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

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2007-01-01

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

Shared decision making in West Africa: The forgotten area.

PubMed

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

2017-06-01

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

Perceptions of shared decision making and decision aids among rural primary care clinicians.

PubMed

King, Valerie J; Davis, Melinda M; Gorman, Paul N; Rugge, J Bruin; Fagnan, L J

2012-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) and decision aids (DAs) increase patients' involvement in health care decisions and enhance satisfaction with their choices. Studies of SDM and DAs have primarily occurred in academic centers and large health systems, but most primary care is delivered in smaller practices, and over 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where poverty, disease prevalence, and limited access to care may increase the need for SDM and DAs. To explore perceptions and practices of rural primary care clinicians regarding SDM and DAs. Cross-sectional survey. Setting and Participants Primary care clinicians affiliated with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. Surveys were returned by 181 of 231 eligible participants (78%); 174 could be analyzed. Two-thirds of participants were physicians, 84% practiced family medicine, and 55% were male. Sixty-five percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the term shared decision making, but following definition, 97% reported that they found the approach useful for conditions with multiple treatment options. Over 90% of clinicians perceived helping patients make decisions regarding chronic pain and health behavior change as moderate/hard in difficulty. Although 69% of respondents preferred that patients play an equal role in making decisions, they estimate that this happens only 35% of the time. Time was reported as the largest barrier to engaging in SDM (63%). Respondents were receptive to using DAs to facilitate SDM in print- (95%) or web-based formats (72%), and topic preference varied by clinician specialty and decision difficulty. Rural clinicians recognized the value of SDM and were receptive to using DAs in multiple formats. Integration of DAs to facilitate SDM in routine patient care may require addressing practice operation and reimbursement.

The state of shared decision making in Malaysia.

PubMed

Lee, Yew Kong; Ng, Chirk Jenn

2017-06-01

Shared decision making (SDM) activities in Malaysia began around 2010. Although the concept is not widespread, there are opportunities to implement SDM in both the public and private healthcare sectors. Malaysia has a multicultural society and cultural components (such as language differences, medical paternalism, strong family involvement, religious beliefs and complementary medicine) influence medical decision making. In terms of policy, the Ministry of Health has increasingly mentioned patient-centered care as a component of healthcare delivery while the Malaysian Medical Council's guidelines on doctors' duties mentioned collaborative partnerships as a goal of doctor-patient relationships. Current research on SDM comprises baseline surveys of decisional role preferences, development and implementation of locally developed patient decision aids, and conducting of SDM training workshops. Most of this research is carried out by public research universities. In summary, the current state of SDM in Malaysia is still at its infancy. However, there are increasing recognition and efforts from the academic institutions and Ministry of Health to conduct research in SDM, develop patient decision support tools and initiate national discussion on patient involvement in decision making. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

PubMed Central

Slade, Mike

2017-01-01

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

Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice.

PubMed

Sandman, Lars; Munthe, Christian

2010-03-01

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

[Evidence-based Risk and Benefit Communication for Shared Decision Making].

PubMed

Nakayama, Takeo

2018-01-01

　Evidence-based medicine (EBM) can be defined as "the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and a patient's unique values and circumstances". However, even with the best research evidence, many uncertainties can make clinical decisions difficult. As the social requirement of respecting patient values and preferences has been increasingly recognized, shared decision making (SDM) and consensus development between patients and clinicians have attracted attention. SDM is a process by which patients and clinicians make decisions and arrive at a consensus through interactive conversations and communications. During the process of SDM, patients and clinicians share information with each other on the goals they hope to achieve and responsibilities in meeting those goals. From the clinician's standpoint, information regarding the benefits and risks of potential treatment options based on current evidence and professional experience is provided to patients. From the patient's standpoint, information on personal values, preferences, and social roles is provided to clinicians. SDM is a sort of "wisdom" in the context of making autonomous decisions in uncertain, difficult situations through interactions and cooperation between patients and clinicians. Joint development of EBM and SDM will help facilitate patient-clinician relationships and improve the quality of healthcare.

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…

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-10-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2007-07-02

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-07-01

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

Rasch Analysis of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire in Women With Breast Cancer.

PubMed

Wu, Tzu-Yi; Chen, Cheng-Te; Huang, Yi-Jing; Hou, Wen-Hsuan; Wang, Jung-Der; Hsieh, Ching-Lin

2018-04-19

Shared decision making (SDM) is a best practice to help patients make optimal decisions by a process of healthcare, especially for women diagnosed with breast cancer and having heavy burden in long-term treatments. To promote successful SDM, it is crucial to assess the level of perceived involvement in SDM in women with breast cancer. The aims of this study were to apply Rasch analysis to examine the construct validity and person reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in women with breast cancer. The construct validity of SDM-Q-9 was confirmed when the items fit the Rasch model's assumptions of unidimensionality: (1) infit and outfit mean square ranged from 0.6 to 1.4; (2) the unexplained variance of the first dimension of the principal component analysis was less than 20%. Person reliability was calculated. A total of 212 participants were recruited in this study. Item 1 did not fit the model's assumptions and was deleted. The unidimensionality of the remaining 8 items (SDM-Q-8) was supported with good item fit (infit and outfit mean square ranging from 0.6 to 1.3) and very low unexplained variance of the first dimension (5.3%) of the principal component analysis. The person reliability of the SDM-Q-8 was 0.90. The SDM-Q-8 was unidimensional and had good person reliability in women with breast cancer. The SDM-Q-8 has shown its potential for assessing the level of perceived involvement in SDM in women with breast cancer for both research and clinical purposes.

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

PubMed

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

2008-09-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Drum, Melinda; Cooper, Lisa A.

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2008-10-01

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

[Shared decision making in patients with diabetes mellitus].

PubMed

Serrano, Valentina; Larrea-Mantilla, Laura; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, René; Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela; Málaga, Germán; Hargraves, Ian; Montori, Víctor M

2017-05-01

Patients with diabetes mellitus often have several medical problems and carry a burden imposed by their illness and treatment. Health care often ignores the values, preferences and context of patients, leading to treatments that do not fit into patients’ overwhelmed lives. Shared Decision Making (SDM) emerges as a way to answer the question: “What’s best for the patient?”. SDM promotes an empathic conversation between patients and clinicians that integrates the best evidence available with their values, preferences and context. We discuss three SDM approaches for patients with diabetes: one focused on sharing information, another on making choices, and a third one on helping patients and clinicians to talk about how to address the problems of living with diabetes and its comorbidities. Despite the benefits demonstrated in studies conducted in the U.S. and Europe, the implementation of SDM continues to be a challenge. In Latin America, healthcare and socio-economic conditions render the implementation of SDM more challenging. Research aimed to respond to this challenge is necessary. Meanwhile, clinicians can practice SDM by sharing evidence-based information, giving voice to patients’ values and preferences in making choices, and creating empathic conversations aimed at decisions aligned with patients’ context, dreams, goals, and life expectations.

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

PubMed

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

2011-01-01

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

Development and pilot testing of an online case-based approach to shared decision making skills training for clinicians.

PubMed

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.

Recent Advances in Shared Decision Making for Mental Health

PubMed Central

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

2009-01-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-04-22

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-08-01

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

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

PubMed

Geiger, Friedemann; Kasper, Jürgen

2012-01-01

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

Shared Decision-Making in Youth Mental Health Care: Using the Evidence to Plan Treatments Collaboratively.

PubMed

Langer, David A; Jensen-Doss, Amanda

2016-12-02

The shared decision-making (SDM) model is one in which providers and consumers of health care come together as collaborators in determining the course of care. The model is especially relevant to youth mental health care, when planning a treatment frequently entails coordinating both youth and parent perspectives, preferences, and goals. The present article first provides the historical context of the SDM model and the rationale for increasing our field's use of SDM when planning psychosocial treatments for youth and families. Having established the potential utility of SDM, the article then discusses how to apply the SDM model to treatment planning for youth psychotherapy, proposing a set of steps consistent with the model and considerations when conducting SDM with youth and families.

Shared Decision-Making in Youth Mental Health Care: Using the Evidence to Plan Treatments Collaboratively

PubMed Central

Langer, David A.; Jensen-Doss, Amanda

2017-01-01

The shared decision-making (SDM) model is one in which providers and consumers of health care come together as collaborators in determining the course of care. The model is especially relevant to youth mental health care, when planning a treatment frequently entails coordinating both youth and parent perspectives, preferences, and goals. The present paper first provides the historical context of the SDM model and the rationale for increasing our field's use of SDM when planning psychosocial treatments for youth and families. Having established the potential utility of SDM, the paper then discusses how to apply the SDM model to treatment planning for youth psychotherapy, proposing a set of steps consistent with the model and considerations when conducting SDM with youth and families. PMID:27911081

Shared decision making in Italy: An updated revision of the current situation.

PubMed

Bottacini, Alessandro; Scalia, Peter; Goss, Claudia

2017-06-01

The aim of this paper is to update the previous review on the state of patient and public participation in healthcare in Italy. Policymakers consider patient involvement an important aspect in health care decisions and encourage patients to actively participate in the clinical interaction. Nevertheless, the term shared decision making (SDM) is still not clearly defined. Patient associations promote patient participation in health care decisions. Several experts attended the latest consensus conference about patient engagement to reach a consensus on the definition of SDM. Research regarding SDM in Italy continues to increase with 17 articles published between 2012 and 2017. Researchers have assessed the variables associated with patient involvement and explored the use of the SDM approach in different medical settings. Despite the dedicated SDM initiative, researchers in Italy recognize room for improvement. Work is needed to reach a common language regarding SDM and its mechanisms to implement this approach at the clinical level. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Respecting Patient Autonomy When Seconds Count.

PubMed

Hess, Erik P; Grudzen, Corita R; Thomson, Richard; Raja, Ali S; Carpenter, Christopher R

2015-07-01

Shared decision-making (SDM), a collaborative process in which patients and providers make health care decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values and preferences, is being increasingly advocated as the optimal approach to decision-making for many health care decisions. The rapidly paced and often chaotic environment of the emergency department (ED), however, is a unique clinical setting that offers many practical and contextual challenges. Despite these challenges, in a recent survey emergency physicians reported there to be more than one reasonable management option for over 50% of their patients and that they take an SDM approach in 58% of such patients. SDM has also been selected as the topic on which to develop a future research agenda at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, "Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda" (http://www.saem.org/annual-meeting/education/2016-aem-consensus-conference). In this paper the authors describe the conceptual model of SDM as originally conceived by Charles and Gafni and highlight aspects of the model relevant to the practice of emergency medicine. In addition, through the use of vignettes from the authors' clinical practices, the applicability of SDM to contemporary EM practice is illustrated and the ethical and pragmatic implications of taking an SDM approach are explored. It is hoped that this document will be read in advance of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, to facilitate group discussions at the conference. © 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

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

PubMed

Land, Victoria; Parry, Ruth; Seymour, Jane

2017-12-01

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

The SDM 3 Circle Model: A Literature Synthesis and Adaptation for Shared Decision Making in the Hospital.

PubMed

Rennke, Stephanie; Yuan, Patrick; Monash, Brad; Blankenburg, Rebecca; Chua, Ian; Harman, Stephanie; Sakai, Debbie S; Khan, Adeena; Hilton, Joan F; Shieh, Lisa; Satterfield, Jason

2017-12-01

Patient engagement through shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly seen as a key component for patient safety, patient satisfaction, and quality of care. Current SDM models do not adequately account for medical and environmental contexts, which may influence medical decisions in the hospital. We identified leading SDM models and reviews to inductively construct a novel SDM model appropriate for the inpatient setting. A team of medicine and pediatric hospitalists reviewed the literature to integrate core SDM concepts and processes and iteratively constructed a synthesized draft model. We then solicited broad SDM expert feedback on the draft model for validation and further refinement. The SDM 3 Circle Model identifies 3 core categories of variables that dynamically interact within an "environmental frame." The resulting Venn diagram includes overlapping circles for (1) patient/family, (2) provider/team, and (3) medical context. The environmental frame includes all external, contextual factors that may influence any of the 3 circles. Existing multistep SDM process models were then rearticulated and contextualized to illustrate how a shared decision might be made. The SDM 3 Circle Model accounts for important environmental and contextual characteristics that vary across settings. The visual emphasis generated by each "circle" and by the environmental frame direct attention to often overlooked interactive forces and has the potential to more precisely define, promote, and improve SDM. This model provides a framework to develop interventions to improve quality and patient safety through SDM and patient engagement for hospitalists. © 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity.

