude surveillance. Patient preferences were elicited in the majority of cases, but not used to guide treatment planning. Encounter time was modestly correlated with IDM score (r = 0.237, p = .01). DA type was not associated with IDM score. Physicians informed patients of options and risks and benefits, but infrequently engaged patients in core shared decision-making processes. Despite patients having received DAs, physicians rarely provided an opportunity for preference-driven decision making. More attention to the underused patient decision-making and engagement elements could result in improved shared decision making. © The Author(s) 2015.
-
Reasons for family involvement in elective surgical decision-making in Taiwan: a qualitative study.
Lin, Mei-Ling; Huang, Chuen-Teng; Chen, Ching-Huey
2017-07-01
To inquire into the reasons for family involvement in adult patients' surgical decision-making processes from the point of view of the patients' family. Making a patient the centre of medical decision-making is essential for respecting individual's autonomy. However, in a Chinese society, family members are often deeply involved in a patient's medical decision-making. Although family involvement has long been viewed as an aspect of the Chinese culture, empirical evidence of the reasons for family involvement in medical decision-making has been lacking. A qualitative study. In order to record and examine reasons for family involvement in adult patients' surgical decision-making, 12 different family members of 12 elective surgery patients were interviewed for collecting and analysing data. Three major reasons for family involvement emerged from the data analyses: (1) to share responsibility; (2) to ensure the correctness of medical information; and (3) to safeguard the patient's well-being. These findings also reveal that culture is not the only reason for family involvement. Making decision to undergo a surgery is a tough and stressful process for a patient. Family may provide the patient with timely psychological support to assist the patient to communicate with his or her physician(s) and other medical personnel to ensure their rights. It is also found that due to the imbalanced doctor-patient power relationship, a patient may be unable, unwilling to, or even dare not, tell the whole truth about his or her illness or feelings to the medical personnel. Thus, a patient would expect his or her family to undertake such a mission during the informed consent and decision-making processes. The results of this study may provide medical professionals with relevant insights into family involvement in adult patients' surgical decision-making. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
Wang, Elyn H; Gross, Cary P; Tilburt, Jon C; Yu, James B; Nguyen, Paul L; Smaldone, Marc C; Shah, Nilay D; Abouassally, Robert; Sun, Maxine; Kim, Simon P
2015-05-01
The current attitudes of prostate cancer specialists toward decision aids and their use in clinical practice to facilitate shared decision making are poorly understood. To assess attitudes toward decision aids and their dissemination in clinical practice. A survey was mailed to a national random sample of 1422 specialists (711 radiation oncologists and 711 urologists) in the United States from November 1, 2011, through April 30, 2012. Respondents were asked about familiarity, perceptions, and use of decision aids for clinically localized prostate cancer and trust in various professional societies in developing decision aids. The Pearson χ2 test was used to test for bivariate associations between physician characteristics and outcomes. Similar response rates were observed for radiation oncologists and urologists (44.0% vs 46.1%; P=.46). Although most respondents had some familiarity with decision aids, only 35.5% currently use a decision aid in clinic practice. The most commonly cited barriers to decision aid use included the perception that their ability to estimate the risk of recurrence was superior to that of decision aids (7.7% in those not using decision aids and 26.2% in those using decision aids; P<.001) and the concern that patients could not process information from a decision aid (7.6% in those not using decision aids and 23.7% in those using decision aids; P<.001). In assessing trust in decision aids established by various professional medical societies, specialists consistently reported trust in favor of their respective organizations, with 9.2% being very confident and 59.2% being moderately confident (P=.01). Use of decision aids among specialists treating patients with prostate cancer is relatively low. Efforts to address barriers to clinical implementation of decision aids may facilitate greater shared decision making for patients diagnosed as having prostate cancer.
-
Shared Mind: Communication, Decision Making, and Autonomy in Serious Illness
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.
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.
-
Gutierrez, Hialy; Shewade, Ashwini; Dai, Minghan; Mendoza-Arana, Pedro; Gómez-Dantés, Octavio; Jain, Nishant; Khonelidze, Irma; Nabyonga-Orem, Juliet; Saleh, Karima; Teerawattananon, Yot; Nishtar, Sania; Hornberger, John
2015-08-01
Lessons learned by countries that have successfully implemented coverage schemes for health services may be valuable for other countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which likewise are seeking to provide/expand coverage. The research team surveyed experts in population health management from LMICs for information on characteristics of health care coverage schemes and factors that influenced decision-making processes. The level of coverage provided by the different schemes varied. Nearly all the health care coverage schemes involved various representatives and stakeholders in their decision-making processes. Maternal and child health, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and HIV were among the highest priorities guiding coverage development decisions. Evidence used to inform coverage decisions included medical literature, regional and global epidemiology, and coverage policies of other coverage schemes. Funding was the most commonly reported reason for restricting coverage. This exploratory study provides an overview of health care coverage schemes from participating LMICs and contributes to the scarce evidence base on coverage decision making. Sharing knowledge and experiences among LMICs can support efforts to establish systems for accessible, affordable, and equitable health care.
-
A social-technological epistemology of clinical decision-making as mediated by imaging.
van Baalen, Sophie; Carusi, Annamaria; Sabroe, Ian; Kiely, David G
2017-10-01
In recent years there has been growing attention to the epistemology of clinical decision-making, but most studies have taken the individual physicians as the central object of analysis. In this paper we argue that knowing in current medical practice has an inherently social character and that imaging plays a mediating role in these practices. We have analyzed clinical decision-making within a medical expert team involved in diagnosis and treatment of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), a rare disease requiring multidisciplinary team involvement in diagnosis and management. Within our field study, we conducted observations, interviews, video tasks, and a panel discussion. Decision-making in the PH clinic involves combining evidence from heterogeneous sources into a cohesive framing of a patient, in which interpretations of the different sources can be made consistent with each other. Because pieces of evidence are generated by people with different expertise and interpretation and adjustments take place in interaction between different experts, we argue that this process is socially distributed. Multidisciplinary team meetings are an important place where information is shared, discussed, interpreted, and adjusted, allowing for a collective way of seeing and a shared language to be developed. We demonstrate this with an example of image processing in the PH service, an instance in which knowledge is distributed over multiple people who play a crucial role in generating an evaluation of right heart function. Finally, we argue that images fulfill a mediating role in distributed knowing in 3 ways: first, as enablers or tools in acquiring information; second, as communication facilitators; and third, as pervasively framing the epistemic domain. With this study of clinical decision-making in diagnosis and treatment of PH, we have shown that clinical decision-making is highly social and mediated by technologies. The epistemology of clinical decision-making needs to take social and technological mediation into account. © 2016 The Authors Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
Palazzo, Salvatore; Filice, Aldo; Mastroianni, Candida; Biamonte, Rosalbino; Conforti, Serafino; Liguori, Virginia; Turano, Salvatore; De Simone, Rosanna; Rovito, Antonio; Manfredi, Caterina; Minardi, Stefano; Vilardo, Emmanuelle; Loizzo, Monica; Oriolo, Carmela
2016-04-01
Clinical decision making in oncology is based so far on the evidence of efficacy from high-quality clinical research. Data collection and analysis from experimental studies provide valuable insight into response rates and progression-free or overall survival. Data processing generates valuable information for medical professionals involved in cancer patient care, enabling them to make objective and unbiased choices. The increased attention of many scientific associations toward a more rational resource consumption in clinical decision making is mirrored in the Choosing Wisely campaign against the overuse or misuse of exams and procedures of little or no benefit for the patient. This cultural movement has been actively promoting care solutions based on the concept of "value". As a result, the value-based decision-making process for cancer care should not be dissociated from economic sustainability and from ethics of the affordability, also given the growing average cost of the most recent cancer drugs. In support of this orientation, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed innovative and "complex" guidelines based on values, defined as "evidence blocks", with the aim of assisting the medical community in making overall sustainable choices.
-
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.
-
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…
-
Ernecoff, Natalie C; Witteman, Holly O; Chon, Kristen; Chen, Yanquan Iris; Buddadhumaruk, Praewpannarai; Chiarchiaro, Jared; Shotsberger, Kaitlin J; Shields, Anne-Marie; Myers, Brad A; Hough, Catherine L; Carson, Shannon S; Lo, Bernard; Matthay, Michael A; Anderson, Wendy G; Peterson, Michael W; Steingrub, Jay S; Arnold, Robert M; White, Douglas B
2016-06-01
Although barriers to shared decision making in intensive care units are well documented, there are currently no easily scaled interventions to overcome these problems. We sought to assess stakeholders' perceptions of the acceptability, usefulness, and design suggestions for a tablet-based tool to support communication and shared decision making in ICUs. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 58 key stakeholders (30 surrogates and 28 ICU care providers). Interviews explored stakeholders' perceptions about the acceptability of a tablet-based tool to support communication and shared decision making, including the usefulness of modules focused on orienting families to the ICU, educating them about the surrogate's role, completing a question prompt list, eliciting patient values, educating about treatment options, eliciting perceptions about prognosis, and providing psychosocial support resources. The interviewer also elicited stakeholders' design suggestions for such a tool. We used constant comparative methods to identify key themes that arose during the interviews. Overall, 95% (55/58) of participants perceived the proposed tool to be acceptable, with 98% (57/58) of interviewees finding six or more of the seven content domains acceptable. Stakeholders identified several potential benefits of the tool including that it would help families prepare for the surrogate role and for family meetings as well as give surrogates time and a framework to think about the patient's values and treatment options. Key design suggestions included: conceptualize the tool as a supplement to rather than a substitute for surrogate-clinician communication; make the tool flexible with respect to how, where, and when surrogates can access the tool; incorporate interactive exercises; use video and narration to minimize the cognitive load of the intervention; and build an extremely simple user interface to maximize usefulness for individuals with low computer literacy. There is broad support among stakeholders for the use of a tablet-based tool to improve communication and shared decision making in ICUs. Eliciting the perspectives of key stakeholders early in the design process yielded important insights to create a tool tailored to the needs of surrogates and care providers in ICUs. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
Communication with patients during the prenatal testing procedure: an explorative qualitative study.
van Zwieten, Myra; Willems, Dick; Knegt, Lia; Leschot, Nico
2006-10-01
While generally two phases of prenatal genetic counseling are distinguished, i.e. pre- and post-test counseling, we revealed a third form of communication during the testing procedure. The content of this intermediate communication was explored. A secondary analysis was performed on data obtained in another observational study, which was focussed on how indefinite testing results are clarified. Thirteen testing trajectories in which communication with parents took place during the testing procedure were further analysed. In the majority of cases the content of intermediate communication was similar to the content of pre-test counseling. In four cases the content was different, because the communication involved the parents in decision-making about a testing result, which was still being processed. Communication in (prenatal) genetic testing is not always restricted to separate phases, but can be an ongoing process occurring parallel to, and sometimes even intertwined with, the testing process. The advocated model of shared decision-making might work better once it is determined if the decision concerns the area wherein the provider is the expert, or the patient. Further research into the process of continuing decision-making could clarify how providers' and patients' responsibilities regarding the diagnostic process are distributed. Meanwhile, the possible occurrence of continuous decision-making should be mentioned in (prenatal) genetic counseling.
-
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.
-
Chan, Kevin K S; Mak, Winnie W S
2012-08-01
In the development of consumer-centered care for mental health consumers with schizophrenia, one key ingredient is consumer participation in health care decisions together with their healthcare providers, termed "shared decision making" (SDM). SDM requires consumers to form a number of complex ideas about themselves and their providers then use that knowledge to make sense of the illness and reach medical and psychosocial decisions. However, metacognitive deficits widely observed in schizophrenia might lead to poor insight and pragmatic language deficits in some consumers, disrupting the whole process by which a personal and consensually valid narrative account of psychiatric challenges is synthesized and flexibly evolved. Given the current understanding that it is possible to improve metacognition, in this article we summarize how Metacognitive Training (MCT) and individual psychotherapy could potentially be tailored, or modified, to help consumers to develop metacognitive capacities with an end goal of facilitating the SDM process. Consistent with the principles of consumer-defined recovery, we also suggest a strategy for engaging consumers in SDM dialogue based on "where the consumers are at". Providers are advised to be cognizant of their medically driven perspective and attempt to work with the consumers in the perspective of the consumers' own recovery goals. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Family involvement in medical decision-making: Perceptions of nursing and psychology students.
Itzhaki, Michal; Hildesheimer, Galya; Barnoy, Sivia; Katz, Michael
2016-05-01
Family members often rely on health care professionals to guide and support them through the decision-making process. Although family involvement in medical decisions should be included in the preservice curriculum for the health care professions, perceptions of students in caring professions on family involvement in medical decision-making have not yet been examined. To examine the perceptions of nursing and psychology students on family involvement in medical decision-making for seriously ill patients. A descriptive cross-sectional design was used. First year undergraduate nursing and psychology students studying for their Bachelor of Arts degree were recruited. Perceptions were assessed with a questionnaire constructed based on the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), which examines decision-maker preferences. The questionnaire consisted of two parts referring to the respondent once as the patient and then as the family caregiver. Questionnaires were completed by 116 nursing students and 156 psychology students. Most were of the opinion that family involvement in decision-making is appropriate, especially when the patient is incapable of making decisions. Nursing students were more inclined than psychology students to think that financial, emotional, and value-based considerations should be part of the family's involvement in decision-making. Both groups of students perceived the emotional consideration as most acceptable, whereas the financial consideration was considered the least acceptable. Nursing and psychology students perceive family involvement in medical decision-making as appropriate. In order to train students to support families in the process of decision-making, further research should examine Shared Decision-Making (SDM) programs, which involve patient and clinician collaboration in health care decisions. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Perceived involvement and preferences in shared decision-making among patients with hypertension.
Mah, Hui Chin; Muthupalaniappen, Leelavathi; Chong, Wei Wen
2016-06-01
Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important component of patient-centred care. However, there is limited information on its implementation in Malaysia, particularly in chronic diseases such as hypertension. The objective of this study was to examine perceived involvement and role preferences of patients with hypertension in treatment decision-making. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 210 patients with hypertension in a teaching hospital in Malaysia. The majority of respondents agreed that their doctor recognized that a decision needs to be made (89.5%) and informed them that different options are available (77.1%). However, respondents' perceived level of involvement in other aspects of treatment decision-making process was low, including in the selection of treatment and in reaching an agreement with their doctor on how to proceed with treatment. In terms of preferred decision-making roles, 51.4% of respondents preferred a collaborative role with their physicians, 44.8% preferred a passive role while only 1.9% preferred an active role. Age and educational level were found to be significantly related to patient preferences for involvement in SDM. Younger patients (<60 years) and those with higher educational level preferred SDM over passive decision-making (ρ < 0.01). Encouragement from health care providers was perceived as a major motivating factor for SDM among patients with hypertension, with 91% of respondents agreeing that this would motivate their participation in SDM. Preferences for involvement in decision-making among patients with hypertension are varied, and influenced by age and educational level. Physicians have a key role in encouraging patients to participate in SDM. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
-
Garrigan, Beverley; Adlam, Anna L R; Langdon, Peter E
2016-10-01
The aims of this systematic review were to determine: (a) which brain areas are consistently more active when making (i) moral response decisions, defined as choosing a response to a moral dilemma, or deciding whether to accept a proposed solution, or (ii) moral evaluations, defined as judging the appropriateness of another's actions in a moral dilemma, rating moral statements as right or wrong, or identifying important moral issues; and (b) shared and significantly different activation patterns for these two types of moral judgements. A systematic search of the literature returned 28 experiments. Activation likelihood estimate analysis identified the brain areas commonly more active for moral response decisions and for moral evaluations. Conjunction analysis revealed shared activation for both types of moral judgement in the left middle temporal gyrus, cingulate gyrus, and medial frontal gyrus. Contrast analyses found no significant clusters of increased activation for the moral evaluations-moral response decisions contrast, but found that moral response decisions additionally activated the left and right middle temporal gyrus and the right precuneus. Making one's own moral decisions involves different brain areas compared to judging the moral actions of others, implying that these judgements may involve different processes. Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
-
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.
-
The conduct and process of mental capacity assessments in home health care settings.
Cliff, Charlotte; McGraw, Caroline
2016-11-02
The assessment of capacity to consent to treatment is key to shared practitioner-patient decision-making. It is the responsibility of the person closest to the decision being made to carry out the assessment. The aim was to examine the factors that influence mental capacity assessments in home health care settings and identify the facilitators and inhibitors to the conduct and process of assessments as perceived and experienced by non-medical health practitioners providing generalist community services. Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of community nurses, community physiotherapists and community occupational therapists in one NHS Trust in London. Data were analysed thematically. The main themes were issues relating to: intrinsic patient factors and behaviours; recognising, managing and utilising the influence of the family; practitioner motivation and competence; working together as a team to optimise shared decision making, and; the importance of place. While some issues appear germane to both hospital and home health care settings, others are unique to - or manifest very differently in - home health care settings. The findings suggest that the influence of family members, long-term practitioner-patient relationships and physical distance from co-workers make the conduct and process of mental capacity assessments in home health care settings an inherently complex endeavour.
-
Service users' experiences of participation in decision making in mental health services.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
Bazerman, Max H; Chugh, Dolly
2006-01-01
By the time Merck withdrew its pain relief drug Vioxx from the market in 2004, more than 100 million prescriptions had been filled in the United States alone. Yet researchers now estimate that Vioxx may have been associated with as many as 25,000 heart attacks and strokes. Evidence of the drug's risks was available as early as 2000, so why did so many doctors keep prescribing it? The answer, say the authors, involves the phenomenon of bounded awareness--when cognitive blinders prevent a person from seeing, seeking, using, or sharing highly relevant, easily accessible, and readily perceivable information during the decision-making process. Doctors prescribing Vioxx, for instance, more often than not received positive feedback from patients. So, despite having access to information about the risks, physicians may have been blinded to the actual extent of the risks. Bounded awareness can occur at three points in the decision-making process. First, executives may fail to see or seek out the important information needed to make a sound decision. Second, they may fail to use the information that they do see because they aren't aware of its relevance. Third, executives may fail to share information with others, thereby bounding the organization's awareness. Drawing on examples such as the Challenger disaster and Citibank's failures in Japan, this article examines what prevents executives from seeing what's right in front of them and offers advice on how to increase awareness. Of course, not every decision requires executives to consciously broaden their focus. Collecting too much information for every decision would waste time and other valuable resources. The key is being mindful. If executives think an error could generate almost irrecoverable damage, then they should insist on getting all the information they need to make a wise decision.
-
Alden, Dana L; Friend, John; Chun, Maria B J
2013-11-01
As the health care field moves toward patient-centered care (PCC), increasing emphasis has been placed on the benefits of patient decision aids for promoting shared decision making (SDM). This study provides a baseline measure of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among Hawai'i's physicians with respect to patient decision aids (DAs). Physicians throughout the State of Hawai'i were invited to complete a survey assessing their knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to the clinical use of DAs. One hundred and seventy four valid surveys were analyzed. Reported awareness and use of DAs were low, but recognition of the benefits of SDM and openness to the use of DAs were very high. The leading perceived barriers to the implementation of DAs were lack of awareness, lack of resources, and limited physician time to learn about DA technology. However, a significant majority of the respondents reported that DAs could empower patients by improving knowledge (88%), increasing satisfaction with the consultation process (81%), and increasing compliance (74%). Among physicians currently employing DAs, use of brochures or options matrix sheets was the most common aid tool. However, leading recommended DA formats were paper-based brochures for clinic use (75%) and interactive online website programs for outside clinic use (73.5%). Given growing emphasis on the PCC model and the recognized desire of many patients to participate in the medical decision making process, positive responses toward SDM and the use of DAs by Hawai'i physicians are promising.
-
Groen-van de Ven, Leontine; Smits, Carolien; de Graaff, Fuusje; Span, Marijke; Eefsting, Jan; Jukema, Jan; Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra
2017-11-12
To explore how people with dementia, their informal caregivers and their professionals participate in decision making about daycare and to develop a typology of participation trajectories. A qualitative study with a prospective, multiperspective design, based on 244 semistructured interviews, conducted during three interview rounds over the course of a year. Analysis was by means of content analysis and typology construction. Community settings and nursing homes in the Netherlands. 19 people with dementia, 36 of their informal caregivers and 38 of their professionals (including nurses, daycare employees and case managers). The participants' responses related to three critical points in the decision-making trajectory about daycare: (1) the initial positive or negative expectations of daycare; (2) negotiation about trying out daycare by promoting, resisting or attuning to others; and (3) trying daycare, which resulted in positive or negative reactions from people with dementia and led to a decision. The ways in which care networks proceeded through these three critical points resulted in a typology of participation trajectories, including (1) working together positively toward daycare, (2) bringing conflicting perspectives together toward trying daycare and (3) not reaching commitment to try daycare. Shared decision making with people with dementia is possible and requires and adapted process of decision making. Our results show that initial preferences based on information alone may change when people with dementia experience daycare. It is important to have a try-out period so that people with dementia can experience daycare without having to decide whether to continue it. Whereas shared decision making in general aims at moving from initial preferences to informed preferences, professionals should focus more on moving from initial preferences to experienced preferences for people with dementia. Professionals can play a crucial role in facilitating the possibilities for a try-out period. © 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.
-
Factors influencing the clinical decision-making of midwives: a qualitative study.
Daemers, Darie O A; van Limbeek, Evelien B M; Wijnen, Hennie A A; Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne J; de Vries, Raymond G
2017-10-06
Although midwives make clinical decisions that have an impact on the health and well-being of mothers and babies, little is known about how they make those decisions. Wide variation in intrapartum decisions to refer women to obstetrician-led care suggests that midwives' decisions are based on more than the evidence based medicine (EBM) model - i.e. clinical evidence, midwife's expertise, and woman's values - alone. With this study we aimed to explore the factors that influence clinical decision-making of midwives who work independently. We used a qualitative approach, conducting in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 11 Dutch primary care midwives. Data collection took place between May and September 2015. The interviews were semi-structured, using written vignettes to solicit midwives' clinical decision-making processes (Think Aloud method). We performed thematic analysis on the transcripts. We identified five themes that influenced clinical decision-making: the pregnant woman as a whole person, sources of knowledge, the midwife as a whole person, the collaboration between maternity care professionals, and the organisation of care. Regarding the midwife, her decisions were shaped not only by her experience, intuition, and personal circumstances, but also by her attitudes about physiology, woman-centredness, shared decision-making, and collaboration with other professionals. The nature of the local collaboration between maternity care professionals and locally-developed protocols dominated midwives' clinical decision-making. When midwives and obstetricians had different philosophies of care and different practice styles, their collaborative efforts were challenged. Midwives' clinical decision-making is a more varied and complex process than the EBM framework suggests. If midwives are to succeed in their role as promoters and protectors of physiological pregnancy and birth, they need to understand how clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary context are actually made.