PubMed

Scholl, Isabelle; Kriston, Levente; Dirmaier, Jörg; Härter, Martin

2015-02-01

While there has been a clear move towards shared decision-making (SDM) in the last few years, the measurement of SDM-related constructs remains challenging. There has been a call for further psychometric testing of known scales, especially regarding validity aspects. To test convergent validity of the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) by comparing it to the OPTION Scale. Cross-sectional study. Data were collected in outpatient care practices. Patients suffering from chronic diseases and facing a medical decision were included in the study. Consultations were evaluated using the OPTION Scale. Patients completed the SDM-Q-9 after the consultation. First, the internal consistency of both scales and the inter-rater reliability of the OPTION Scale were calculated. To analyse the convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9, correlation between the patient (SDM-Q-9) and expert ratings (OPTION Scale) was calculated. A total of 21 physicians provided analysable data of consultations with 63 patients. Analyses revealed good internal consistency of the SDM-Q-9 and limited internal consistency of the OPTION Scale. Inter-rater reliability of the latter was less than optimal. Association between the total scores of both instruments was weak with a Spearman correlation of r = 0.19 and did not reach statistical significance. By the use of the OPTION Scale convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9 could not be established. Several possible explanations for this result are discussed. This study shows that the measurement of SDM remains challenging. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-12

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-12-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-10

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

The Role of Patient Activation in Preferences for Shared Decision Making: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Adults.

PubMed

Smith, Samuel G; Pandit, Anjali; Rush, Steven R; Wolf, Michael S; Simon, Carol J

2016-01-01

Studies investigating preferences for shared decision making (SDM) have focused on associations with sociodemographic variables, with few investigations exploring patient factors. We aimed to investigate the relationship between patient activation and preferences for SDM in 6 common medical decisions among a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of American adults. Adults older than 18 were recruited online (n = 2,700) and by telephone (n = 700). Respondents completed sociodemographic assessments and the Patient Activation Measure. They were also asked whether they perceived benefit (yes/no) in SDM in 6 common medical decisions. Nearly half of the sample (45.9%) reached the highest level of activation (Level 4). Activation was associated with age (p < .001), higher income (p = .001), higher education (p = .010), better self-rated health (p < .001), and fewer chronic conditions (p = .050). The proportion of people who agreed that SDM was beneficial varied from 53.1% (deciding the necessity of a diagnostic test) to 71.8% (decisions associated with making lifestyle changes). After we controlled for participant characteristics, higher activation was associated with greater perceived benefit in SDM across 4 of the 6 decisions. Preferences for SDM varied among 6 common medical scenarios. Low patient activation is an important barrier to SDM that could be ameliorated through the development of behavioral interventions.

Shared decision-making and choice for elective surgical care: A systematic review

PubMed Central

Boss, Emily F.; Mehta, Nishchay; Nagarajan, Neeraja; Links, Anne; Benke, James R.; Berger, Zackary; Espinel, Ali; Meier, Jeremy; Lipstein, Ellen A.

2016-01-01

Objective Shared Decision-Making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve quality care delivery, promote evidence-based practice, and reduce overuse of surgical care. Little is known however regarding SDM in elective surgical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize findings of studies evaluating use and outcomes of SDM in elective surgery. Data Sources Pubmed, CochraneCENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS electronic databases Review Methods We searched for English-language studies (1/1/1990 to 8/9/2015) evaluating use of SDM in elective surgical care. Identified studies were independently screened by two reviewers in stages of title/abstract and full-text review. We abstracted data related to population, study design, clinical dilemma, use of SDM, outcomes, treatment choice, and bias. Results Of 10,929 identified articles, 24 met inclusion criteria. The most common area studied was spine (7/24) followed by joint (5/24) and gynecological surgery (4/24). Twenty studies used decision aids/support tools, including modalities that were multimedia/video (13/20), written (3/20), or personal coaching (4/20). Effect of SDM on preference for surgery were mixed across studies, showing a decrease in surgery (9/24), no difference (8/24), or increase (1/24). SDM tended to improve decision quality (3/3) as well as knowledge/preparation (4/6), while decreasing decision conflict (4/6). Conclusion SDM reduces decision conflict and improves decision quality for patients making choices about elective surgery. While net findings show that SDM may influence patients to choose surgery less often, the impact of SDM on surgical utilization cannot be clearly ascertained. PMID:26645531

Exploring Provider Reactions to Decision Aid Distribution and Shared Decision Making: Lessons from Two Specialties.

PubMed

Hsu, Clarissa; Liss, David T; Frosch, Dominick L; Westbrook, Emily O; Arterburn, David

2017-01-01

A critical component of shared decision making (SDM) is the role played by health care providers in distributing decision aids (DAs) and initiating SDM conversations. Existing literature indicates that decisions about designing and implementing DAs must take provider perspectives into account. However, little is known about how differences in provider attitudes across specialties may impact DA implementation and how provider attitudes may shift after DA implementation. Group Health's Decision Aid Implementation project was carried out in six specialties using 12 video-based DAs for preference-sensitive conditions; this study focused on two of the six specialties. In-depth, qualitative interviews with specialty care providers in two specialties-orthopedics and cardiology-at two time points during DA implementation. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. We interviewed 19 care providers in orthopedics and cardiology. All respondents believed that providing patients with accurate information on their health conditions and treatment options was important and that most patients wanted an active role in decision making. However, respondents diverged in decision-making styles and views on the practicality and appropriateness of using the DAs and SDM. For example, cardiology specialists were ambivalent about DAs for coronary artery disease because many viewed DAs and SDM as unnecessary or inappropriate for this clinical condition. Provider attitudes towards DAs and SDM were generally stable over two years. Limitations include a lack of patient perspectives, social desirability bias, and possible selection bias. Successfully implementing DAs in clinical practice to promote SDM requires addressing individual provider attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of SDM by specialty. During DA development and implementation, providers should be asked for input about the specific conditions and care processes that are most appropriate for SDM. © The Author(s) 2016.

Shared Decision-Making among Caregivers and Health Care Providers of Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

PubMed Central

Valenzuela, Jessica M.; Smith, Laura B.; Stafford, Jeanette M.; Andrews, S.; D’Agostino, Ralph B.; Lawrence, Jean M.; Yi-Frazier, Joyce P.; Seid, Michael; Dolan, Lawrence M.

2014-01-01

The present study aimed to examine perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in caregivers of youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Interview, survey data, and HbA1c assays were gathered from caregivers of 439 youth with T1D aged 3–18 years. Caregiver-report indicated high perceived SDM during medical visits. Multivariable linear regression indicated that greater SDM is associated with lower HbA1c, older child age, and having a pediatric endocrinologist provider. Multiple logistic regression found that caregivers who did not perceive having made any healthcare decisions in the past year were more likely to identify a non-pediatric endocrinologist provider and to report less optimal diabetes self-care. Findings suggest that youth whose caregivers report greater SDM may show benefits in terms of self-care and glycemic control. Future research should examine the role of youth in SDM and how best to identify youth and families with low SDM in order to improve care. PMID:24952739

An expanded framework to define and measure shared decision-making in dialogue: A 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approach.

PubMed

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.

Barriers and Promoters to Participation in the Era of Shared Treatment Decision-Making.

PubMed

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.

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Shared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals. Methods We selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase “shared decision making” or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics. Results We identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P < 0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively). Conclusion This review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the medical community. PMID:25106844

Perceived involvement and preferences in shared decision-making among patients with hypertension.

PubMed

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.

Shared Decision Making Among Clinicians and Asian American and Pacific Islander Sexual and Gender Minorities: An Intersectional Approach to Address a Critical Care Gap.

PubMed

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.

Shared Decision-Making in Oncology - A Qualitative Analysis of Healthcare Providers' Views on Current Practice.

PubMed

Frerichs, Wiebke; Hahlweg, Pola; Müller, Evamaria; Adis, Christine; Scholl, Isabelle

2016-01-01

Despite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers' views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice. A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics. N = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship. The results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.

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

PubMed

Treichler, Emily B H; Spaulding, William D

2017-01-01

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

English language proficiency, health literacy, and trust in physician are associated with shared decision-making in rheumatoid arthritis

PubMed Central

Barton, Jennifer L.; Trupin, Laura; Tonner, Chris; Imboden, John; Katz, Patricia; Schillinger, Dean; Yelin, Edward H.

2014-01-01

Objective Treat to Target guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Also, due to high cost and potential toxicity of therapies, SDM is central to patient safety. Our objective was to examine patterns of perceived communication around decision-making in two cohorts of adults with RA. Methods Data were derived from patients enrolled in one of two longitudinal, observational cohorts (UCSF RA Cohort and RA Panel). Subjects completed a telephone interview in their preferred language that included a measure of patient-provider communication, including items about decision-making. Measures of trust in physician, education, and language proficiency were also asked. Logistic regression was performed to identify correlates of suboptimal SDM communication. Analyses were performed on each sample separately. Results Of 509 patients across two cohorts, 30% and 32% reported suboptimal SDM communication. Low trust in physician was independently associated with suboptimal SDM communication in both cohorts. Older age and limited English proficiency were independently associated with suboptimal SDM in the UCSF RA Cohort, as was limited health literacy in the RA Panel. Conclusions This study of over 500 adults with RA from two demographically distinct cohorts found that nearly one-third of subjects report suboptimal SDM communication with their clinicians, regardless of cohort. Lower trust in physician was independently associated with suboptimal SDM communication in both cohorts, as was limited English language proficiency and older age in the UCSF RA Cohort and limited health literacy in the Panel. These findings underscore the need to examine the impact of SDM on health outcomes in RA. PMID:24931952

Tailoring and field-testing the use of a knowledge translation peer support shared decision making strategy with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people making decisions about their cancer care: a study protocol.

PubMed

Jull, Janet; Mazereeuw, Maegan; Sheppard, Amanada; Kewayosh, Alethea; Steiner, Richard; Graham, Ian D

2018-01-01

Tailoring and testing a peer support decision making strategy with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people making decisions about their cancer care: A study protocol.First Nations, Inuit and Métis (FNIM) people face higher risks for cancer compared to non-FNIM populations. They also face cultural barriers to health service use. Within non-FNIM populations an approach to health decision making, called shared decision making (SDM), has been found to improve the participation of people in their healthcare. Peer support with SDM further improves these benefits. The purpose of this study is to tailor and test a peer support SDM strategy with community support workers to increase FNIM people's participation in their cancer care.This project has two phases that will be designed and conducted with a Steering Committee that includes members of the FNIM and cancer care communities. First, a peer support SDM strategy will be tailored to meet the needs of cancer system users who are receiving care in urban settings, and training in the SDM strategy developed for community support workers. Three communities will be supported for participation in the study and community support workers who are peers from each community will be trained to use the SDM strategy.Next, each community support worker will work with a community member who has a diagnosis of cancer or who has supported a family member with cancer. Each community support worker and community member pair will use the SDM strategy. The participation and experience of the community support worker and community member will be evaluated.The research will be used to develop strategies to support people who are making decisions about their health. Tailoring and field-testing the use of a knowledge translation peer support shared decision making strategy with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people making decisions about their cancer care: A study protocol Background First Nations, Inuit and Métis ("FNIM") people face increased cancer risks in relation to general populations and experience barriers to health service use. Shared decision making (SDM) has been found to improve peoples' participation and outcomes in healthcare and peer support with SDM further improves these benefits. The purpose of this study is to tailor and then field test, by and with FNIM communities, a peer support SDM strategy for use in cancer care. Methods This project has 2 theory-driven phases and 5 stages (a-e). A core research team that includes members of the Aboriginal Cancer Control Unit of Cancer Care Ontario communities and academic researchers, will work with a Steering Committee. In phase 1 , (stage a) a peer support SDM strategy will be tailored to meet the needs of cancer system users who are receiving care in urban settings and (stage b), training developed that will i) introduce participant communities to SDM, and ii) train community support workers (CSWs) within these communities. Next (stage c), three communities will be approached for voluntary participation in the study. These communities will be introduced to SDM in community meetings, and if in agreement then CSWs from each community will be recruited to participate in the study. One volunteer CSW from each community will be trained to use the peer support SDM strategy to enable phase 2 (field test of the peer support SDM strategy).During phase 2 (stage d), each CSW will be matched to a volunteer community member who has had a diagnosis of cancer or has supported a family member with cancer and is familiar with Ontario cancer systems. Each CSW-community member pair (3 to 4 pairs/community) will use the tailored peer support SDM strategy; their interaction will be audio-recorded and their participation and experience evaluated (total of 9 to 12 interviews). As well (stage e), data will be collected on health systems' factors related to the use of the peer support SDM strategy. Discussion Findings will develop peer support SDM strategies to enhance participation of FNIM people in cancer care decisions, advance knowledge translation science, and support a proposal to conduct a multi-site implementation trial.

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

PubMed

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

2018-04-17

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

Shared decision-making for biologic treatment of autoimmune disease: influence on adherence, persistence, satisfaction, and health care costs.

PubMed

Lofland, Jennifer H; Johnson, Phaedra T; Ingham, Mike P; Rosemas, Sarah C; White, John C; Ellis, Lorie

2017-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM), a process whereby physicians and patients collaborate to select interventions, is not well understood for biologic treatment of autoimmune conditions. This was a cross-sectional survey of adults initiating treatment for Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis (inflammatory bowel disease, IBD) or psoriatic arthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA/PA). Survey data were linked to administrative claims for 6 months before (baseline) and after (follow-up) therapy initiation. Measures included the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, Patient Activation Measure (PAM), Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS), general health, and treatment satisfaction. Claims-based Quan-Charlson comorbidity scores, persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR), and health care costs were examined. Patients were compared by participation (SDM) and nonparticipation (non-SDM) in SDM. Among 453 respondents, 357 were eligible, and 306 patients (204 RA/PA and 102 IBD) were included in all analyses. Overall (n=357), SDM participants (n=120) were more often females (75.0% vs 62.5%, P =0.018), had lower health status (48.0 vs 55.4, P =0.005), and higher Quan-Charlson scores (1.0 vs 0.7, P =0.035) than non-SDM (n=237) participants. Lower MMAS scores (SDM 0.17 vs non-SDM 0.41; P <0.05) indicated greater likelihood of adherence; SDM participants also reported higher satisfaction with medication and had greater activation (PAM: SDM vs non-SDM: 66.9 vs 61.6; P <0.001). Mean MPR did not differ, but persistence was longer among SDM participants (111.2 days vs 102.2 days for non-SDM; P =0.029). Costs did not differ by SDM status overall, or among patients with RA/PA. The patients with IBD, however, experienced lower ( P =0.003) total costs ($9,404 for SDM vs $25,071 for non-SDM) during follow-up. This study showed greater likelihood of adherence and satisfaction for patients who engaged in SDM and reduced health care costs among patients with IBD who engaged in SDM. This study provides a basis for defining SDM participation and detecting differences by SDM participation for biologic treatment selection for autoimmune conditions.

The current level of shared decision-making in anesthesiology: an exploratory study.

PubMed

Stubenrouch, F E; Mus, E M K; Lut, J W; Hesselink, E M; Ubbink, D T

2017-07-12

Shared decision-making (SDM) seeks to involve both patients and clinicians in decision-making about possible health management strategies, using patients' preferences and best available evidence. SDM seems readily applicable in anesthesiology. We aimed to determine the current level of SDM among preoperative patients and anesthesiology clinicians. We invited 115 consecutive preoperative patients, visiting the pre-assessment outpatient clinic of the department of Anesthesiology at the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam. Inclusion criteria were patients who needed surgery in the arms, lower abdomen or legs, and in whom three anesthesia techniques were feasible. The SDM-level of the consultation was scored objectively by independent observers who judged audio-recordings of the consultation using the OPTION 5 -scale, ranging from 0% (no SDM) to 100% (optimum SDM), as well as subjectively by patients (using the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE questionnaires) and clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc questionnaire). Objective and subjective SDM-levels were assessed on five-point and six-point Likert scales, respectively. Both scores were expressed as percentages. Data of 80 patients could be analysed. Objective SDM-scores were low (30.5%). Subjective scores of the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE were high among patients (91.7% and 96.3%, respectively) and among clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc; 84.3%). Apparently, they appreciated satisfaction rather than SDM, being poorly aware of what SDM entails. The level of SDM in an outpatient anesthesiology clinic where preoperative patients receive information about various possible anesthesia options, was found to be low. Thus, there is room for improving the level of SDM. Some suggestions are given how this can be achieved.

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

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care

PubMed Central

Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, Sumayah; Pieterse, Arwen H.; Kroonenberg, Pieter M.; Scholl, Isabelle; van der Weijden, Trudy; Luyten, Gre P. M.; Kruitwagen, Roy F. P. M.; den Ouden, Henk; Carlier, Ingrid V. E.; van Vliet, Irene M.; Zitman, Frans G.; Stiggelbout, Anne M.

2015-01-01

Purpose The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics. Methods Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients (N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc (N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPSpost was used. Results Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPSpost (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPSpost categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded. Conclusion The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPSpost and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-construct and its measurement. PMID:26151946

Development and field testing of a consumer shared decision-making training program for adults with low literacy.

PubMed

Muscat, Danielle M; Morony, Suzanne; Shepherd, Heather L; Smith, Sian K; Dhillon, Haryana M; Trevena, Lyndal; Hayen, Andrew; Luxford, Karen; Nutbeam, Don; McCaffery, Kirsten

2015-10-01

Given the scarcity of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for adults with low literacy, we created a SDM training program tailored to this population to be delivered in adult education settings. Formative evaluation during program development included a review of the problem and previous efforts to address it, qualitative interviews with the target population, program planning and field testing. A comprehensive SDM training program was developed incorporating core SDM elements. The program aimed to improve students' understanding of SDM and to provide them with the necessary skills (understanding probabilistic risks and benefits, personal values and preferences) and self-efficacy to use an existing set of questions (the AskShareKnow questions) as a means to engage in SDM during healthcare interactions. There is an ethical imperative to develop SDM interventions for adults with lower literacy. Generic training programs delivered direct-to-consumers in adult education settings offer promise in a national and international environment where too few initiatives exist. Formative evaluation of the program offers practical insights into developing consumer-focused SDM training. The content of the program can be used as a guide for future efforts to engage consumers in SDM. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

[Shared decision making from the perspective of the cancer patient: participatory roles and evaluation of the process].

PubMed

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.

Principles of shared decision-making within teams.

PubMed

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

2015-12-01

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

Shared Decision Making Among Clinicians and Asian American and Pacific Islander Sexual and Gender Minorities: An Intersectional Approach to Address a Critical Care Gap

PubMed Central

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

The Physician-as-Stakeholder: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Physicians' Motivations for Using Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department.

PubMed

Schoenfeld, Elizabeth M; Goff, Sarah L; Elia, Tala R; Khordipour, Errel R; Poronsky, Kye E; Nault, Kelly A; Lindenauer, Peter K; Mazor, Kathleen M

2016-12-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recognized as an important facet of patient-centered care. Despite growing interest in SDM in the emergency department (ED), little is known about emergency physicians' (EPs') motivations for using SDM. Understanding current patterns of SDM use and EP's rationale for using SDM is essential for the development of interventions to increase use. Recognizing the EP as an important stakeholder in SDM research, we sought to identify and explore factors that may motivate EPs' engagement in SDM. In this qualitative study, informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory, we conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of EPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using a directed qualitative content analysis approach, three members of the research team performed open coding of the transcripts in an iterative process, building a provisional code book as coding progressed. Respondent validation was employed to ensure methodologic rigor. Fifteen EPs, ages 31-65, from both academic and community practice settings, were interviewed. Several had not heard of the specific phrase "shared decision making," but all understood the concept and felt that they used SDM techniques to some degree. Most noted they had often had an agenda when they used SDM, which often motivated them to have the conversation. Agendas described included counteracting an algorithmic or defensive approach to diagnosis and treatment, avoiding harmful tests, or sharing uncertainty. All participants believed that patients benefited from SDM in terms of satisfaction, engagement, or education. Nearly all participants identified research outcomes that they felt would encourage their use of SDM (e.g., improvements in patient engagement, mitigation of risk) and many prioritized patient-centered outcomes over systems outcomes such as improved resource utilization. Little consensus was seen, however, regarding the importance of individual outcomes: of eight potential research outcomes participants endorsed, no single outcome was endorsed by even half of the physicians interviewed. Emergency physicians identified many factors that motivated them to use SDM. This study informs current research on SDM in the ED, particularly regarding the motivations of the physician-as-stakeholder. © 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

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

PubMed

Epstein, Elizabeth G; Wolfe, Katherine

2016-11-01

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

Involvement as inclusion? Shared decision-making in social work practice in Israel: a qualitative account.

PubMed

Levin, Lia

2015-03-01

Shared decision-making (SDM), a representation of shared knowledge and power between social workers and their clients, is gaining popularity and prevalence in social services around the world. In many senses, SDM reflects values traditionally associated with social work and service provision, such as equality and anti-discrimination. In the complex context of social problem-solving, however, the relationship between SDM, social workers and their clients is multi-faceted and deserves particular attention. The current study examined SDM and the dilemmas it entails through interviews conducted in 2012 with 77 Israeli social workers and policy makers whose responses were analysed according to the guiding principles of descriptive phenomenological content analysis and dialogical commonality. Participants' responses represent notions of hope, change, identity and choice. Findings are discussed in correspondence with current and recent trends in Israeli social services, and the social work profession in Israel. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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

PubMed

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

2017-08-07

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-12-01

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

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

PubMed

Morant, Nicola; Kaminskiy, Emma; Ramon, Shulamit

2016-10-01

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

Shared decision making in preventive care in Switzerland: From theory to action.

PubMed

Selby, Kevin; Auer, Reto; Cornuz, Jacques

2017-06-01

Switzerland with its decentralized, liberal health system and its tradition of direct democracy may be an ideal place for shared decision making (SDM) to take root organically, rather than using top-down regulations seen in other countries. There are now multiple directives and programmes in place to encourage SDM, with the creation of several decision aids and specific training programs in the five Swiss medical schools. There has been an emphasis on preventive care, with the integration of patient preference into an organized colorectal cancer screening program, clear recommendations for prostate cancer screening, and inroads into the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Focusing on the experience of the University of Lausanne, we describe multiple approaches being taken to teaching SDM and the local development of decision aids, drawing on international experience but tailored to local needs. Efforts are being made to further involve patients in not only SDM, but also associated research and quality improvement projects. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Measuring (shared) decision-making--a review of psychometric instruments.

PubMed

Simon, Daniela; Loh, Andreas; Härter, Martin

2007-01-01

In recent years shared decision-making (SDM) has gained importance as an appropriate approach to patient-physician communication and decision-making. However, there is a conceptual variety that implies problems of inconsistent measurement, of defining relationships of SDM and outcome measures, and of comparisons across different studies. This article presents the results of a literature search of psychometric instruments measuring aspects of decision-making. Altogether 18 scales were found. The majority covers the patients' perspective and relates to preferences for information and participation, decisional conflict, self-efficacy as well as to the evaluation of decision-making process and outcomes. The scales differ widely in their extent of validation. Although this review is not exhaustive, it presents a variety of available decision-making instruments. Yet, many of them still need to show their psychometric quality for other settings in further studies.