-
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.
-
Collective decision-making in microbes
Ross-Gillespie, Adin; Kümmerli, Rolf
2014-01-01
Microbes are intensely social organisms that routinely cooperate and coordinate their activities to express elaborate population level phenotypes. Such coordination requires a process of collective decision-making, in which individuals detect and collate information not only from their physical environment, but also from their social environment, in order to arrive at an appropriately calibrated response. Here, we present a conceptual overview of collective decision-making as it applies to all group-living organisms; we introduce key concepts and principles developed in the context of animal and human group decisions; and we discuss, with appropriate examples, the applicability of each of these concepts in microbial contexts. In particular, we discuss the roles of information pooling, control skew, speed vs. accuracy trade-offs, local feedbacks, quorum thresholds, conflicts of interest, and the reliability of social information. We conclude that collective decision-making in microbes shares many features with collective decision-making in higher taxa, and we call for greater integration between this fledgling field and other allied areas of research, including in the humanities and the physical sciences. PMID:24624121
-
Squitieri, Lee; Larson, Bradley P.; Chang, Kate W-C; Yang, Lynda J-S.; Chung, Kevin C.
2016-01-01
Background Elective surgical management of neonatal brachial plexus palsy is complex, variable, and often individualized. Little is known about the medical decision-making process among adolescents with NBPP and their families faced with making complex treatment decisions. The experiences of these patients and their parents were analyzed to identify key factors in the decision-making process. Patients and Methods Eighteen adolescents with residual NBPP deficits between the ages of 10 to 17 years along with their parents were included in the present study. A qualitative research design was employed involving the use of separate one hour, in person, semi-structured interviews, which were audio recorded and transcribed. Grounded theory was applied by two independent members of the research team to identify recurrent themes and ultimately create a codebook that was then applied to the data. Results Medical decision-making among adolescents with NBPP and their families is multifaceted and individualized, comprised of both patient and system dependent factors. Four codes pertaining to the medical decision-making process were identified: 1) knowledge acquisition, 2) multidisciplinary care, 3) adolescent autonomy, and 4) patient expectations and treatment desires. Overall, parental decision-making was heavily influenced by system dependent factors, while adolescents largely based their medical decision-making on individual treatment desires to improve function and/or aesthetics. Conclusions There are many areas for improving the delivery of information and health care organization among adolescents with NBPP and their families. We recommend the development of educational interdisciplinary programs and decision aids containing evidence-based management guidelines targeted toward primary care providers and patients. We believe that a computer-based learning module may provide the best avenue to achieve maximum penetrance and convenience of information sharing. PMID:23714810
-
Developing an Advanced Environment for Collaborative Computing
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Becerra-Fernandez, Irma; Stewart, Helen; DelAlto, Martha; DelAlto, Martha; Knight, Chris
1999-01-01
Knowledge management in general tries to organize and make available important know-how, whenever and where ever is needed. Today, organizations rely on decision-makers to produce "mission critical" decisions that am based on inputs from multiple domains. The ideal decision-maker has a profound understanding of specific domains that influence the decision-making process coupled with the experience that allows them to act quickly and decisively on the information. In addition, learning companies benefit by not repeating costly mistakes, and by reducing time-to-market in Research & Development projects. Group-decision making tools can help companies make better decisions by capturing the knowledge from groups of experts. Furthermore, companies that capture their customers preferences can improve their customer service, which translates to larger profits. Therefore collaborative computing provides a common communication space, improves sharing of knowledge, provides a mechanism for real-time feedback on the tasks being performed, helps to optimize processes, and results in a centralized knowledge warehouse. This paper presents the research directions. of a project which seeks to augment an advanced collaborative web-based environment called Postdoc, with workflow capabilities. Postdoc is a "government-off-the-shelf" document management software developed at NASA-Ames Research Center (ARC).
-
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.
-
Patient autonomy in multiple sclerosis--possible goals and assessment strategies.
Heesen, C; Köpke, S; Solari, A; Geiger, F; Kasper, J
2013-08-15
Patient autonomy has been increasingly acknowledged as prerequisite for successful medical decision making in Western countries. In medical decisions with a need to involve a health professional, patient autonomy becomes apparent in the extent of patients' participation in the communication as described in the concept of shared decision making. Patient autonomy can be derived from different perspectives or goals and the focus of evaluation approaches may vary accordingly. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a paradigmatic disease to study patient autonomy mainly because MS patients are highly disease competent and due to ambiguous evidence on many aspects of disease-related medical decision making. This review gives an overview on measurement issues in studying decision making in MS, categorized according to prerequisites, process measures and outcomes of patient autonomy. As relevant prerequisites role preferences, risk attribution, risk tolerance, and risk knowledge are discussed. Regarding processes, we distinguish intra-psychic and interpersonal aspects. Intra-psychic processes are elucidated using the theory of planned behavior, which guided development of a 30-item scale to capture decisions about immunotherapy. Moreover, a theory of uncertainty management has been created resulting in the development of a corresponding measurement concept. Interpersonal processes evolving between physician and patient can be thoroughly analyzed from different perspectives by use of the newly developed comprehensive MAPPIN'SDM inventory. Concerning outcomes, besides health related outcomes, we discuss match of preferred roles during the decision encounters (preference match), decisional conflict as well as an application of the multidimensional measure of informed choice to decisions of MS patients. These approaches provide an overview on patient-inherent and interpersonal factors and processes modulating medical decision making and health behavior in MS and beyond. Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier B.V.
-
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…
-
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
-
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.
-
Shared decision-making and decision support: their role in obstetrics and gynecology.
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.
-
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.
-
Zhang, Long; Tang, Jiulai; Dong, Yi; Ji, Yifu; Tao, Rui; Liang, Zhitu; Chen, Jingsong; Wu, Yun; Wang, Kai
2015-01-01
Although individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and schizophrenia (SCH) share overlapping characteristics and may perform similarly on many cognitive tasks, cognitive dysfunctions common to both disorders do not necessarily share the same underlying mechanisms. Decision-making is currently a major research interest for both ASD and SCH. The aim of the present study was to make direct comparisons of decision-making and disorder-specific underlying neuropsychological mechanisms between the two disorders. Thirty-seven participants with ASD, 46 patients with SCH, and 80 healthy controls (HC) were assessed with the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which measures decision-making under ambiguity, and the Game of Dice Task (GDT), which measures decision-making under risk. The results revealed that both the ASD and SCH groups had deficits for both the IGT and the GDT compared with the HC. More importantly, in the IGT, participants with ASD displayed a preference for deck A, indicating that they had more sensitivity to the magnitude of loss than to the frequency of loss, whereas patients with SCH displayed a preference for deck B, indicating that they showed more sensitivity to the frequency of loss than to the magnitude of loss. In the GDT, the impaired performance might be due to the deficits in executive functions in patients with SCH, whereas the impaired performance might be due to the deficits in feedback processing in participants with ASD. These findings demonstrate that there are similar impairments in decision-making tasks between ASD and SCH; however, these two disorders may have different impairment mechanisms.
-
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.
-
Military Service and Decision Quality in the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis.
Henderson, Eric R; Titus, Alexander J; Keeney, Benjamin J; Goodney, Philip P; Lurie, Jon D; Ibrahim, Said A
2018-05-18
Decision quality measures the degree to which care decisions are knowledge-based and value-aligned. Because military service emphasizes hierarchy, command, and mandates some healthcare decisions, military service may attenuate patient autonomy in healthcare decisions and lower decision quality. VA is the nation's largest provider of orthopedic care. We compared decision quality in a sample of VA and non-VA patients seeking care for knee osteoarthritis. Our study sample consisted of patients newly referred to our orthopedic clinic for the management of knee osteoarthritis. None of the study patients were exposed to a knee osteoarthritis decision aid. Consenting patients were administered the Hip/Knee Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI). In addition, they were surveyed about decision-making preferences and demographics. We compared results to a non-VA cohort from our academic institution's arthroplasty database. The HK-DQI Knowledge Score was lower in the VA cohort (45%, SD = 22, n = 25) compared with the non-VA cohort (53%, SD = 21, n = 177) (p = 0.04). The Concordance Score was lower in the VA cohort (36%, SD = 49%) compared with the control cohort (70%, SD 46%) (p = 0.003). Non-VA patients were more likely to make a high-quality decision (p = 0.05). Non-VA patients were more likely to favor a shared decision-making process (p = 0.002). Decision quality is lower in Veterans with knee osteoarthritis compared with civilians, placing them at risk for lower treatment satisfaction and possibly unwarranted surgical utilization. Our future work will examine if this difference is from conditioned military service behaviors or confounding demographic factors, and if conventional shared decision-making techniques will correct this deficiency.
-
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
-
Desire for autonomy in health care decisions: a general population survey.
Cullati, Stéphane; Courvoisier, Delphine S; Charvet-Bérard, Agathe I; Perneger, Thomas V
2011-04-01
To examine factors associated with desire for autonomy in health care decisions in the general population. Mailed survey of 2348 residents of Geneva, Switzerland. Participants answered questions on a scale measuring their desire for autonomy in health care decisions. The scale was scored between 0 (lowest desire for autonomy) and 100 (highest desire for autonomy). On average the respondents favoured shared or active involvement in medical decisions (mean score 62.0, SD 20.9), but attitudes varied considerably. In the multivariate model, factors associated with a higher desire for autonomy included female gender, younger age, higher education, living alone, reporting an excellent global health and - a new observation compared to previous studies - having made several medical decisions in the past 6 months. The attitudes of the general public appear to be consistent with the model of shared decision making. However, people vary considerably in their desire for autonomy. An explicit assessment of each individual's desire for autonomy may improve the decision-making process. Such an assessment should be repeated regularly, as familiarity with medical decisions may increase the desire for autonomy. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Balancing emotion and cognition: a case for decision aiding in conservation efforts.
Wilson, Robyn S
2008-12-01
Despite advances in the quality of participatory decision making for conservation, many current efforts still suffer from an inability to bridge the gap between science and policy. Judgment and decision-making research suggests this gap may result from a person's reliance on affect-based shortcuts in complex decision contexts. I examined the results from 3 experiments that demonstrate how affect (i.e., the instantaneous reaction one has to a stimulus) influences individual judgments in these contexts and identified techniques from the decision-aiding literature that help encourage a balance between affect-based emotion and cognition in complex decision processes. In the first study, subjects displayed a lack of focus on their stated conservation objectives and made decisions that reflected their initial affective impressions. Value-focused approaches may help individuals incorporate all the decision-relevant objectives by making the technical and value-based objectives more salient. In the second study, subjects displayed a lack of focus on statistical risk and again made affect-based decisions. Trade-off techniques may help individuals incorporate relevant technical data, even when it conflicts with their initial affective impressions or other value-based objectives. In the third study, subjects displayed a lack of trust in decision-making authorities when the decision involved a negatively affect-rich outcome (i.e., a loss). Identifying shared salient values and increasing procedural fairness may help build social trust in both decision-making authorities and the decision process.