Primary Care Physicians' Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions.

PubMed

Elston Lafata, Jennifer; Brown, Richard F; Pignone, Michael P; Ratliff, Scott; Shay, L Aubree

2017-01-01

Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians' (PCPs') support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs' support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs' autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM. PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient's opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50-75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs' having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs' support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X 2 = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56). It is unknown whether PCPs' perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings. Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening contexts. © The Author(s) 2016.

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

PubMed

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

2018-02-23

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-11-29

This is an update of the Cochrane systematic review of shared decision-making (SMD) making published in 2013. Children's rights to have their views heard in matters that affect their lives are now well established since the publication of the UN Convention treaty (1989). Children with cancer generally prefer to be involved in decision-making and consider it important that they have the opportunity to take part in decision-making concerning their health care, even in end-of-life decisions. There is considerable support for involving children in healthcare decision-making at a level commensurate with their experience, age and abilities. Thus, healthcare professionals and parents need to know how they should involve children in decision-making and what interventions are most effective in promoting SDM for children with cancer. To examine the effects of SDM interventions on the process of SDM for children with cancer who are aged four to 18 years. We searched the following sources for the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1); PubMed (NLM) (1946 to February 2016); Embase (Ovid) (1974 to February 2016); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to February 2016); ERIC (ProQuest) (1966 to February 2016); PsycINFO (EBSCO) (1806 to February 2016); BIOSIS (Thomson Reuters) (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to February 2016); and Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest) (1952 to February 2016). In addition we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005 up to and including 2015): American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM), Annual Conference of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) and Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM). We scanned the ISRCTN (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number) register and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Register for ongoing trials on 29 February 2016. For this update, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of SDM interventions for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. The types of decisions included were: treatment, health care and research participation decisions. The primary outcome was SDM as measured with any validated scale. Two review authors undertook the searches, and three review authors independently assessed the studies obtained. We contacted study authors for additional information. No studies met the inclusion criteria, and hence no analysis could be undertaken. No conclusions can be made on the effects of interventions to promote SDM for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality quantitative research on interventions to promote participation in SDM for children with cancer. There are many potential reasons for the lack of SDM intervention studies with children. Attitudes towards children's participation are slowly changing in society and such changes may take time to be translated or adopted in healthcare settings. The priority may be on developing interventions that promote children's participation in communication interactions since information-sharing is a prerequisite for SDM. Restricting this review to RCTs was a limitation and extending the review to non-randomised studies (NRS) may have produced more evidence. For this update, we included only RCTs and CCTs. Clearly more research is needed.

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

PubMed

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

2015-12-15

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

Training surgeons in shared decision-making with cancer patients aged 65 years and older: a pilot study.

PubMed

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.

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

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-12-01

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

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

PubMed

Barratt, Alexandra

2008-12-01

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

Implementing shared-decision-making for diabetes care across country settings: What really matters to people?

PubMed

Tinelli, Michela; Petrou, Panagiotis; Samoutis, George; Traynor, Vivie; Olympios, George; McGuire, Alistair

2017-07-01

Growing evidence of improved clinical outcomes and patient/professional satisfaction supports shared-decision-making (SDM) services as an effective primary care interventions for diabetes. However, only a few countries have actually adopted them (e.g. England). In other European countries (e.g. Cyprus) there is awareness that patients play a crucial role in decision-making, and SDM services could be considered as innovative strategies to promote the actual implementation of patient rights legislation and strengthen primary care. to understand preferences of people with diabetes when choosing their care, and how they value alternative SDM services compared to their 'current' option. Preferences were collected from patients based in England, where SDM is already in place at national level, and Cyprus, where people are new to it, using a discrete-choice-experiment (DCE) survey. Cypriots valued choosing alternative SDM services compared to their 'current' option, whereas the English preferred their status quo to other services. Having the primary-care-physician as healthcare provider, receiving compassionate care, receiving detailed and accurate information about their care, continuity of care, choosing their care management and treatment, and reduced waiting time were the SDM characteristics that Cypriots valued; the English preferred similar factors, apart from information/continuity of care. People with diabetes do value SDM and different SDM models may fit different groups according to their personal experience and country specific settings. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Shared decision-making and outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed

Saheb Kashaf, Michael; McGill, Elizabeth Tyner; Berger, Zackary Dov

2017-12-01

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic disease which necessitates the development of a therapeutic alliance between patient and provider. This review systematically examines the association between treatment shared decision-making (SDM) and outcomes in diabetes. A range of bibliographic databases and gray literature sources was searched. Included studies were subjected to dual data extraction and quality assessment. Outcomes were synthesized using meta-analyses where reporting was sufficiently homogenous or alternatively synthesized in narrative fashion. The search retrieved 4592 records, which were screened by title, abstract, and full text to identify 16 studies with a range of study designs and populations. We found evidence of an association between SDM and improved decision quality, patient knowledge and patient risk perception. We found little evidence of an association between SDM and glycemic control, patient satisfaction, quality of life, medication adherence or trust in physician. This work elucidates the potential clinical utility of SDM interventions in the management of Type 2 Diabetes and helps inform future research on the topic. A more complete understanding of the associations between SDM and outcomes will guide and motivate efforts aimed at improving uptake of the SDM paradigm. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Protocol for a pre-implementation and post-implementation study on shared decision-making in the surgical treatment of women with early-stage breast cancer.

PubMed

Savelberg, Wilma; Moser, Albine; Smidt, Marjolein; Boersma, Liesbeth; Haekens, Christel; van der Weijden, Trudy

2015-03-31

The majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients' informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting. This paper concerns a pre-implementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid. This protocol was approved by the Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC) ethics committee. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at national conferences. Findings will be used to finalise a multi-faceted implementation strategy to test the implementation of SDM and a patient decision aid in terms of cost-effectiveness, in a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). NTR4879. 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.

Shared decision-making in dementia care planning: barriers and facilitators in two European countries.

PubMed

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.

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist review protocol.

PubMed

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.

Patients' preferences for involvement in the decision-making process for treating diabetic retinopathy.

PubMed

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.

Emergency physician perceptions of shared decision-making.

PubMed

Kanzaria, Hemal K; Brook, Robert H; Probst, Marc A; Harris, Dustin; Berry, Sandra H; Hoffman, Jerome R

2015-04-01

Despite the potential benefits of shared decision-making (SDM), its integration into emergency care is challenging. Emergency physician (EP) perceptions about the frequency with which they use SDM, its potential to reduce medically unnecessary diagnostic testing, and the barriers to employing SDM in the emergency department (ED) were investigated. As part of a larger project examining beliefs on overtesting, questions were posed to EPs about SDM. Qualitative analysis of two multispecialty focus groups was done exploring decision-making around resource use to generate survey items. The survey was then pilot-tested and revised to focus on advanced diagnostic imaging and SDM. The final survey was administered to EPs recruited at four emergency medicine (EM) conferences and 15 ED group meetings. This report addresses responses regarding SDM. A purposive sample of 478 EPs from 29 states were approached, of whom 435 (91%) completed the survey. EPs estimated that, on average, multiple reasonable management options exist in over 50% of their patients and reported employing SDM with 58% of such patients. Respondents perceived SDM as a promising solution to reduce overtesting. However, despite existing research to the contrary, respondents also commonly cited beliefs that 1) "many patients prefer that the physician decides," 2) "when offered a choice, many patients opt for more aggressive care than they need," and 3) "it is too complicated for patients to know how to choose." Most surveyed EPs believe SDM is a potential high-yield solution to overtesting, but many perceive patient-related barriers to its successful implementation. © 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

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

PubMed

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

2005-12-01

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

Participatory Action Research in Public Mental Health and a School of Nursing: Qualitative Findings from an Academic-Community Partnership

PubMed Central

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

Comparing Chinese and European American mental health decision making.

PubMed

Gao, Shanshan; Corrigan, Patrick W; Qin, Sang; Nieweglowski, Katherine

2017-12-20

Shared decision making (SDM) tends to reflect more Western values of individualism and empowerment, values that may be foreign to East Asian healthcare preferences for collectivism and family involvement: family centered decision making (FCDM). To show that Chinese will be more likely to believe FCDM would be more pleasing for them if they were the patient. Conversely, European Americans will respond more favorably to SDM. To examine effects of Western acculturation on FCDM compared to SDM. In this study, preferences for FCDM versus SDM and doctor-led decision making (DrDM) were examined in a vignette study completed online by European Americans (n = 298) and Chinese (n = 327). Research participants read a vignette about Lily (a depression patient) presenting with symptoms of depression. After reading the vignette, participants completed items representing two sets of outcomes: three perceptions of impact on Lily and how participants might respond for themselves in a similar decision making situation. Chinese rated FCDM greater than European and Chinese Americans. Chinese Americans mostly responded similar to European Americans and not Chinese. European Americans prefer SDM more for mental health services. Chinese value FCDM more than European Americans. Preferences of Chinese living in America seem to parallel European Americans.

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2010-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

Shared Decision-Making with Parents of Acutely Ill Children: A Narrative Review.

PubMed

Aronson, Paul L; Shapiro, Eugene D; Niccolai, Linda M; Fraenkel, Liana

Shared decision-making (SDM) has mostly been used with adults and parents in the primary care setting, and there is limited knowledge on the use of SDM with parents of acutely ill children. The objective of this study was to review the literature on SDM with parents in the management of acutely ill children. We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English language studies published from the time of database inception to February, 2017. Study eligibility criterion was use of SDM with parents for children aged 18 years or younger with an acute medical problem. We identified 2 ongoing clinical trials and 10 published studies that met inclusion criteria: 2 using hypothetical SDM scenarios, 1 mixed methods study, and 7 intervention studies. Only 1 study compared an SDM intervention with usual care in a randomized controlled trial. The limited literature shows that parents of acutely ill children have differing preferences for testing and/or treatment, and that they generally want the opportunity to express those preferences through an SDM process. Use of SDM often results in acutely ill children undergoing fewer and/or less intensive testing or treatment, although the effect on outcomes is unclear. Parents welcome participation in SDM for management decisions with their acutely ill child. Further investigation is needed to determine how best to implement SDM with parents of acutely ill children and to assess the effect of SDM on outcomes. Copyright © 2017 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review.

PubMed

Doherr, Hanna; Christalle, Eva; Kriston, Levente; Härter, Martin; Scholl, Isabelle

2017-01-01

The Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) is a 9-item measure of the decisional process in medical encounters from both patients' and physicians' perspectives. It has good acceptance, feasibility, and reliability. This systematic review aimed to 1) evaluate the use of the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc in intervention studies on shared decision making (SDM) in clinical settings, 2) describe how the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc performed regarding sensitivity to change, and 3) assess the methodological quality of studies and study protocols that use the measure. We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2010 and October 2015 that evaluated interventions to facilitate SDM. The search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Medline), reference tracking, citation tracking, and personal knowledge. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts as well as full texts of potentially relevant records. We extracted the data using a pilot tested sheet, and we assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tools from the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH). Five completed studies and six study protocols fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The measure was used in a variety of health care settings, mainly in Europe, to evaluate several types of interventions. The reported mean sum scores ranged from 42 to 75 on a scale from 0 to 100. In four studies no significant change was detected in the mean-differences between main groups. In the fifth study the difference was small. Quality assessment revealed a high risk of bias in four of the five completed studies, while the study protocols received moderate quality ratings. We found a wide range of areas in which the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were applied. In the future this review may help researchers decide whether the measure fits their purposes. Furthermore, the review revealed risk of bias in previous trials that used the measure, and may help future trials decrease this risk. More research on the measure's sensitivity to change is strongly suggested.

Decision Support and Shared Decision Making About Active Surveillance Versus Active Treatment Among Men Diagnosed with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: a Pilot Study.

PubMed

Myers, Ronald E; Leader, Amy E; Censits, Jean Hoffman; Trabulsi, Edouard J; Keith, Scott W; Petrich, Anett M; Quinn, Anna M; Den, Robert B; Hurwitz, Mark D; Lallas, Costas D; Hegarty, Sarah E; Dicker, Adam P; Zeigler-Johnson, Charnita M; Giri, Veda N; Ayaz, Hasan; Gomella, Leonard G

2018-02-01

This study aimed to explore the effects of a decision support intervention (DSI) and shared decision making (SDM) on knowledge, perceptions about treatment, and treatment choice among men diagnosed with localized low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). At a multidisciplinary clinic visit, 30 consenting men with localized low-risk PCa completed a baseline survey, had a nurse-mediated online DS session to clarify preference for active surveillance (AS) or active treatment (AT), and met with clinicians for SDM. Participants also completed a follow-up survey at 30 days. We assessed change in treatment knowledge, decisional conflict, and perceptions and identified predictors of AS. At follow-up, participants exhibited increased knowledge (p < 0.001), decreased decisional conflict (p < 0.001), and more favorable perceptions of AS (p = 0.001). Furthermore, 25 of the 30 participants (83 %) initiated AS. Increased family and clinician support predicted this choice (p < 0.001). DSI/SDM prepared patients to make an informed decision. Perceived support of the decision facilitated patient choice of AS.

Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making.

PubMed

Schroy, Paul C; Mylvaganam, Shamini; Davidson, Peter

2014-02-01

Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established. Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. Cross-sectional survey. Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence. Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-making and implementation issues. Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients' desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues. Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shared Decision Making in Vascular Surgery: An Exploratory Study.

PubMed

Santema, T B; Stubenrouch, F E; Koelemay, M J W; Vahl, A C; Vermeulen, C F W; Visser, M J T; Ubbink, D T

2016-04-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which patients and their doctors collaborate in choosing a suitable treatment option by incorporating patient values and preferences, as well as the best available evidence. Particularly in vascular surgery, several conditions seem suitable for SDM because there are multiple treatment options. The objective of this study was to assess the degree of SDM behaviour in vascular surgery. Vascular surgeons of four Dutch hospitals selected consultations with patients who were facing a treatment decision. Immediately after the consultation, patients and surgeons completed the (subjective) SDM Q-9 and SDM Q-doc questionnaires respectively, to appreciate the perceived level of SDM behaviour. Two evaluators independently and objectively rated SDM behaviour in the audiotaped consultations, using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION-12) scale. Nine vascular surgeons and three vascular surgeons in training conducted 54 consultations. The patients' median SDM Q-9 score was high, 93% (IQR 79-100%), and 16/54 (29.6%) of them gave the maximum score. The surgeons' median score was also high, 84% (IQR 73-92%), while 4/54 (7.4%) gave the maximum score. In contrast, mean OPTION score was 31% (SD 11%). Surgeons hardly ever asked the patients for their preferred approach to receive information, whether they had understood the provided information, and how they would like to be involved in SDM. Currently, objective SDM behaviour among vascular surgeons is limited, even though the presented disorders allow for SDM. Hence, SDM in vascular surgical consultations could be improved by increasing the patients' and surgeons' awareness and knowledge about the concept of SDM. Copyright © 2015 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Psychometrics of Shared Decision Making and Communication as Patient Centered Measures for Two Language Groups

PubMed Central

Alvarez, Kiara; Wang, Ye; Alegria, Margarita; Ault-Brutus, Andrea; Ramanayake, Natasha; Yeh, Yi-Hui; Jeffries, Julia R.; Shrout, Patrick E.

2017-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) and effective patient-provider communication are key and interrelated elements of patient-centered care that impact health and behavioral health outcomes. Measurement of SDM and communication from the patient’s perspective is necessary in order to ensure that health care systems and individual providers are responsive to patient views. However, there is a void of research addressing the psychometric properties of these measures with diverse patients, including non-English speakers, and in the context of behavioral health encounters. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of two patient-centered outcome measures, the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q) and the Kim Alliance Scale-Communication Subscale (KAS-CM), in a sample of 239 English and Spanish-speaking behavioral health patients. One dominant factor was found for each scale and this structure was used to examine whether there was measurement invariance across the two language groups. One SDM-Q item was inconsistent with the configural invariance comparison and was removed. The remaining SDM-Q items exhibited strong invariance, meaning that item loadings and item means were similar across the two groups. The KAS-CM items had limited variability, with most respondents indicating high communication levels, and the invariance analysis was done on binary versions of the items. These had metric invariance (loadings the same over groups) but several items violated the strong invariance test. In both groups, the SDM-Q had high internal consistency, whereas the KAS-CM was only adequate. These findings help interpret results for individual patients, taking into account cultural and linguistic differences in how patients perceive SDM and patient-provider communication. PMID:27537002

Psychometrics of shared decision making and communication as patient centered measures for two language groups.

PubMed

Alvarez, Kiara; Wang, Ye; Alegria, Margarita; Ault-Brutus, Andrea; Ramanayake, Natasha; Yeh, Yi-Hui; Jeffries, Julia R; Shrout, Patrick E

2016-09-01

Shared decision making (SDM) and effective patient-provider communication are key and interrelated elements of patient-centered care that impact health and behavioral health outcomes. Measurement of SDM and communication from the patient's perspective is necessary in order to ensure that health care systems and individual providers are responsive to patient views. However, there is a void of research addressing the psychometric properties of these measures with diverse patients, including non-English speakers, and in the context of behavioral health encounters. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of 2 patient-centered outcome measures, the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q) and the Kim Alliance Scale-Communication subscale (KAS-CM), in a sample of 239 English and Spanish-speaking behavioral health patients. One dominant factor was found for each scale and this structure was used to examine whether there was measurement invariance across the 2 language groups. One SDM-Q item was inconsistent with the configural invariance comparison and was removed. The remaining SDM-Q items exhibited strong invariance, meaning that item loadings and item means were similar across the 2 groups. The KAS-CM items had limited variability, with most respondents indicating high communication levels, and the invariance analysis was done on binary versions of the items. These had metric invariance (loadings the same over groups) but several items violated the strong invariance test. In both groups, the SDM-Q had high internal consistency, whereas the KAS-CM was only adequate. These findings help interpret results for individual patients, taking into account cultural and linguistic differences in how patients perceive SDM and patient-provider communication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

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

PubMed

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

2016-03-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

Parent Preferences for Shared Decision-making in Acute Versus Chronic Illness.

PubMed

Tom, Dina M; Aquino, Christian; Arredondo, Anthony R; Foster, Byron A

2017-10-01

The goal of this study was to examine preferences for shared decision-making (SDM) in parents of acutely ill versus chronically ill children in the inpatient setting. Additionally, we explored the effect of parental perception of illness severity and uncertainty in illness on decision-making preference. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed parents of children admitted to pediatric inpatient units at an academic, tertiary-care hospital. Surveys were administered in person and used validated tools to assess SDM preferences and uncertainty in illness. Descriptive statistics evaluated associations stratified by acute versus chronic illness, and multivariable analyses were performed. Of the 200 parents who participated, the majority were women (78%), Hispanic (81.5%), English speaking (73%), between 30 and 39 years old (37.5%), and had an education achievement of less than a college degree (77%). The mean age of hospitalized children was 8.1 years, and half reported a chronic illness. Most parents preferred an active (43%) or collaborative (40%) role in SDM. There was no association with SDM preference by demographics, number of previous hospitalizations, perception of illness severity, or uncertainty. However, parents of chronically ill children significantly preferred a passive role in SDM when they perceived a high level of uncertainty in illness. Most parents of hospitalized children prefer to take an active or collaborative role in SDM. However, parents of chronically ill children who perceive high levels of uncertainty surrounding their children's illness prefer a passive role, thus illustrating the complexity in decision-making among this parent population. Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Shared Decision Making in the Care of Children with Developmental and Behavioral Disorders.

PubMed

Lipstein, Ellen A; Lindly, Olivia J; Anixt, Julia S; Britto, Maria T; Zuckerman, Katharine E

2016-03-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is most needed when there are multiple treatment options and no "right" choice. As with quality and experience of care, frequency of SDM may vary by health condition. The objectives of this study were (1) to compare parent report of SDM between a physical and a behavioral health condition and; (2) to compare parent report of SDM between two different behavioral health conditions. Data on children age 3-17 years with asthma, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and/or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were drawn from the 2009/10 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. Weighted logistic regression was used to compare a parent-reported, composite measure of SDM. Analyses controlled for sociodemographic factors that may influence experience of SDM. Compared to parents of children with asthma, parents of children with ADHD were significantly less likely to report experiencing consistent SDM (AOR 0.73). Compared to parents of children with ADHD, those of children with ASD had significantly lower odds of experiencing consistent SDM (AOR 0.59). Those with both ADHD and ASD had the same odds as those with ASD alone of experiencing consistent SDM. Use of SDM is particularly limited in developmental and behavioral conditions, such as ADHD and ASD. These data suggest that challenges to implementing SDM may include disease type, complexity, and use of specialty care. Research to identify specific barriers and facilitators of SDM is needed to inform interventions that will promote SDM in developmental and behavioral conditions.

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

PubMed

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

2012-11-13

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

[Does routine outcome monitoring have a promising future? An investigation into the use of shared decision-making combined with ROM for patients with a combination of physical and psychiatric symptoms].

PubMed

van der Feltz-Cornelis, C M; Andrea, H; Kessels, E; Duivenvoorden, H J; Biemans, H; Metz, M

2014-01-01

Although routine outcome monitoring (ROM) has been developed and widely used in the course of patient centered outcome research in the Netherlands, so far the technique has hardly ever been used to improve the treatment of individual patients. To describe how a rom technique based on the principles of shared decision-making (SDM) was developed and evaluated at the Center for Body, Mind and Health at GGz Breburg, a specialised mental health institution in the Netherlands. We have developed a conceptual model for SDM that involves patient participation and the use of evidence-based decision-aids with cut-off scores. According to the conceptual model for SDM that we developed, the patient and the health professional involved took 'shared' decisions in three phases; the decisions related to triage, the drawing-up of a treatment plan and a follow-up treatment course. At the end of the 6 month intake-phase 7 of the 67 patients who were deemed eligible for ROM/SDM were dropped from the study because they were incapable of performing ROM assessments. Due to diagnostic advice and referral at the end of the intake-phase, 25 patients did not require further treatment. Of the remaining 35 patients, 33 delivered at least one follow-up ROM assessment during the subsequent treatment phases. In these patients somatic and psychiatric symptoms were found to be significantly reduced. ROM combined with sdm can be used successfully with patients who have a combination of physical and psychiatric symptoms and the technique can be applied by the professional in charge. Very few patients dropped out of the follow-up measurements and somatic as well as depressive or psychiatric symptoms diminished significantly. These findings indicate that a Randomised Clinical Trial is warranted in order to test the effectiveness of sdm combined with ROM as a decision-making instrument.

Shared decision making, a buzz-word in the Netherlands, the pace quickens towards nationwide implementation….