-
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.
-
Health technology assessment-based development of a Spanish breast cancer patient decision aid.
Izquierdo, Fátima; Gracia, Javier; Guerra, Mercedes; Blasco, Juan Antonio; Andradas, Elena
2011-10-01
The aim of this study was to develop a breast cancer Patient Decision Aid (PDA), using a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process, to assist patients in their choice of therapeutic options, and to promote shared decision making among patients, healthcare professionals, and other interested parties. A systematic review (SR) was conducted of existing breast cancer patient Decision Aids encountered in the main scientific journal databases and on institutional Web sites that create PDAs, together with a Qualitative Research (QR) study, using semi-structured interviews and focus group with stakeholders (patients, family members, and health professionals), with the aim of developing a PDA for breast cancer. The SR shows that PDAs in breast cancer not only increase patient knowledge of the illness, leading to more realistic expectations of treatment outcomes, but also reduce passivity in the decision-making process and facilitate the appropriate choice of treatment options in accordance with patient medical and personal preferences. The analysis of QR shows that both breast cancer patients and healthcare professionals agree that surgery, adjuvant treatments, and breast reconstruction represent the most important decisions to be made. Worry, anxiety, optimism, and trust in healthcare professionals were determined as factors that most affected patients subjective experiences of the illness. This HTA was used as the basis for developing a PDA software program. The SR and QR used in the development of this PDA for breast cancer allowed patients to access information, gain additional knowledge of their illness, make shared treatment decisions, and gave healthcare professionals a deeper insight into patient experiences of the disease.
-
Clinical use of patient decision-making aids for stone patients.
Lim, Amy H; Streeper, Necole M; Best, Sara L; Penniston, Kristina L; Nakada, Stephen Y
2017-08-01
Patient decision-making aids (PDMAs) help patients make informed healthcare decisions and improve patient satisfaction. The utility of PDMAs for patients considering treatments for urolithiasis has not yet been published. We report our experience using PDMAs developed at our institution in the outpatient clinical setting in patients considering a variety of treatment options for stones. Patients with radiographically confirmed urolithiasis were given PDMAs regarding treatment options for their stone(s) based on their clinical profile. We assessed patients' satisfaction, involvedness, and feeling of making a more informed decision with utilization of the PDMAs using a Likert Scale Questionnaire. Information was also collected regarding previous stone passage, history and type of surgical intervention for urolithiasis, and level of education. Patients (n = 43; 18 males, 23 females and two unknown) 53 +/- 14years old were included. Patients reported that they understood the advantages and disadvantages outlined in the PDMAs (97%), that the PDMAs helped them make a more informed decision (83%) and felt more involved in the decision making process (88%). Patients reported that the aids were presented in a balanced manner and used up-to-date scientific information (100%, 84% respectively). Finally, a majority of the patients prefer an expert's opinion when making a treatment decision (98%) with 73% of patients preferring to form their own opinion based on available information. Previous stone surgery was associated with patients feeling more involved with the decision making process (p = 0.0465). PDMAs have a promising role in shared decision-making in the setting of treatment options for nephrolithiasis.
-
GROUP DECISIONS. Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons.
Strandburg-Peshkin, Ariana; Farine, Damien R; Couzin, Iain D; Crofoot, Margaret C
2015-06-19
Conflicts of interest about where to go and what to do are a primary challenge of group living. However, it remains unclear how consensus is achieved in stable groups with stratified social relationships. Tracking wild baboons with a high-resolution global positioning system and analyzing their movements relative to one another reveals that a process of shared decision-making governs baboon movement. Rather than preferentially following dominant individuals, baboons are more likely to follow when multiple initiators agree. When conflicts arise over the direction of movement, baboons choose one direction over the other when the angle between them is large, but they compromise if it is not. These results are consistent with models of collective motion, suggesting that democratic collective action emerging from simple rules is widespread, even in complex, socially stratified societies. Copyright © 2015, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
-
Midwives׳ clinical reasoning during second stage labour: Report on an interpretive study.
Jefford, Elaine; Fahy, Kathleen
2015-05-01
clinical reasoning was once thought to be the exclusive domain of medicine - setting it apart from 'non-scientific' occupations like midwifery. Poor assessment, clinical reasoning and decision-making skills are well known contributors to adverse outcomes in maternity care. Midwifery decision-making models share a common deficit: they are insufficiently detailed to guide reasoning processes for midwives in practice. For these reasons we wanted to explore if midwives actively engaged in clinical reasoning processes within their clinical practice and if so to what extent. The study was conducted using post structural, feminist methodology. to what extent do midwives engage in clinical reasoning processes when making decisions in the second stage labour? twenty-six practising midwives were interviewed. Feminist interpretive analysis was conducted by two researchers guided by the steps of a model of clinical reasoning process. Six narratives were excluded from analysis because they did not sufficiently address the research question. The midwives narratives were prepared via data reduction. A theoretically informed analysis and interpretation was conducted. using a feminist, interpretive approach we created a model of midwifery clinical reasoning grounded in the literature and consistent with the data. Thirteen of the 20 participant narratives demonstrate analytical clinical reasoning abilities but only nine completed the process and implemented the decision. Seven midwives used non-analytical decision-making without adequately checking against assessment data. over half of the participants demonstrated the ability to use clinical reasoning skills. Less than half of the midwives demonstrated clinical reasoning as their way of making decisions. The new model of Midwifery Clinical Reasoning includes 'intuition' as a valued way of knowing. Using intuition, however, should not replace clinical reasoning which promotes through decision-making can be made transparent and be consensually validated. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Rethinking autonomy: decision making between patient and surgeon in advanced illnesses
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
-
A Hybrid-Cloud Science Data System Enabling Advanced Rapid Imaging & Analysis for Monitoring Hazards
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Hua, H.; Owen, S. E.; Yun, S.; Lundgren, P.; Moore, A. W.; Fielding, E. J.; Radulescu, C.; Sacco, G.; Stough, T. M.; Mattmann, C. A.; Cervelli, P. F.; Poland, M. P.; Cruz, J.
2012-12-01
Volcanic eruptions, landslides, and levee failures are some examples of hazards that can be more accurately forecasted with sufficient monitoring of precursory ground deformation, such as the high-resolution measurements from GPS and InSAR. In addition, coherence and reflectivity change maps can be used to detect surface change due to lava flows, mudslides, tornadoes, floods, and other natural and man-made disasters. However, it is difficult for many volcano observatories and other monitoring agencies to process GPS and InSAR products in an automated scenario needed for continual monitoring of events. Additionally, numerous interoperability barriers exist in multi-sensor observation data access, preparation, and fusion to create actionable products. Combining high spatial resolution InSAR products with high temporal resolution GPS products--and automating this data preparation & processing across global-scale areas of interests--present an untapped science and monitoring opportunity. The global coverage offered by satellite-based SAR observations, and the rapidly expanding GPS networks, can provide orders of magnitude more data on these hazardous events if we have a data system that can efficiently and effectively analyze the voluminous raw data, and provide users the tools to access data from their regions of interest. Currently, combined GPS & InSAR time series are primarily generated for specific research applications, and are not implemented to run on large-scale continuous data sets and delivered to decision-making communities. We are developing an advanced service-oriented architecture for hazard monitoring leveraging NASA-funded algorithms and data management to enable both science and decision-making communities to monitor areas of interests via seamless data preparation, processing, and distribution. Our objectives: * Enable high-volume and low-latency automatic generation of NASA Solid Earth science data products (InSAR and GPS) to support hazards monitoring. * Facilitate NASA-USGS collaborations to share NASA InSAR and GPS data products, which are difficult to process in high-volume and low-latency, for decision-support. * Enable interoperable discovery, access, and sharing of NASA observations and derived actionable products, and between the observation and decision-making communities. * Enable their improved understanding through visualization, mining, and cross-agency sharing. Existing InSAR & GPS processing packages and other software are integrated for generating geodetic decision support monitoring products. We employ semantic and cloud-based data management and processing techniques for handling large data volumes, reducing end product latency, codifying data system information with semantics, and deploying interoperable services for actionable products to decision-making communities.
-
Johnson, Robert F; Gustin, Jillian
2011-07-01
A 69-year-old female was receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) for acute renal failure (ARF) in an intensive care unit (ICU). Consultation was requested from the palliative medicine service to facilitate a shared decision-making process regarding goals of care. Clinician responsibility in shared decision making includes the formulation and expression of a prognostic assessment providing the necessary perspective for a spokesperson to match patient values with treatment options. For this patient, ARF requiring RRT in the ICU was used as a focal point for preparing a prognostic assessment. A prognostic assessment should include the outcomes of most importance to a discussion of goals of care: mortality risk and survivor functional status, in this case including renal recovery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to document published data regarding these outcomes for adult patients receiving RRT for ARF in the ICU. Forty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The combined mean values for short-term mortality, long-term mortality, renal-function recovery of short-term survivors, and renal-function recovery of long-term survivors were 51.7%, 68.6%, 82.0%, and 88.4%, respectively. This case example illustrates a process for formulating and expressing a prognostic assessment for an ICU patient requiring RRT for ARF. Data from the literature review provide baseline information that requires adjustment to reflect specific patient circumstances. The nature of the acute primary process, comorbidities, and severity of illness are key modifiers. Finally, the prognostic assessment is expressed during a family meeting using recommended principles of communication.
-
Barriers and Promoters to Participation in the Era of Shared Treatment Decision-Making.
McCarter, Sarah P; Tariman, Joseph D; Spawn, Nadia; Mehmeti, Enisa; Bishop-Royse, Jessica; Garcia, Ima; Hartle, Lisa; Szubski, Katharine
2016-10-01
This study aimed to identify the barriers and promoters for participation in cancer treatment decision in the era of shared decision-making (SDM) process. A qualitative design was utilized. Nineteen nurses and 11 nurse practitioners from oncology inpatient and outpatient settings participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. The findings include practice barrier, patient barrier, institutional policy barrier, professional barrier, scope of practice barrier, insurance coverage barrier, and administrative barrier. Multidisciplinary team approach, having a nursing voice during SDM, high level of knowledge of the disease and treatment, and personal valuation of SDM participation were perceived as promoters. Oncology nurses and nurse practitioners face many barriers to their participation during SDM. Organizational support and system-wide culture of SDM are essential to achieve better cancer treatment decisions outcome. Additional studies are needed to determine the factors that can promote more participation among nurses and nurse practitioners. © The Author(s) 2016.
-
Yu, Catherine H; Stacey, Dawn; Sale, Joanna; Hall, Susan; Kaplan, David M; Ivers, Noah; Rezmovitz, Jeremy; Leung, Fok-Han; Shah, Baiju R; Straus, Sharon E
2014-01-22
Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice.2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness.3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity.4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis.5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach.
-
2014-01-01
Background Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. Objectives To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice. 2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness. 3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity. 4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis. 5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Discussion Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach. PMID:24450385
-
Giguere, Anik Mc; Labrecque, Michel; Légaré, France; Grad, Roland; Cauchon, Michel; Greenway, Matthew; Haynes, R Brian; Pluye, Pierre; Syed, Iqra; Banerjee, Debi; Carmichael, Pierre-Hugues; Martin, Mélanie
2015-02-25
Decision boxes (DBoxes) are two-page evidence summaries to prepare clinicians for shared decision making (SDM). We sought to assess the feasibility of a clustered Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to evaluate their impact. A convenience sample of clinicians (nurses, physicians and residents) from six primary healthcare clinics who received eight DBoxes and rated their interest in the topic and satisfaction. After consultations, their patients rated their involvement in decision-making processes (SDM-Q-9 instrument). We measured clinic and clinician recruitment rates, questionnaire completion rates, patient eligibility rates, and estimated the RCT needed sample size. Among the 20 family medicine clinics invited to participate in this study, four agreed to participate, giving an overall recruitment rate of 20%. Of 148 clinicians invited to the study, 93 participated (63%). Clinicians rated an interest in the topics ranging 6.4-8.2 out of 10 (with 10 highest) and a satisfaction with DBoxes of 4 or 5 out of 5 (with 5 highest) for 81% DBoxes. For the future RCT, we estimated that a sample size of 320 patients would allow detecting a 9% mean difference in the SDM-Q-9 ratings between our two arms (0.02 ICC; 0.05 significance level; 80% power). Clinicians' recruitment and questionnaire completion rates support the feasibility of the planned RCT. The level of interest of participants for the DBox topics, and their level of satisfaction with the Dboxes demonstrate the acceptability of the intervention. Processes to recruit clinics and patients should be optimized.
-
Participative management in health care services.
Muller, M
1995-03-01
The need and demand for the highest-quality management of all health care delivery activities requires a participative management approach. The purpose with this article is to explore the process of participative management, to generate and describe a model for such management, focusing mainly on the process of participative management, and to formulate guidelines for operationalization of the procedure. An exploratory, descriptive and theory-generating research design is pursued. After a brief literature review, inductive reasoning is mainly employed to identify and define central concepts, followed by the formulation of a few applicable statements and guidelines. Participative management is viewed as a process of that constitutes the elements of dynamic interactive decision-making and problem-solving, shared governance, empowerment, organisational transformation, and dynamic communication within the health care organisation. The scientific method of assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation is utilised throughout the process of participative management. A continuum of interactive decision-making and problem-solving is described, the different role-players involved, as well as the levels of interactive decision-making and problem-solving. The most appropriate decision-making strategy should be employed in pro-active and reactive decision-making. Applicable principles and assumptions in each element of participative management is described. It is recommended that this proposed model for participative management be refined by means of a literature control, interactive dialogue with experts and a model case description or participative management, to ensure the trustworthiness of this research.
-
Dirks, Lisa G; Avey, Jaedon P; Hiratsuka, Vanessa Y; Dillard, Denise A; Caindec, Karen; Robinson, Renee F
2018-01-01
Increased attention to diagnostic accuracy in depression screening and management within primary care has demonstrated inadequate care when patients prematurely discontinue recommended treatments such as medication and counseling. Decision-support tools can enhance the medical decision-making process. In 2010, the Southcentral Foundation (SCF) Research Department developed a stakeholder-driven decision support tool to aid in depression management. This paper describes feedback from attendees at SCF's 2016 Alaska Native Health Research Forum (Forum) regarding a dissemination product highlighting the aforementioned study. Forum attendees participated in a small group discussion and responded to a brief survey using the audience response system. Thematic analysis was conducted on data from the small group discussion. Overall, Forum attendees responded favorably to the dissemination product. Most agreed the presentation was clear, the amount of information presented was appropriate, and that results were presented in an interesting way. Small group discussion participants provided constructive feedback about why depression-related research results should be shared; how they believed results should be best shared; who results should be shared with; when and where results should be shared; and what level of research results should be shared. The stigma associated with depression treatment may be assuaged if results are shared in a way that normalizes support for depression treatment. Community member involvement in disseminating results has potential to make information more acceptable and meaningful.
-
2005-03-01
team-wide accountability and rewards Functional focus Group accountability and rewards Employee-owner interest conflicts Process focus Lack of...Collaborative and cross-functional work Incompatible IT Need to share Compartmentalization of functional groups Localized decision making Centralized...Steps are: • Step 1: Analyze Corporate Strategic Objectives Using SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Methodology • Step 2
-
Refining a brief decision aid in stable CAD: cognitive interviews.
Kelly-Blake, Karen; Clark, Stacie; Dontje, Katherine; Olomu, Adesuwa; Henry, Rebecca C; Rovner, David R; Rothert, Marilyn L; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret
2014-02-13
We describe the results of cognitive interviews to refine the "Making Choices©" Decision Aid (DA) for shared decision-making (SDM) about stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). We conducted a systematic development process to design a DA consistent with International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) focused on Alpha testing criteria. Cognitive interviews were conducted with ten stable CAD patients using the "think aloud" interview technique to assess the clarity, usefulness, and design of each page of the DA. Participants identified three main messages: 1) patients have multiple options based on stress tests and they should be discussed with a physician, 2) take care of yourself, 3) the stress test is the gold standard for determining the severity of your heart disease. Revisions corrected the inaccurate assumption of item number three. Cognitive interviews proved critical for engaging patients in the development process and highlighted the necessity of clear message development and use of design principles that make decision materials easy to read and easy to use. Cognitive interviews appear to contribute critical information from the patient perspective to the overall systematic development process for designing decision aids.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Voglmayr, Elisabeth; Widder, Joachim
2006-05-01
By means of a case report on a 44-year-old female patient, we show how, with changing personnel and places of care, decisions as well as the kind of decision-making during illness influence the quality of care. The patient was receiving immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplantation and then suffered from a carcinomatous ovary. At first she refused postoperative chemotherapy, but then returned with a very advanced state of metastatic growth. The lack of continuity, a missing overall interdisciplinary concept of medical case, as well as the failure to document decision processes and the patient's attitude to life and suffering made it difficult for the caring team to accompany her in the last weeks of life. A possible solution to such a complex problem will be the introduction of ethical case deliberation.
-
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.
-
Zizzo, Natalie; Bell, Emily; Lafontaine, Anne-Louise; Racine, Eric
2017-08-01
Patient-centred care is a recommended model of care for Parkinson's disease (PD). It aims to provide care that is respectful and responsive to patient preferences, values and perspectives. Provision of patient-centred care should entail considering how patients want to be involved in their care. To understand the participation preferences of patients with PD from a patient-centred care clinic in health-care decision-making processes. Mixed-methods study with early-stage Parkinson's disease patients from a patient-centred care clinic. Study involved a modified Autonomy Preference Index survey (N=65) and qualitative, semi-structured in-depth interviews, analysed using thematic qualitative content analysis (N=20, purposefully selected from survey participants). Interviews examined (i) the patient preferences for involvement in health-care decision making; (ii) patient perspectives on the patient-physician relationship; and (iii) patient preferences for communication of information relevant to decision making. Preferences for participation in decision making varied between individuals and also within individuals depending on decision type, relational and contextual factors. Patients had high preferences for communication of information, but with acknowledged limits. The importance of communication in the patient-physician relationship was emphasized. Patient preferences for involvement in decision making are dynamic and support shared decision making. Relational autonomy corresponds to how patients envision their participation in decision making. Clinicians may need to assess patient preferences on an on-going basis. Our results highlight the complexities of decision-making processes. Improved understanding of individual preferences could enhance respect for persons and make for patient-centred care that is truly respectful of individual patients' wants, needs and values. © 2016 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
Sterilization surgery - making a decision
... 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 ...
-
Barken, Tina Lien; Thygesen, Elin; Söderhamn, Ulrika
2017-12-28
Telemedicine is changing traditional nursing care, and entails nurses performing advanced and complex care within a new clinical environment, and monitoring patients at a distance. Telemedicine practice requires complex disease management, advocating that the nurses' reasoning and decision-making processes are supported. Computerised decision support systems are being used increasingly to assist reasoning and decision-making in different situations. However, little research has focused on the clinical reasoning of nurses using a computerised decision support system in a telemedicine setting. Therefore, the objective of the study is to explore the process of telemedicine nurses' clinical reasoning when using a computerised decision support system for the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The factors influencing the reasoning and decision-making processes were investigated. In this ethnographic study, a combination of data collection methods, including participatory observations, the think-aloud technique, and a focus group interview was employed. Collected data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. When telemedicine nurses used a computerised decision support system for the management of patients with complex, unstable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, two categories emerged: "the process of telemedicine nurses' reasoning to assess health change" and "the influence of the telemedicine setting on nurses' reasoning and decision-making processes". An overall theme, termed "advancing beyond the system", represented the connection between the reasoning processes and the telemedicine work and setting, where being familiar with the patient functioned as a foundation for the nurses' clinical reasoning process. In the telemedicine setting, when supported by a computerised decision support system, nurses' reasoning was enabled by the continuous flow of digital clinical data, regular video-mediated contact and shared decision-making with the patient. These factors fostered an in-depth knowledge of the patients and acted as a foundation for the nurses' reasoning process. Nurses' reasoning frequently advanced beyond the computerised decision support system recommendations. Future studies are warranted to develop more accurate algorithms, increase system maturity, and improve the integration of the digital clinical information with clinical experiences, to support telemedicine nurses' reasoning process.
-
Giordano, R; Passarella, G; Uricchio, V F; Vurro, M
2007-07-01
The importance of shared decision processes in water management derives from the awareness of the inadequacy of traditional--i.e. engineering--approaches in dealing with complex and ill-structured problems. It is becoming increasingly obvious that traditional problem solving and decision support techniques, based on optimisation and factual knowledge, have to be combined with stakeholder based policy design and implementation. The aim of our research is the definition of an integrated decision support system for consensus achievement (IDSS-C) able to support a participative decision-making process in all its phases: problem definition and structuring, identification of the possible alternatives, formulation of participants' judgments, and consensus achievement. Furthermore, the IDSS-C aims at structuring, i.e. systematising the knowledge which has emerged during the participative process in order to make it comprehensible for the decision-makers and functional for the decision process. Problem structuring methods (PSM) and multi-group evaluation methods (MEM) have been integrated in the IDSS-C. PSM are used to support the stakeholders in providing their perspective of the problem and to elicit their interests and preferences, while MEM are used to define not only the degree of consensus for each alternative, highlighting those where the agreement is high, but also the consensus label for each alternative and the behaviour of individuals during the participative decision-making. The IDSS-C is applied experimentally to a decision process regarding the use of treated wastewater for agricultural irrigation in the Apulia Region (southern Italy).
-
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.
-
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.
-
Shared decision making for psychiatric medication management: beyond the micro-social.