PubMed

van der Weijden, Trudy; Post, Heleen; Brand, Paul L P; van Veenendaal, Haske; Drenthen, Ton; van Mierlo, Linda Aj; Stalmeier, Peep; Damman, Olga C; Stiggelbout, Anne

2017-06-01

Currently, shared decision making (SDM) is on the agenda among target patient representative groups, policy makers and professional bodies. Although the International Conference for Shared Decision Making (ISDM) 2011 generated a positive boost, hesitation was also felt among Dutch clinicians, who are challenged by many new tasks. No hesitation is seen among the majority of patients, opting mostly for the SDM model. We haven't reached these patients' needs fully yet, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behaviour. There is plenty of room for improvement in daily practice, for which many best practices are being designed and increasingly implemented, such as national campaigns to empower patients, central governance of patient decision aids that are developed along clinical practice guidelines, postgraduate training, collaborative learning and system changes, and merging goal setting and SDM in complex care. This is explicitly supported by the Dutch government, the Ministry of Health, patient groups, professional bodies and health insurers. The culture shift in the minds and hearts of patients and clinicians has started but is still ongoing. Enthusiasm for this way of working could be undermined if SDM is defined and implemented in a simplistic, dogmatic manner leading to irresponsible transferring of the professionals' uncertainty, responsibility, and decisional stress to patients. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Assessing Option Grid® practicability and feasibility for facilitating shared decision making: An exploratory study.

PubMed

Tsulukidze, Maka; Grande, Stuart W; Gionfriddo, Michael R

2015-07-01

To assess the feasibility of Option Grids(®)for facilitating shared decision making (SDM) in simulated clinical consultations and explore clinicians' views on their practicability. We used mixed methods approach to analyze clinical consultations using the Observer OPTION instrument and thematic analysis for follow-up interviews with clinicians. Clinicians achieved high scores on information sharing and low scores on preference elicitation and integration. Four themes were identified: (1) Barriers affect practicability of Option Grids(®); (2) Option Grids(®) facilitate the SDM process; (3) Clinicians are aware of the gaps in their practice of SDM; (4) Training and ongoing feedback on the optimal use of Option Grids(®) are necessary. Use of Option Grids(®) by clinicians with background knowledge in SDM did not facilitate optimal levels of competency on the SDM core concepts of preference elicitation and integration. Future research must evaluate the impact of training on the use of Option Grids(®), and explore how best to help clinicians bridge the gap between knowledge and action. Clinicians proficiently imparting information in simulations struggled to elicit and integrate patient preferences - understanding this gap and developing strategies to close it are the next steps for implementing SDM into clinical practice. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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…

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

PubMed

Staszewska, Anna; Zaki, Pearl; Lee, Joon

2017-10-06

Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials. Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement. Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness. ©Anna Staszewska, Pearl Zaki, Joon Lee. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (http://medinform.jmir.org), 06.10.2017.

Physicians' shared decision-making behaviors in depression care.

PubMed

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

2008-07-14

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

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

PubMed

Heres, S; Hamann, J

2017-09-01

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

PCI Choice: Cardiovascular clinicians' perceptions of shared decision making in stable coronary artery disease.

PubMed

Coylewright, Megan; O'Neill, Elizabeth S; Dick, Sara; Grande, Stuart W

2017-06-01

Describe cardiovascular clinicians' perceptions of Shared Decision Making following use of a decision aid (DA) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) "PCI Choice", in a randomized controlled trial. We conducted a semi-structured qualitative interview study with cardiologists and physician extenders (n=13) after using PCI Choice in practice. Interviews were transcribed then coded. Codes were organized into salient themes. Final themes were determined by consensus with all authors. Most clinicians (70%) had no prior knowledge of SDM or DAs. Mixed views about the role of the DA in the visit were related to misconceptions of how patient education differed from SDM. Qualitative assessment of clinician perceptions generated three themes: 1) Gaps exist in clinician knowledge around SDM; 2) Clinicians are often uncomfortable with modifying baseline practice; and 3) Clinicians express interest in using DAs after initial exposure within a research setting. Use of DAs by clinicians during clinic visits may improve understanding of SDM. Initial use is marked by a reluctance to modify established practice patterns. As clinicians explore new approaches to benefit their patients, there is an opportunity for DAs that provide clinician instruction on core elements of SDM to lead to enhanced SDM in clinical practice. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Shared decision making within goal setting in rehabilitation settings: A systematic review.

PubMed

Rose, Alice; Rosewilliam, Sheeba; Soundy, Andrew

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

An overview of patient involvement in healthcare decision-making: a situational analysis of the Malaysian context.

PubMed

Ng, Chirk-Jenn; Lee, Ping-Yein; Lee, Yew-Kong; Chew, Boon-How; Engkasan, Julia P; Irmi, Zarina-Ismail; Hanafi, Nik-Sherina; Tong, Seng-Fah

2013-10-11

Involving patients in decision-making is an important part of patient-centred care. Research has found a discrepancy between patients' desire to be involved and their actual involvement in healthcare decision-making. In Asia, there is a dearth of research in decision-making. Using Malaysia as an exemplar, this study aims to review the current research evidence, practices, policies, and laws with respect to patient engagement in shared decision-making (SDM) in Asia. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to collect information on healthcare decision-making in Malaysia. We also consulted medical education researchers, key opinion leaders, governmental organisations, and patient support groups to assess the extent to which patient involvement was incorporated into the medical curriculum, healthcare policies, and legislation. There are very few studies on patient involvement in decision-making in Malaysia. Existing studies showed that doctors were aware of informed consent, but few practised SDM. There was limited teaching of SDM in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and a lack of accurate and accessible health information for patients. In addition, peer support groups and 'expert patient' programmes were also lacking. Professional medical bodies endorsed patient involvement in decision-making, but there was no definitive implementation plan. In summary, there appears to be little training or research on SDM in Malaysia. More research needs to be done in this area, including baseline information on the preferred and actual decision-making roles. The authors have provided a set of recommendations on how SDM can be effectively implemented in Malaysia.

An overview of patient involvement in healthcare decision-making: a situational analysis of the Malaysian context

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Involving patients in decision-making is an important part of patient-centred care. Research has found a discrepancy between patients’ desire to be involved and their actual involvement in healthcare decision-making. In Asia, there is a dearth of research in decision-making. Using Malaysia as an exemplar, this study aims to review the current research evidence, practices, policies, and laws with respect to patient engagement in shared decision-making (SDM) in Asia. Methods In this study, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to collect information on healthcare decision-making in Malaysia. We also consulted medical education researchers, key opinion leaders, governmental organisations, and patient support groups to assess the extent to which patient involvement was incorporated into the medical curriculum, healthcare policies, and legislation. Results There are very few studies on patient involvement in decision-making in Malaysia. Existing studies showed that doctors were aware of informed consent, but few practised SDM. There was limited teaching of SDM in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and a lack of accurate and accessible health information for patients. In addition, peer support groups and 'expert patient’ programmes were also lacking. Professional medical bodies endorsed patient involvement in decision-making, but there was no definitive implementation plan. Conclusion In summary, there appears to be little training or research on SDM in Malaysia. More research needs to be done in this area, including baseline information on the preferred and actual decision-making roles. The authors have provided a set of recommendations on how SDM can be effectively implemented in Malaysia. PMID:24119237

The impact of DECISION+2 on patient intention to engage in shared decision making: secondary analysis of a multicentre clustered randomized trial.

PubMed

Couët, Nicolas; Labrecque, Michel; Robitaille, Hubert; Turcotte, Stéphane; Légaré, France

2015-12-01

Training health professionals in shared decision making (SDM) may influence their patients' intention to engage in SDM. To assess the impact of DECISION+2, a SDM training programme for family physicians about the use of antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (ARIs), on their patients' intention to engage in SDM in future consultations. Secondary analysis of a multicentre clustered randomized trial. Three hundred and fifty-nine patients consulting family physicians about an ARI in nine family practice teaching units (FPTUs). DECISION+2 (two-hour online tutorial, two-hour workshop, and decision support tools) was offered in the experimental group (five FPTUs, 162 physicians, 181 patients). Usual care was provided in the control group (four FPTUs, 108 physicians, 178 patients). Change in patients' intention scores (range -3 to +3) between pre- and post-consultation. The mean ± SD [median] scores of intention to engage in SDM were high in both study groups before consultation (DECISION+2 group: 1.4 ± 1.0 [1.7]; control group: 1.5 ± 1.1 [1.7]) and increased in both groups after consultation (DECISION+2 group: 2.1 ± 1.1 [2.7]; control group: 1.9 ± 1.2 [2.3]). Change of intention, classified as either increased, stable or decreased, was not statistically associated with the exposure to the DECISION+2 programme after adjusting for the cluster design (proportional odds ratio = 1.5; 95% confidence interval = 0.8-3.0). DECISION+2 had no significant impact on patients' intention to engage in SDM for choosing to use antibiotics or not to treat an ARI in future consultations. Patient-targeted interventions may be necessary to achieve this purpose. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Patients' and observers' perceptions of involvement differ. Validation study on inter-relating measures for shared decision making.

PubMed

Kasper, Jürgen; Heesen, Christoph; Köpke, Sascha; Fulcher, Gary; Geiger, Friedemann

2011-01-01

Patient involvement into medical decisions as conceived in the shared decision making method (SDM) is essential in evidence based medicine. However, it is not conclusively evident how best to define, realize and evaluate involvement to enable patients making informed choices. We aimed at investigating the ability of four measures to indicate patient involvement. While use and reporting of these instruments might imply wide overlap regarding the addressed constructs this assumption seems questionable with respect to the diversity of the perspectives from which the assessments are administered. The study investigated a nested cohort (N = 79) of a randomized trial evaluating a patient decision aid on immunotherapy for multiple sclerosis. Convergent validities were calculated between observer ratings of videotaped physician-patient consultations (OPTION) and patients' perceptions of the communication (Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, Control Preference Scale & Decisional Conflict Scale). OPTION reliability was high to excellent. Communication performance was low according to OPTION and high according to the three patient administered measures. No correlations were found between observer and patient judges, neither for means nor for single items. Patient report measures showed some moderate correlations. Existing SDM measures do not refer to a single construct. A gold standard is missing to decide whether any of these measures has the potential to indicate patient involvement. Pronounced heterogeneity of the underpinning constructs implies difficulties regarding the interpretation of existing evidence on the efficacy of SDM. Consideration of communication theory and basic definitions of SDM would recommend an inter-subjective focus of measurement. Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN25267500.

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

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-05-11

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

Shared decision making and behavioral impairment: a national study among children with special health care needs

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

Background The Institute of Medicine has prioritized shared decision making (SDM), yet little is known about the impact of SDM over time on behavioral outcomes for children. This study examined the longitudinal association of SDM with behavioral impairment among children with special health care needs (CSHCN). Method CSHCN aged 5-17 years in the 2002-2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were followed for 2 years. The validated Columbia Impairment Scale measured impairment. SDM was measured with 7 items addressing the 4 components of SDM. The main exposures were (1) the mean level of SDM across the 2 study years and (2) the change in SDM over the 2 years. Using linear regression, we measured the association of SDM and behavioral impairment. Results Among 2,454 subjects representing 10.2 million CSHCN, SDM increased among 37% of the population, decreased among 36% and remained unchanged among 27%. For CSHCN impaired at baseline, the change in SDM was significant with each 1-point increase in SDM over time associated with a 2-point decrease in impairment (95% CI: 0.5, 3.4), whereas the mean level of SDM was not associated with impairment. In contrast, among those below the impairment threshold, the mean level of SDM was significant with each one point increase in the mean level of SDM associated with a 1.1-point decrease in impairment (0.4, 1.7), but the change was not associated with impairment. Conclusion Although the change in SDM may be more important for children with behavioral impairment and the mean level over time for those below the impairment threshold, results suggest that both the change in SDM and the mean level may impact behavioral health for CSHCN. PMID:22998626

Shared decision making in the recovery of people with schizophrenia: the role of metacognitive capacities in insight and pragmatic language use.

PubMed

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.

When do cancer patients regret their treatment decision? A path analysis of the influence of clinicians' communication styles and the match of decision-making styles on decision regret.