Morant, Nicola; Kaminskiy, Emma; Ramon, Shulamit
2016-10-01
Mental health care has lagged behind other health-care domains in developing and applying shared decision making (SDM) for treatment decisions. This is despite compatibilities with ideals of modern mental health care such as self-management and recovery-oriented practice, and growing policy-level interest. Psychiatric medication is a mainstay of mental health treatment, but there are known problems with prescribing practices, and service users report feeling uninvolved in medication decisions and concerned about adverse effects. SDM has potential to produce better tailoring of psychiatric medication to individuals' needs. This conceptual review argues that several aspects of mental health care that differ from other health-care contexts (e.g. forms of coercion, questions about service users' insight and disempowerment) may impact on processes and possibilities for SDM. It is therefore problematic to uncritically import models of SDM developed in other health-care contexts. We argue that decision making for psychiatric medication is better understood in a broader way that moves beyond the micro-social focus of a medical consultation. Contextualizing specific medication-related consultations within longer term relationships, and broader service systems enables recognition of the multiple processes, actors and agendas that shape how psychiatric medication is prescribed, managed and used, and which may facilitate or impede SDM. A broad conceptualization of decision making for psychiatric medication that moves beyond the micro-social can account for why SDM in this domain remains a rarity. It has both conceptual and practical utility for evaluating research evidence, identifying future research priorities and highlighting fruitful ways of developing and implementing SDM in mental health care. © 2015 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
Laws, M Barton; Lee, Yoojin; Taubin, Tatiana; Rogers, William H; Wilson, Ira B
2018-01-01
While some studies have assessed patient recall of important information from ambulatory care visits, none has done so recently. Furthermore, little is known about features of clinical interactions which are associated with patient understanding and recall, without which shared decision making, a widely shared ideal for patient care, cannot occur. Our objective was to evaluate characteristics of patients and outpatient encounters associated with patient recall of information after one week, along with observation of elements of shared decision making. This was an observational study based on coded transcripts of 189 outpatient encounters, and post-visit interviews with patients 1 week later. Coding used three previously validated systems, adopted for this study. Forty-nine percent of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; 15% recalled erroneously or not at all. Provider behaviors hypothesized to be associated with patient recall, such as open-questioning and "teach back," were rare. Patients with less than high school education recalled 38% of items freely and accurately, while patients with a college degree recalled 65% (p < .0001). In a multivariate model, the total number of items to be recalled per visit, and percentage of utterances in decision-making processes by the provider ("verbal dominance"), were significant predictors of poorer recall. The item count was associated with poorer recall for lower, but not higher, educated patients.
-
Is leadership a reliable concept in animals? An empirical study in the horse.
Bourjade, Marie; Thierry, Bernard; Hausberger, Martine; Petit, Odile
2015-01-01
Leadership is commonly invoked when accounting for the coordination of group movements in animals, yet it remains loosely defined. In parallel, there is increased evidence of the sharing of group decisions by animals on the move. How leadership integrates within this recent framework on collective decision-making is unclear. Here, we question the occurrence of leadership in horses, a species in which this concept is of prevalent use. The relevance of the three main definitions of leadership--departing first, walking in front travel position, and eliciting the joining of mates--was tested on the collective movements of two semi-free ranging groups of Przewalski horses (Equus ferus przewalskii). We did not find any leader capable of driving most group movements or recruiting mates more quickly than others. Several group members often displayed pre-departure behaviours at the same time, and the simultaneous departure of several individuals was common. We conclude that the decision-making process was shared by several group members a group movement (i.e., partially shared consensus) and that the leadership concept did not help to depict individual departure and leading behaviour across movements in both study groups. Rather, the different proxies of leadership produced conflicting information about individual contributions to group coordination. This study discusses the implications of these findings for the field of coordination and decision-making research.
-
[The role of epidemiology in the process of decision-making].
Prost, A
1997-01-01
Epidemiology is the method of choice for quantifying and interpreting health phenomena, placing them into perspective to allow trend analysis and projections. It is a tool for analysis, evaluation and forecasting and is thus indispensable in the decision-making process. However, this comprehensive technique has its limitations since health is the result of complex interactions: individual requirements do not always correspond to the overall needs of the community; consideration has to be given to solidarity and the necessity for cost-sharing; and the decision process is strongly influenced by social, cultural, religious and political factors which defy quantification and, on occasion, any rational course of action. Each indicator only takes into account one aspect of the situation and the pertinent indicator should therefore be carefully selected. At the same time, any choice implicitly signifies value judgements-often unnoticed-which need to be balanced and validated in relation to the ethical values of the community in order to be of any assistance to decision-making. Decision-making is a qualitative political process which, although based on the quantitative analysis supplied by epidemiology, cannot be limited to it. Each approach enhance the other, but they should not be confused if freedom to act is to be preserved from being locked into some kind of mechanical process that is unacceptable both to man and to society.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Dicks, Sean Glenton; Ranse, Kristen; van Haren, Frank MP; Boer, Douglas P
2017-01-01
Information and compassion assist families of potential organ donors to make informed decisions. However, psychological implications of the in-hospital process are not well described with past research focusing on decision-making. To enhance understanding and improve service delivery, a systematic review was conducted. Inductive analysis and synthesis utilised Grounded Theory Methodology within a systems theory framework and contributed to a model proposing that family and staff form a System of Systems with shared responsibility for process outcomes. This model can guide evaluation and improvement of care and will be tested by means of a longitudinal study of family experiences. PMID:28680696
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oliver, J M; Slashinski, M J; Wang, T; Kelly, P A; Hilsenbeck, S G; McGuire, A L
2012-01-01
Technological advancements are rapidly propelling the field of genome research forward, while lawmakers attempt to keep apace with the risks these advances bear. Balancing normative concerns of maximizing data utility and protecting human subjects, whose privacy is at risk due to the identifiability of DNA data, are central to policy decisions. Research on genome research participants making real-time data sharing decisions is limited; yet, these perspectives could provide critical information to ongoing deliberations. We conducted a randomized trial of 3 consent types affording varying levels of control over data release decisions. After debriefing participants about the randomization process, we invited them to a follow-up interview to assess their attitudes toward genetic research, privacy and data sharing. Participants were more restrictive in their reported data sharing preferences than in their actual data sharing decisions. They saw both benefits and risks associated with sharing their genomic data, but risks were seen as less concrete or happening in the future, and were largely outweighed by purported benefits. Policymakers must respect that participants' assessment of the risks and benefits of data sharing and their privacy-utility determinations, which are associated with their final data release decisions, vary. In order to advance the ethical conduct of genome research, proposed policy changes should carefully consider these stakeholder perspectives. Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.
-
Siedlikowski, Sophia; Ells, Carolyn; Bartlett, Gillian
2018-01-01
A decision to undertake screening for breast cancer often takes place within the primary care setting, but current controversies such as overdiagnosis and inconsistent screening recommendations based on evolving evidence render this a challenging process, particularly for average-risk women. Given the responsibility of primary care providers in counseling women in this decision-making process, it is important to understand their thoughts on these controversies and how they manage uncertainty in their practice. To review the perspectives and approaches of primary care providers regarding mammography decision-making with average-risk women. This study is a critical interpretive review of peer-review literature that reports primary care provider perspectives on mammography screening decision-making. Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid PsycInfo, and Scopus databases were searched with dates from 2002 to 2017 using search terms related to mammography screening, uncertainty, counseling, decision-making, and primary health care providers. Nine articles were included following a review process involving the three authors. Using an inductive and iterative approach, data were grouped into four thematic categories: (1) perceptions on the effectiveness of screening, screening initiation age, and screening frequency; (2) factors guiding primary care providers in the screening decision-making process, including both provider and patient-related factors, (3) uncertainty faced by primary care providers regarding guidelines and screening discussions with their patients; and (4) informed decision-making with average-risk women, including factors that facilitate and hinder this process. The discussion of results addresses several factors about the diversity of perspectives and practices of physicians counseling average-risk women regarding breast cancer screening. This has implications for the challenge of understanding and explaining evidence, what should be shared with average-risk women considering screening, the forms of knowledge that physicians value to guide screening decision-making, and the consent process for population-based screening initiatives. Within the data, there was little attention placed on how physicians coped with uncertainty in practice. Given the dual responsibility of physicians in caring for both individuals and the larger population, further research should probe more deeply into how they balance their duties to individual patients with those to the larger population they serve.
-
Mariani, Elena; Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra; Koopmans, Raymond; Engels, Yvonne; Chattat, Rabih
2017-01-01
Shared decision-making (SDM) is a means of allowing people with dementia to take part in making choices, be autonomous and participate in social activities. Involving them in SDM is an important way of promoting social health. However, including families and dementia residents in decision-making can be challenging for care staff working in nursing homes. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of an SDM framework for care planning in two nursing homes, one in Italy and one in the Netherlands. Focus group interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who, after being trained, applied the SDM framework. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. Six months after the feasibility trial, focus group interviews with healthcare professionals (n = 10 in Italy; n = 9 in the Netherlands) were held. We found 6 themes and 15 categories. Within these themes, facilitators and barriers were identified. The categories of team collaboration, communication skills and nursing home policy were found to be facilitators to the implementation process, whereas regulations, lack of funding and of involvement of family caregivers were the main barriers. Family attitudes towards SDM could be both. The main difference between countries concerned the residents' cognitive status that influenced their degree of involvement. Communication skills training for professionals, training of family caregivers, and involvement of the management in the implementation process seem to be crucial factors in successfully implementing SDM in nursing homes, and increasing the involvement of families and dementia residents in decision-making.
-
Evidence of different underlying processes in pattern recall and decision-making.
Gorman, Adam D; Abernethy, Bruce; Farrow, Damian
2015-01-01
The visual search characteristics of expert and novice basketball players were recorded during pattern recall and decision-making tasks to determine whether the two tasks shared common visual-perceptual processing strategies. The order in which participants entered the pattern elements in the recall task was also analysed to further examine the nature of the visual-perceptual strategies and the relative emphasis placed upon particular pattern features. The experts demonstrated superior performance across the recall and decision-making tasks [see also Gorman, A. D., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2012). Classical pattern recall tests and the prospective nature of expert performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1151-1160; Gorman, A. D., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2013a). Is the relationship between pattern recall and decision-making influenced by anticipatory recall? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2219-2236)] but a number of significant differences in the visual search data highlighted disparities in the processing strategies, suggesting that recall skill may utilize different underlying visual-perceptual processes than those required for accurate decision-making performance in the natural setting. Performance on the recall task was characterized by a proximal-to-distal order of entry of the pattern elements with participants tending to enter the players located closest to the ball carrier earlier than those located more distal to the ball carrier. The results provide further evidence of the underlying perceptual processes employed by experts when extracting visual information from complex and dynamic patterns.
-
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...
-
Depressive symptoms and decision-making preferences in patients with comorbid illnesses.
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.
-
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.
-
The Role of Patients: Shared Decision-Making.
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.
-
Toward the Human Element. Beginning Handbook for Change. Volume I.
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
Prince, Gerald; And Others
The primary aim of this handbook is to encourage and stimulate growth and renewal of the "human element" within the school environment. Four processes form the objectives that are fundamental to achieving this goal: problem solving, shared decision making, open communications, and accountability. Skills in these four processes are discussed in…
-
Scenario Planning at College of Marin.
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
College of Marin, Kentfield, CA.
This article reviews the scenario planning process implemented at the College of Marin (California). Scenario planning is a creative process in which a group of people who share a common fate develop stories about different ways their future might unfold, and use these stories to make decisions about what path to take. The Global Business Network…
-
2014-01-01
Background Children with cancer, parents, and clinicians, face difficult decisions when cure is no longer possible. Little is known about decision-making processes, how agreement is reached, or perspectives of different actors. Professionals voice concerns about managing parental expectations and beliefs, which can be contrary to their own and may change over time. We conducted the first systematic review to determine what constitutes best medico-legal practice for children under 19 years as context to exploring the perspectives of actors who make judgements and decisions when cancer treatment is no longer curative. Methods Theory-informed mixed-method thematic systematic review with theory development. Results Eight legal/ethical guidelines and 18 studies were included. Whilst there were no unresolved dilemmas, actors had different perspectives and motives. In line with guidelines, the best interests of the individual child informed decisions, although how different actors conceptualized ‘best interests’ when treatment was no longer curative varied. Respect for autonomy was understood as following child/parent preferences, which varied from case to case. Doctors generally shared information so that parents alone could make an informed decision. When parents received reliable information, and personalized interest in their child, they were more likely to achieve shared trust and clearer transition to palliation. Although under-represented in research studies, young people’s perspectives showed some differences to those of parents and professionals. For example, young people preferred to be informed even when prognosis was poor, and they had an altruistic desire to help others by participating in research. Conclusion There needs to be fresh impetus to more effectively and universally implement the ethics of professionalism into daily clinical practice in order to reinforce humanitarian attitudes. Ethical guidelines and regulations attempt to bring professionals together by articulating shared values. While important, ethics training must be supported by institutions/organizations to assist doctors to maintain good professional standards. Findings will hopefully stimulate further normative and descriptive lines of research in this complex under-researched field. Future research needs to be undertaken through a more deliberative cultural lens that includes children’s and multi-disciplinary team members’ perspectives to more fully characterize and understand the dynamics of the decision-making process in this specific end-of life context. PMID:24884514
-
Grim, Katarina; Rosenberg, David; Svedberg, Petra; Schön, Ulla-Karin
2016-01-01
Shared decision-making (SDM) is an emergent research topic in the field of mental health care and is considered to be a central component of a recovery-oriented system. Despite the evidence suggesting the benefits of this change in the power relationship between users and practitioners, the method has not been widely implemented in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to investigate decisional and information needs among users with mental illness as a prerequisite for the development of a decision support tool aimed at supporting SDM in community-based mental health services in Sweden. Three semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with 22 adult users with mental illness. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using a directed content analysis. This method was used to develop an in-depth understanding of the decisional process as well as to validate and conceptually extend Elwyn et al.'s model of SDM. The model Elwyn et al. have created for SDM in somatic care fits well for mental health services, both in terms of process and content. However, the results also suggest an extension of the model because decisions related to mental illness are often complex and involve a number of life domains. Issues related to social context and individual recovery point to the need for a preparation phase focused on establishing cooperation and mutual understanding as well as a clear follow-up phase that allows for feedback and adjustments to the decision-making process. The current study contributes to a deeper understanding of decisional and information needs among users of community-based mental health services that may reduce barriers to participation in decision-making. The results also shed light on attitudinal, relationship-based, and cognitive factors that are important to consider in adapting SDM in the mental health system.
-
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…
-
Davies, Myfanwy; Elwyn, Glyn; Papadopoulos, Irena; Fleming, Lon; Williams, Gareth
2009-01-01
Patient autonomy in health care decision making is increasingly advocated as a means of promoting patients' 'responsibilities' for treatments and costs. However, little is known with regard to clinicians' understanding of patients' potential responsibilities in decision making. We explore how clinicians may view decision making as a 'moral' obligation and examine how moral virtue is discursively constructed in this context and in the face of ethnic and social difference. Data reported are derived from an interview study that examined perceptions of maternity decision making among Arab Muslim women and clinicians. Results reported here are from the clinician sample which includes obstetricians, general practitioners (GPs) and midwives. Clinicians perceived that a key element of their role involved imparting relevant information to their clients and, increasingly, involving them in making autonomous decisions about their care. However, by analysing and assessing the attribution of specific cultural differences in clinicians' discussion of decision making processes with minority group women, we demonstrate how some clinicians justified their failure to promote autonomy through shared decision making with women from these groups. We will demonstrate these attributes to be those of passivity and non-rationality which entail some negative moral judgements and which have a complex relationship to gender and power
-
How Qualitative Research Informs Clinical and Policy Decision Making in Transplantation: A Review.
Tong, Allison; Morton, Rachael L; Webster, Angela C
2016-09-01
Patient-centered care is no longer just a buzzword. It is now widely touted as a cornerstone in delivering quality care across all fields of medicine. However, patient-centered strategies and interventions necessitate evidence about patients' decision-making processes, values, priorities, and needs. Qualitative research is particularly well suited to understanding the experience and perspective of patients, donors, clinicians, and policy makers on a wide range of transplantation-related topics including organ donation and allocation, adherence to prescribed therapy, pretransplant and posttransplant care, implementation of clinical guidelines, and doctor-patient communication. In transplantation, evidence derived from qualitative research has been integrated into strategies for shared decision-making, patient educational resources, process evaluations of trials, clinical guidelines, and policies. The aim of this article is to outline key concepts and methods used in qualitative research, guide the appraisal of qualitative studies, and assist clinicians to understand how qualitative research may inform their practice and policy.
-
Blackwood, Craig; Dixon, Jen; Reilly, Peter; Emery, Roger J
2017-01-01
This paper seeks to outline recent legal developments and requirements pertinent to obtaining informed consent. We argue that this is of particular relevance to patients considering a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, due to the high complication rate associated with this procedure. By examining the cognitive processes involved in decision-making, and other clinician-related factors such as delivery of information, gender bias and conflict of interest, we explore some of the barriers that can undermine the processes of shared decision-making and obtaining genuine informed consent. We argue that these issues highlight the importance for surgeons in understanding the cognitive processes and other influential factors involved in patients' comprehension and decision-making. We recommend, based on strong evidence, that decision aids could prove useful in overcoming such challenges and could provide one way of mitigating the ethical, professional and legal consequences of failing to obtain proper informed consent. They are not widely used in orthopaedics at present, although it would be in the interests of both the surgeon and patient for such measures to be explored.
-
Blackwood, Craig; Reilly, Peter; Emery, Roger J
2016-01-01
This paper seeks to outline recent legal developments and requirements pertinent to obtaining informed consent. We argue that this is of particular relevance to patients considering a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, due to the high complication rate associated with this procedure. By examining the cognitive processes involved in decision-making, and other clinician-related factors such as delivery of information, gender bias and conflict of interest, we explore some of the barriers that can undermine the processes of shared decision-making and obtaining genuine informed consent. We argue that these issues highlight the importance for surgeons in understanding the cognitive processes and other influential factors involved in patients’ comprehension and decision-making. We recommend, based on strong evidence, that decision aids could prove useful in overcoming such challenges and could provide one way of mitigating the ethical, professional and legal consequences of failing to obtain proper informed consent. They are not widely used in orthopaedics at present, although it would be in the interests of both the surgeon and patient for such measures to be explored. PMID:28572846
-
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.
-
Patients' Values in Clinical Decision-Making.
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.
-
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?
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.
-
Talking with parents about end-of-life decisions for their children.
de Vos, Mirjam A; Bos, Albert P; Plötz, Frans B; van Heerde, Marc; de Graaff, Bert M; Tates, Kiek; Truog, Robert D; Willems, Dick L
2015-02-01
Retrospective studies show that most parents prefer to share in decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment (LST) from their children. We do not yet know how physicians and parents communicate about these decisions and to what extent parents share in the decision-making process. We conducted a prospective exploratory study in 2 Dutch University Medical Centers. Overall, 27 physicians participated, along with 37 parents of 19 children for whom a decision to withhold or withdraw LST was being considered. Forty-seven conversations were audio recorded, ranging from 1 to 8 meetings per patient. By means of a coding instrument we quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed physicians' and parents' communicative behaviors. On average, physicians spoke 67% of the time, parents 30%, and nurses 3%. All physicians focused primarily on providing medical information, explaining their preferred course of action, and informing parents about the decision being reached by the team. Only in 2 cases were parents asked to share in the decision-making. Despite their intense emotions, most parents made great effort to actively participate in the conversation. They did this by asking for clarifications, offering their preferences, and reacting to the decision being proposed (mostly by expressing their assent). In the few cases where parents strongly preferred LST to be continued, the physicians either gave parents more time or revised the decision. We conclude that parents are able to handle a more active role than they are currently being given. Parents' greatest concern is that their child might suffer. Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
-
Hultberg, Josabeth; Rudebeck, Carl Edvard
2017-09-01
The aim of the study was to describe and explore patient agency through resistance in decision-making about cardiovascular preventive drugs in primary care. Six general practitioners from the southeast of Sweden audiorecorded 80 consultations. From these, 28 consultations with proposals from GPs for cardiovascular preventive drug treatments were chosen for theme-oriented discourse analysis. The study shows how patients participate in decision-making about cardiovascular preventive drug treatments through resistance in response to treatment proposals. Passive modes of resistance were withheld responses and minimal unmarked acknowledgements. Active modes were to ask questions, contest the address of an inclusive we, present an identity as a non-drugtaker, disclose non-adherence to drug treatments, and to present counterproposals. The active forms were also found in anticipation to treatment proposals from the GPs. Patients and GPs sometimes displayed mutual renouncement of responsibility for decision-making. The decision-making process appeared to expand both beyond a particular phase in the consultations and beyond the single consultation. The recognition of active and passive resistance from patients as one way of exerting agency may prove valuable when working for patient participation in clinical practice, education and research about patient-doctor communication about cardiovascular preventive medication. We propose particular attentiveness to patient agency through anticipatory resistance, patients' disclosures of non-adherence and presentations of themselves as non-drugtakers. The expansion of the decision-making process beyond single encounters points to the importance of continuity of care. KEY POINTS Guidelines recommend shared decision-making about cardiovascular preventive treatment. We need an understanding of how this is accomplished in actual consultations.This paper describes how patient agency in decision-making is displayed through different forms of resistance to treatment proposals. •The decision-making process expands beyond particular phases in consultations and beyond single encounters, implying the importance of continuity of care. •Attentiveness to patient participation through resistance in treatment negotiations is warranted in clinical practice, research and education about prescribing communication.
-
Ratanawongsa, Neda; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J; Couper, Mick P; Van Hoewyk, John; Powe, Neil R
2010-01-01
Racial/ethnic differences in shared decision making about cardiovascular risk-reduction therapy could affect health disparities. To investigate whether patient race/ethnicity is associated with experiences discussing cardiovascular risk-reduction therapy with health care providers. National sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing. Cross-sectional survey conducted in November 2006 to May 2007. Among participants in the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS), a nationally representative sample of English-speaking US adults aged 40 and older, the authors analyzed respondents who reported discussing hyperlipidemia or hypertension medications with a health care provider in the previous 2 years. In multivariate linear and logistic regressions adjusting for age, gender, income, insurance status, perceived health, and current therapy, they assessed the relation between race/ethnicity (black/Hispanic v. white) and decision making: knowledge, discussion of pros and cons of therapy, discussion of patient preference, who made the final decision, preferred involvement, and confidence in the decision. Of respondents who discussed high cholesterol (N = 738) or hypertension (N = 745) medications, 88% were white, 9% black, and 4% Hispanic. Minorities had lower knowledge scores than whites for hyperlipidemia (42% v. 52%, difference -10% [95% confidence interval (CI): 15, -5], P < 0.001), but not for hypertension. For hyperlipidemia, minorities were more likely than whites to report that the health care provider made the final decision for treatment (31.7% v. 12.3% whites, difference 19.4% [95% CI: 6.9, 33.1%], P < 0.01); this was not true for hypertension. Possible limitations include the small percentage of minorities in the sample and potential recall bias. Minorities considering hyperlipidemia therapy may be less informed about and less involved in the final decision-making process.
-
Shared decision making in West Africa: The forgotten area.