PubMed

Nicolai, Jennifer; Buchholz, Angela; Seefried, Nathalie; Reuter, Katrin; Härter, Martin; Eich, Wolfgang; Bieber, Christiane

2016-05-01

To test the influence of physician empathy (PE), shared decision making (SDM), and the match between patients' preferred and perceived decision-making styles on patients' decision regret. Patients with breast or colon cancer (n=71) completed questionnaires immediately following (T1) and three months after a consultation (T2). Path analysis was used to examine the relationships among patient demographics, patient reports of PE, SDM, the match between preferred and perceived decision-making styles, and patient decision regret at T2. After controlling for clinician clusters, higher PE was directly associated with more SDM (β=0.43, p<0.01) and lower decision regret (β=-0.28, p<0.01). The match between patients' preferred and perceived roles was negatively associated with decision regret (β=-0.33, p<0.01). Patients who participated less than desired reported more decision regret at T2. There was no significant association between SDM and decision regret (β=0.03, p=0.74). PE and the match between patients' preferred and perceived roles in medical decision making are essential for patient-centered cancer consultations and treatment decisions. Ways to enhance PE and matching the consultation style to patients' expectations should be encouraged. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Preferences and actual chemotherapy decision-making in the greater plains collaborative breast cancer study.

PubMed

Berger, Ann M; Buzalko, Russell J; Kupzyk, Kevin A; Gardner, Bret J; Djalilova, Dilorom M; Otte, Julie L

2017-12-01

There is renewed interest in identifying breast cancer patients' participation in decision-making about adjuvant chemotherapy. There is a gap in the literature regarding the impact of these decisions on quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Our aims were to determine similarities and differences in how patients diagnosed with breast cancer preferred to make decisions with providers about cancer treatment, to examine the patient's recall of her role when the decision was made about chemotherapy and to determine how preferred and actual roles, as well as congruence between them, relate to QOL and perceived QOC. Greater Plains Collaborative clinical data research network of PCORnet conducted the 'Share Thoughts on Breast Cancer' survey among women 12-18 months post-diagnosis at eight sites in seven Midwestern United States. Patients recalled their preferred and actual treatment decision-making roles and three new shared decision-making (SDM) variables were created. Patients completed QOL and QOC measurements. Correlations and t-tests were used. Of 1235 returned surveys, 873 (full sample) and 329 (subsample who received chemotherapy) were used. About one-half of women in both the full (50.7%) and subsample (49.8%,) preferred SDM with providers about treatment decisions, but only 41.2% (full) and 42.6% (subsample) reported experiencing SDM. Significant differences were found between preferred versus actual roles in the full (p < .001) and subsample (p < .004). In the full sample, there were no relationships between five decision-making variables with QOL, but there was an association with QOC. The subsample's decision-making variables related to several QOL scales and QOC items, with a more patient-centered decision than originally preferred related to higher physical and social/family well-being, overall QOL and QOC. Patients benefit from providers' efforts to identify patient preferences, encourage an active role in SDM, and tailor decision making to their desired choice.

The relationship between child- and parent-reported shared decision making and child-, parent-, and clinician-reported treatment outcome in routinely collected child mental health services data.

PubMed

Edbrooke-Childs, Julian; Jacob, Jenna; Argent, Rachel; Patalay, Praveetha; Deighton, Jessica; Wolpert, Miranda

2016-04-01

Shared decision making (SDM) between service users and providers is increasingly being suggested as a key component of good healthcare. The aim of this research was to explore whether child- and parent-reported experience of SDM was associated with child- and parent-reported improvement in psychosocial difficulties and clinician-reported functioning at the end of treatment in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The sample comprised N = 177 children (62% female; 31% aged 6-12 and 69% aged 13-18) with a variety of mental health problems from 17 services where routinely collected data consisted of presenting problems at outset, child- and parent-reported change in symptoms between Time 1 and Time 2 (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SDQ), clinician-reported change in functioning between Time 1 and Time 2 (Children's Global Assessment Scale; CGAS), and experience of SDM at Time 2 (as measured by responses to the Experience of Service Questionnaire; ESQ). Analysis revealed that both child- and parent-reported experience of SDM were associated with higher levels of child- and parent-reported improvement in psychosocial difficulties. However, child-reported experience of SDM was only associated with higher levels of child-reported improvement when their parents also reported higher levels of SDM. In CAMHS, involving both children and parents in decision making may contribute to enhanced treatment outcomes. © The Author(s) 2015.

An interprofessional approach to shared decision making: an exploratory case study with family caregivers of one IP home care team.

PubMed

Légaré, France; Stacey, Dawn; Brière, Nathalie; Robitaille, Hubert; Lord, Marie-Claude; Desroches, Sophie; Drolet, Renée

2014-07-02

Within the context of an exploratory case study, the authors assessed the perceptions of family caregivers about the decision-making process regarding relocating their relative and about the applicability of an interprofessional approach to shared decision making (IP-SDM). They also assessed perceptions of health professionals and health managers about IP-SDM. From November 2010 to October 2011, we worked with one IP home care team dedicated to older adults (the case) from a large primary health care organization in Quebec City, Canada. We identified six of their clients who had faced a decision about whether to stay at home or move to a long-term care facility in the past year and interviewed their family caregivers. We explored the decision-making process they had experienced regarding relocating their relative and their perceptions about the applicability of IP-SDM in this context. Attitudes towards IP-SDM and potential barriers to this approach were explored using a focus group with the participating IP home care team, individual interviews with 8 managers and a survey of 272 health professionals from the primary care organization. A hybrid process of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used and data were triangulated across all sources. Family caregivers reported lack of agreement on the nature of the decision to be made, a disconnection between home care services and relatives' needs, and high cost of long-term care alternatives. Factors influencing their decision included their ability to provide care for their relative. While they felt somewhat supported by the IP home care team, they also felt pressured in the decision. Overall, they did not perceive they had been exposed to IP-SDM but agreed that it was applicable in this context. Results from the survey, focus group and interviews with health professionals and managers indicated they all had a favourable attitude towards IP-SDM but many barriers hampered its implementation in their practice. The family caregivers in this study did not experience IP-SDM when relocating their relative. Added to results obtained with health professionals and managers, this highlights the need for an effective intervention targeting identified barriers to implementing IP-SDM in this context.

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2005-04-15

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-06-06

Children's rights to have their views heard in matters that affect their lives are now well established since the publication of the UN Convention treaty (1989). Children with cancer generally prefer to be involved in decision-making and consider it important that they have the opportunity to take part in decision-making concerning their health care, even in end-of-life decisions. There is considerable support for involving children in healthcare decision-making at a level commensurate with their experience, age and abilities. Thus healthcare professionals and parents need to know how they should involve children in decision-making and what interventions are most effective in promoting shared decision-making (SDM) for children with cancer. To examine the effects of SDM interventions on the process of SDM for children with cancer who are aged four to 18 years. We searched the following sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2012); PubMed (1946 to September 2012); EMBASE (1974 to September 2012); CINAHL (1982 to September 2012); PsycINFO (1806 to September 2012); BIOSIS (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ERIC (1966 to September 2012); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to September 2012); and Sociological Abstracts (1952 to September 2012). We searched for information about trials not registered in these resources, either published or unpublished, by searching the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005-2012):American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Cancer Conference (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM 2005-2011 as held every two years), Annual Conference of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) and Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM).We searched the International Scientific and Technical Proceedings database (2005 to September 2012). We also searched Dissertation Abstracts (from 1980 to September 2012).We scanned the ISRCTN (International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number) register and the National Institute of Health (NIH) Register for ongoing trials at: www.controlled-trials.com and clinicaltrials.gov on the 1 October 2012. We contacted authors for further details. We also contacted experts in this field.We did not impose language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. The types of decisions included were: treatment, health care, and research participation decisions. The primary outcome was SDM as measured with any validated scale. Two review authors undertook the searches, and three review authors independently assessed the studies obtained. We contacted study authors for additional information. No studies met the inclusion criteria, and hence no analysis could be undertaken. No conclusions can be made on the effects of interventions to promote SDM for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality quantitative research on interventions to promote participation in SDM for children with cancer. There are many potential reasons for the lack of SDM intervention studies with children. Attitudes towards children's participation are slowly changing in society and such changes may take time to be translated or adopted in healthcare settings. The priority may be on developing interventions that promote children's participation in communication interactions since information-sharing is a prerequisite for SDM. Restricting this review to RCTs was a limitation and extending the review to non-randomised studies (NRS) may have produced more evidence. We plan to expand the types of studies in future updates. Clearly more research is needed.

The health professional-patient-relationship in conventional versus complementary and alternative medicine. A qualitative study comparing the perceived use of medical shared decision-making between two different approaches of medicine.

PubMed

Berger, Stephanie; Braehler, Elmar; Ernst, Jochen

2012-07-01

To explore differences between conventional medicine (COM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) regarding the attitude toward and the perceived use of shared decision-making (SDM) from the health professional perspective. Thirty guideline-based interviews with German GPs and nonmedical practitioners were conducted using qualitative analysis for interpretation. The health professional-patient-relationship in CAM differs from that in COM, as SDM is perceived more often. Reasons for this include external context variables (e.g., longer consultation time) and internal provider beliefs (e.g., attitude toward SDM). German health care policy was regarded as one of the most critical factors which affected the relationship between GPs and their patients and their practice of SDM. Differences between COM and CAM regarding the attitude toward and the perceived use of SDM are attributable to diverse concepts of medicine, practice context variables and internal provider factors. Therefore, the perceived feasibility of SDM depends on the complexity of different occupational socialization processes and thus, different value systems between COM and CAM. Implementation barriers such as insufficient communication skills, lacking SDM training or obedient patients should be reduced. Especially in COM, contextual variables such as political restrictions need to be eliminated to successfully implement SDM. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda" Diagnostic Testing Breakout Session Report.

PubMed

Barrett, Tyler W; Rising, Kristin L; Bellolio, M Fernanda; Hall, M Kennedy; Brody, Aaron; Dodd, Kenneth W; Grieser, Mira; Levy, Phillip D; Raja, Ali S; Self, Wesley H; Weingarten, Gail; Hess, Erik P; Hollander, Judd E

2016-12-01

Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department (ED). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude "worst-case" diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease-related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making (SDM) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM. Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM, 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus. © 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Health Literacy and Health-Care Engagement as Predictors of Shared Decision-Making Among Adult Information Seekers in the USA: a Secondary Data Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey.

PubMed

Wigfall, Lisa T; Tanner, Andrea H

2018-02-01

The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between health literacy, health-care engagement, and shared decision-making (SDM). We analyzed Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (cycle 3) data for 1604 information seekers who had one or more non-emergency room health-care visits in the previous year. SDM was more than two times higher among adults who "always" versus "usually/sometimes/never" take health information to doctor visits (OR = 2.54; 95 % CI 1.19-5.43). There was a twofold increase in SDM among adults who were "completely/very confident" versus "somewhat/a little/not confident" about finding health information (OR = 2.03; 95 % CI 1.37-3.02). Differences in SDM between adults who understood health information and those who had difficulty understanding health information were not statistically significant (OR = 1.39; 95 % CI 0.93-2.07). A Healthy People 2020 goal is to increase SDM. Previous research has suggested that SDM may improve health outcomes across the continuum of care. Only about half of adults report always being involved in health-care decisions. Even more alarming is the fact that SDM has not increased from 2003 to 2013. Our findings suggest that increasing health literacy has the potential to increase health-care engagement and subsequently increase SDM. Effective intervention strategies are needed to improve health literacy and promote health-care engagement.

The role of depression pharmacogenetic decision support tools in shared decision making.

PubMed

Arandjelovic, Katarina; Eyre, Harris A; Lenze, Eric; Singh, Ajeet B; Berk, Michael; Bousman, Chad

2017-10-29

Patients discontinue antidepressant medications due to lack of knowledge, unrealistic expectations, and/or unacceptable side effects. Shared decision making (SDM) invites patients to play an active role in their treatment and may indirectly improve outcomes through enhanced engagement in care, adherence to treatment, and positive expectancy of medication outcomes. We believe decisional aids, such as pharmacogenetic decision support tools (PDSTs), facilitate SDM in the clinical setting. PDSTs may likewise predict drug tolerance and efficacy, and therefore adherence and effectiveness on an individual-patient level. There are several important ethical considerations to be navigated when integrating PDSTs into clinical practice. The field requires greater empirical research to demonstrate clinical utility, and the mechanisms thereof, as well as exploration of the ethical use of these technologies.