Diouf, Ndeye Thiab; Ben Charif, Ali; Adisso, Lionel; Adekpedjou, Rhéda; Zomahoun, Hervé Tchala Vignon; Agbadjé, Titilayo Tatiana; Dogba, Mama Joyce; Garvelink, Mirjam Marjolein
2017-06-01
Up to now, little attention has been paid to West Africa when it comes to shared decision making (SDM). West African countries seem to lag behind with regard to SDM initiatives compared to many other countries in the world. There is some interest in informed decision making or informed consent, but little in a full SDM process. Few decision-making tools are available for healthcare professionals and the majority are not designed to support decision-making with patients. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there are no training programs for implementing SDM in healthcare teams. Many barriers exist to implementing SDM in West Africa, including lack of options, few or poor health resources and low levels of education. However, African countries present many opportunities for SDM as well. Existing SDM innovations developed for other populations with low literacy could be explored and adapted to the West African context, and research on implementation and outcomes in West Africa could contribute to SDM worldwide. West African countries are in an excellent position to both learn from other countries and contribute to SDM development in other parts of the world. In this paper we reflect on SDM challenges and opportunities, and propose a research agenda for West Africa. We hope to awaken interest in SDM in West Africa and encourage future collaborations on SDM with various West African stakeholders, including patients, healthcare professionals, policymakers, non-government organisations (NGOs) and academic institutions. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.
-
Renfree, Andrew; Martin, Louise; Micklewright, Dominic; St Clair Gibson, Alan
2014-02-01
Successful participation in competitive endurance activities requires continual regulation of muscular work rate in order to maximise physiological performance capacities, meaning that individuals must make numerous decisions with regards to the muscular work rate selected at any point in time. Decisions relating to the setting of appropriate goals and the overall strategic approach to be utilised are made prior to the commencement of an event, whereas tactical decisions are made during the event itself. This review examines current theories of decision-making in an attempt to explain the manner in which regulation of muscular work is achieved during athletic activity. We describe rational and heuristic theories, and relate these to current models of regulatory processes during self-paced exercise in an attempt to explain observations made in both laboratory and competitive environments. Additionally, we use rational and heuristic theories in an attempt to explain the influence of the presence of direct competitors on the quality of the decisions made during these activities. We hypothesise that although both rational and heuristic models can plausibly explain many observed behaviours in competitive endurance activities, the complexity of the environment in which such activities occur would imply that effective rational decision-making is unlikely. However, at present, many proposed models of the regulatory process share similarities with rational models. We suggest enhanced understanding of the decision-making process during self-paced activities is crucial in order to improve the ability to understand regulation of performance and performance outcomes during athletic activity.
-
[Issues related to consent to healthcare decisions in children and adolescents].
Bailly, D
2010-02-01
The process of consent to healthcare decisions in children and adolescents often set physicians difficult problems. From what age is a child able to understand the information given to him or her about illness and treatment? Is an ill child indeed in the capacity to give his or her voluntary consent to treatment? How to define and to assess the capacity of an ill child to take part in treatment decisions? More than the age of the child, it is his or her level of cognitive, emotional and social development and its interactions with illness that will determine his or her degree of involvement in the decision-making process. There is a moral and ethical need to respect the rights and autonomy of every individual, regardless of age. This does not mean viewing children and adolescents as rational and autonomous decision-makers. This implies that we must promote their developmentally appropriate participation in shared decision-making with parents and physicians. Therefore, instead of asking, "should children and adolescents be granted absolute autonomy in decision making?" we ought to ask, "should we treat children and adolescents like people?" Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
-
2011-01-01
Background Violence against women (VAW) is a major public health problem. Translation of VAW research to policy and practice is an area that remains understudied, but provides the opportunity to examine knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) processes in a complex, multi-stakeholder context. In a series of studies including two randomized trials, the McMaster University VAW Research Program studied one key research gap: evidence about the effectiveness of screening women for exposure to intimate partner violence. This project developed and evaluated KTE strategies to share research findings with policymakers, health and community service providers, and women's advocates. Methods A longitudinal cross-sectional design, applying concurrent mixed data collection methods (surveys, interviews, and focus groups), was used to evaluate the utility of specific KTE strategies, including a series of workshops and a day-long Family Violence Knowledge Exchange Forum, on research sharing, uptake, and use. Results Participants valued the opportunity to meet with researchers, provide feedback on key messages, and make personal connections with other stakeholders. A number of factors specific to the knowledge itself, stakeholders' contexts, and the nature of the knowledge gap being addressed influenced the uptake, sharing, and use of the research. The types of knowledge use changed across time, and were specifically related to both the types of decisions being made, and to stage of decision making; most reported use was conceptual or symbolic, with few examples of instrumental use. Participants did report actively sharing the research findings with their own networks. Further examination of these second-order knowledge-sharing processes is required, including development of appropriate methods and measures for its assessment. Some participants reported that they would not use the research evidence in their decision making when it contradicted professional experiences, while others used it to support apparently contradictory positions. The online wiki-based 'community of interest' requested by participants was not used. Conclusions Mobilizing knowledge in the area of VAW practice and policy is complex and resource-intensive, and must acknowledge and respect the values of identified knowledge users, while balancing the objectivity of the research and researchers. This paper provides important lessons learned about these processes, including attending to the potential unintended consequences of knowledge sharing. PMID:21896170
-
Wathen, C Nadine; Sibbald, Shannon L; Jack, Susan M; Macmillan, Harriet L
2011-09-06
Violence against women (VAW) is a major public health problem. Translation of VAW research to policy and practice is an area that remains understudied, but provides the opportunity to examine knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) processes in a complex, multi-stakeholder context. In a series of studies including two randomized trials, the McMaster University VAW Research Program studied one key research gap: evidence about the effectiveness of screening women for exposure to intimate partner violence. This project developed and evaluated KTE strategies to share research findings with policymakers, health and community service providers, and women's advocates. A longitudinal cross-sectional design, applying concurrent mixed data collection methods (surveys, interviews, and focus groups), was used to evaluate the utility of specific KTE strategies, including a series of workshops and a day-long Family Violence Knowledge Exchange Forum, on research sharing, uptake, and use. Participants valued the opportunity to meet with researchers, provide feedback on key messages, and make personal connections with other stakeholders. A number of factors specific to the knowledge itself, stakeholders' contexts, and the nature of the knowledge gap being addressed influenced the uptake, sharing, and use of the research. The types of knowledge use changed across time, and were specifically related to both the types of decisions being made, and to stage of decision making; most reported use was conceptual or symbolic, with few examples of instrumental use. Participants did report actively sharing the research findings with their own networks. Further examination of these second-order knowledge-sharing processes is required, including development of appropriate methods and measures for its assessment. Some participants reported that they would not use the research evidence in their decision making when it contradicted professional experiences, while others used it to support apparently contradictory positions. The online wiki-based 'community of interest' requested by participants was not used. Mobilizing knowledge in the area of VAW practice and policy is complex and resource-intensive, and must acknowledge and respect the values of identified knowledge users, while balancing the objectivity of the research and researchers. This paper provides important lessons learned about these processes, including attending to the potential unintended consequences of knowledge sharing.
-
Shared decision making in the medical encounter: are we all talking about the same thing?
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.
-
Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing.
Croskerry, Pat; Singhal, Geeta; Mamede, Sílvia
2013-10-01
Numerous studies have shown that diagnostic failure depends upon a variety of factors. Psychological factors are fundamental in influencing the cognitive performance of the decision maker. In this first of two papers, we discuss the basics of reasoning and the Dual Process Theory (DPT) of decision making. The general properties of the DPT model, as it applies to diagnostic reasoning, are reviewed. A variety of cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making process. They mostly appear to originate in the fast intuitive processes of Type 1 that dominate (or drive) decision making. Type 1 processes work well most of the time but they may open the door for biases. Removing or at least mitigating these biases would appear to be an important goal. We will also review the origins of biases. The consensus is that there are two major sources: innate, hard-wired biases that developed in our evolutionary past, and acquired biases established in the course of development and within our working environments. Both are associated with abbreviated decision making in the form of heuristics. Other work suggests that ambient and contextual factors may create high risk situations that dispose decision makers to particular biases. Fatigue, sleep deprivation and cognitive overload appear to be important determinants. The theoretical basis of several approaches towards debiasing is then discussed. All share a common feature that involves a deliberate decoupling from Type 1 intuitive processing and moving to Type 2 analytical processing so that eventually unexamined intuitive judgments can be submitted to verification. This decoupling step appears to be the critical feature of cognitive and affective debiasing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Berggren, Ingela; Severinsson, Elisabeth
2003-03-01
The aim of the study was to explore the decision-making style and ethical approach of nurse supervisors by focusing on their priorities and interventions in the supervision process. Clinical supervision promotes ethical awareness and behaviour in the nursing profession. A focus group comprised of four clinical nurse supervisors with considerable experience was studied using qualitative hermeneutic content analysis. The essence of the nurse supervisors' decision-making style is deliberations and priorities. The nurse supervisors' willingness, preparedness, knowledge and awareness constitute and form their way of creating a relationship. The nurse supervisors' ethical approach focused on patient situations and ethical principles. The core components of nursing supervision interventions, as demonstrated in supervision sessions, are: guilt, reconciliation, integrity, responsibility, conscience and challenge. The nurse supervisors' interventions involved sharing knowledge and values with the supervisees and recognizing them as nurses and human beings. Nurse supervisors frequently reflected upon the ethical principle of autonomy and the concept and substance of integrity. The nurse supervisors used an ethical approach that focused on caring situations in order to enhance the provision of patient care. They acted as role models, shared nursing knowledge and ethical codes, and focused on patient related situations. This type of decision-making can strengthen the supervisees' professional identity. The clinical nurse supervisors in the study were experienced and used evaluation decisions as their form of clinical decision-making activity. The findings underline the need for further research and greater knowledge in order to improve the understanding of the ethical approach to supervision.
-
Wiener, Renda Soylemez; Slatore, Christopher G; Gillespie, Chris; Clark, Jack A
2015-12-01
Selecting a strategy (surveillance, biopsy, resection) for pulmonary nodule evaluation can be complex given the absence of high-quality data comparing strategies and the important tradeoffs among strategies. Guidelines recommend a three-step approach: (1) assess the likelihood of malignancy, (2) evaluate whether the patient is a candidate for invasive intervention, and (3) elicit the patient's preferences and engage in shared decision-making. We sought to characterize how pulmonologists select a pulmonary nodule evaluation strategy and the extent to which they report following the guideline-recommended approach. We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 14 pulmonologists who manage patients with pulmonary nodules at four clinical sites. Transcripts of audiorecorded interviews were analyzed using the principles of grounded theory. Pulmonologists reported consistently performing steps 1 and 2 but described diverse approaches to step 3 that ranged from always engaging the patient in decision-making to never doing so. Many described incorporating patients' preferences only in particular circumstances, such as when the patient appeared particularly anxious or was aggressive in questioning management options. Indeed, other factors, including convenience, physician preferences, physician anxiety, malpractice concerns, and physician experience, appeared to drive decision-making as much as, if not more than, patient preferences. Although pulmonologists appear to routinely personalize pulmonary nodule evaluation strategies based on the individual patient's risk-benefit tradeoffs, they may not consistently take patient preferences into account during the decision-making process. In the absence of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal methods of pulmonary nodule evaluation, physicians should strive to ensure that management decisions are consistent with patients' values.
-
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.
-
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…