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

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2011-08-01

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

Shared decision-making, stigma, and child mental health functioning among families referred for primary care-located mental health services.

PubMed

Butler, Ashley M

2014-03-01

There is growing emphasis on shared decision making (SDM) to promote family participation in care and improve the quality of child mental health care. Yet, little is known about the relationship of SDM with parental perceptions of child mental health treatment or child mental health functioning. The objectives of this preliminary study were to examine (a) the frequency of perceived SDM with providers among minority parents of children referred to colocated mental health care in a primary care clinic, (b) associations between parent-reported SDM and mental health treatment stigma and child mental health impairment, and (c) differences in SDM among parents of children with various levels of mental health problem severity. Participants were 36 Latino and African American parents of children (ages 2-7 years) who were referred to colocated mental health care for externalizing mental health problems (disruptive, hyperactive, and aggressive behaviors). Parents completed questions assessing their perceptions of SDM with providers, child mental health treatment stigma, child mental health severity, and level of child mental health impairment. Descriptive statistics demonstrated the majority of the sample reported frequent SDM with providers. Correlation coefficients indicated higher SDM was associated with lower stigma regarding mental health treatment and lower parent-perceived child mental health impairment. Analysis of variance showed no significant difference in SDM among parents of children with different parent-reported levels of child mental health severity. Future research should examine the potential of SDM for addressing child mental health treatment stigma and impairment among minority families.

Shared decision-making for psychiatric medication: A mixed-methods evaluation of a UK training programme for service users and clinicians.

PubMed

Ramon, Shulamit; Morant, Nicola; Stead, Ute; Perry, Ben

2017-12-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is recognised as a promising strategy to enhance good collaboration between clinicians and service users, yet it is not practised regularly in mental health. Develop and evaluate a novel training programme to enhance SDM in psychiatric medication management for service users, psychiatrists and care co-ordinators. The training programme design was informed by existing literature and local stakeholders consultations. Parallel group-based training programmes on SDM process were delivered to community mental health service users and providers. Evaluation consisted of quantitative measures at baseline and 12-month follow-up, post-programme participant feedback and qualitative interviews. Training was provided to 47 service users, 35 care-coordinators and 12 psychiatrists. Participant feedback was generally positive. Statistically significant changes in service users' decisional conflict and perceptions of practitioners' interactional style in promoting SDM occurred at the follow-up. Qualitative data suggested positive impacts on service users' and care co-ordinators confidence to explore medication experience, and group-based training was valued. The programme was generally acceptable to service users and practitioners. This indicates the value of conducting a larger study and exploring application for non-medical decisions.

Efficacy of shared decision-making on treatment adherence of patients with bipolar disorder: a cluster randomized trial (ShareD-BD).

PubMed

Samalin, L; Honciuc, M; Boyer, L; de Chazeron, I; Blanc, O; Abbar, M; Llorca, P M

2018-04-13

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a model of interaction between doctors and patients in which both actors contribute to the medical decision-making process. SDM has raised great interest in mental healthcare over the last decade, as it is considered a fundamental part of patient-centered care. However, there is no research evaluating the efficacy of SDM compared to usual care (CAU), as it relates to quality of care and more specifically treatment adherence, in bipolar disorder (BD). This is a 12-month multi-centre, cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of SDM to CAU. Adult BD patients (n = 300) will be eligible after stabilization for at least 4 weeks following an acute mood episode. The intervention will consist of applying the standardized SDM process as developed by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in order to choose the maintenance treatment of BD. A multidisciplinary team developed a decision aid "choose my long-term treatment with my doctor" for BD patients to clarify possible therapeutic options. Primary outcome will assess the patient's level of adherence (based on hetero-evaluation) of ongoing treatment at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will assess the difference between the 2 groups of patients in terms of adherence to maintenance drug therapy based on other measures (self-assessment scale and plasma levels of mood stabilizers). Additionally, other dimensions will be assessed: decisional conflict, satisfaction with care and involvement in decision making, beliefs about treatment, therapeutic relationship, knowledge about information for medical decision and clinical outcomes (depression, mania, functioning and quality of life). The primary endpoint will be analysed without adjustment by comparison of adherence scores between the two groups using Student t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests according to the variable distribution. A set of secondary analyses will be adjusted for covariates of clinical interest using generalized linear mixed regression models. This will be the first study evaluating the effect of an SDM intervention on patient adherence in BD. This is also an innovative protocol because it proposes the development of an evidence-based tool that should help patients and clinicians to initiate discussions regarding the use of BD treatment. The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03245593 .

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

PubMed

Bradley, Eleanor; Green, Debra

2018-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-06-13

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

Status report from Norway: Implementation of patient involvement in Norwegian health care.

PubMed

Kasper, Jürgen; Lager, Anne Regine; Rumpsfeld, Markus; Kienlin, Simone; Smestad, Kristine Hoel; Bråthen, Tone; Ankell, Holly; Knutsen, Tore; Kløvtveit, Rune; Gulbrandsen, Pål; Vandvik, Per Olav; Heen, Anja Fog; Flottorp, Signe; Tollåli, Geir; Eiring, Øystein

2017-06-01

Norway has traditionally high standards regarding civil rights particularly emphasizing equal access to societal resources including health care. This background and the health care system's centralized national organization make it perfectly suited for implementation of shared decision making (SDM). In recent years, great efforts have been made by policy- makers, regional health authorities and not least the patients to facilitate a process of change in health communication culture. SDM is currently even given highest priority in health care strategies on all system levels. SDM has been structurally implemented, e.g. by including corresponding guidance in the standard patient pathways. Moreover, SDM is established as an element of service on the national health portal hosting a constantly increasing number of decision aids. Essentially the Norwegian Knowledge Center for Health Services contributes by searching and providing information for use in decision aids. Implementation is now being rolled out unit by unit for a list of medical problems as a series production of SDM using decision aids and health professional training. Importantly, production of SDM begins and succeeds as a soundly structured communication with both clinical environments and patients. However, as communication training has not been implemented before now, there are no data demonstrating sufficient realization of SDM in current health care. Beyond making reasonable use of scientific achievements, the Norwegian movement's secret of success is the simultaneous commitment of all actors of the health system to a common idea. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Shared decision-making and providing information among newly diagnosed patients with hematological malignancies and their informal caregivers: Not "one-size-fits-all".

PubMed

Rood, J A J; Nauta, I H; Witte, B I; Stam, F; van Zuuren, F J; Manenschijn, A; Huijgens, P C; Verdonck-de Leeuw, I M; Zweegman, S

2017-12-01

To optimize personalized medicine for patients with hematological malignancies (HM), we find that knowledge on patient preferences with regard to information provision and shared decision-making (SDM) is of the utmost importance. The aim of this study was to investigate the SDM preference and the satisfaction with and need for information among newly diagnosed HM patients and their informal caregivers, in relation to sociodemographic and clinical factors, cognitive coping style, and health related quality of life. Newly diagnosed patients and their caregivers were asked to complete the Hematology Information Needs Questionnaire, the Information Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory. Medical records were consulted to retrieve sociodemographic and clinical factors and comorbidity by means of the ACE-27. Questionnaires were completed by 138 patients and 95 caregivers. Shared decision-making was preferred by the majority of patients (75%) and caregivers (88%), especially patients treated with curative intent (OR = 2.7, P = .041), and patients (OR = 1.2, P < .001) and caregivers (OR = 1.2, P = .001) with a higher monitoring cognitive coping style (MCCS). Among patients, total need for information was related to MCCS (P = .012), and need for specific information was related to MCCS and several clinical factors. Importantly, dissatisfaction with the information they received was reported by a third of the patients and caregivers, especially patients who wanted SDM (χ 2  = 7.3, P = .007), and patients with a higher MCCS (OR = 0.94, P = .038). The majority of HM patients want to be involved in SDM, but the received information is not sufficient. Patient-tailored information is urgently needed, to improve SDM. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Patients' experiences of shared decision making in primary care practices in the United kingdom.

PubMed

Fullwood, Catherine; Kennedy, Anne; Rogers, Anne; Eden, Martin; Gardner, Caroline; Protheroe, Joanne; Reeves, David

2013-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) and patient self-management support are key components of US and UK policy for chronic disease management, whereby SDM is seen as enhancing physician-patient negotiation around self-management. The WISE trial is implementing training in self-management support for primary care physicians in one UK region. This article describes preintervention levels of patient-reported SDM and explores how this varies with patient and practice characteristics. We analyzed baseline data from a cluster randomized controlled trial for 2965 patients with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) from 29 family practices. Patient-level measures included self-report of chronic conditions, SDM (Health Care Climate Questionnaire [HCCQ]), health status, and demographic characteristics. Area and practice characteristics included chronic disease workload and socioeconomic deprivation. The mean SDM score was 75 (out of 100), but the range was wide. The mean score was lower for IBS patients but did not vary with other disease conditions. Younger patients and those with poorer health status reported lower degrees of SDM. No associations were found with practice characteristics. The study was restricted to one socioeconomically deprived region, and hence results may not be nationally representative of the United Kingdom. Ceiling effects on SDM scores may limit the utility of the HCCQ. Lower ratings from some patient groups may reflect differences in expectations rather than differences in physician behavior. Overall levels of SDM were high, and no patient or practice characteristic represented a serious barrier to SDM. However, we cannot say to what extent SDM in this chronic population addressed self-management issues rather than clinical care. More nuanced measures of SDM are required that distinguish between different forms of care.

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

PubMed

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

2012-08-01

Many decisions in the emergency department (ED) may benefit from patient involvement, even though this setting has been considered least conducive to shared decision-making (SDM). The objective was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the approaches, methods, and tools used to engage patients or their surrogates in SDM in the ED. Five electronic databases were searched in conjunction with contacting content experts, reviewing selected bibliographies, and conducting citation searches using the Web of Knowledge database. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies that addressed patient involvement and engagement in decision-making in the ED setting via the use of decision support interventions (DSIs), defined as decision aids or decision support designed to communicate probabilistic information on the risks and benefits of treatment options to patients as part of an SDM process. Eligible studies described and assessed at least one of the following outcomes: patient knowledge, experiences and perspectives on participating in treatment or management decisions, clinician or patient satisfaction, preference for involvement and/or degree of engagement in decision-making and treatment preferences, and clinical outcomes (e.g., rates of hospital admission/readmission, rates of medical or surgical interventions). Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methodologic quality, and outcomes. The authors also assessed the extent to which SDM interventions adhered to good practice for the presentation of information on outcome probabilities (eight probability items from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument [IPDASi]) and had comprehensive development processes. Five studies met inclusion criteria and were synthesized using a narrative approach. Each study was of satisfactory methodologic quality and used a DSI to engage patients or their surrogates in decision-making in the ED across four domains: 1) management options for children with small lacerations; 2) options for rehydrating children presenting with vomiting or diarrhea or both; 3) risk of bacteremia (and associated complications), tests, and treatment options for febrile children; and 4) short-term risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in adults with low-risk nontraumatic chest pain. Three studies had poor IPDASi probabilities and development process scores and lacked development informed by theory or involvement of clinicians and patients in development and usability testing. Overall, DSIs were associated with improvements in patients' knowledge and satisfaction with the explanation of their care, preferences for involvement, and engagement in decision-making and demonstrated utility for eliciting patients' preferences and values about management and treatment options. Two computerized DSIs (designed to predict risk of ACS in adults presenting to the ED with chest pain) were shown to reduce health care use without evidence of harm. None of the studies reported lack of feasibility of SDM in the ED. Early investigation of SDM in the ED suggests that patients may benefit from involvement in decision-making and offers no empirical evidence to suggest that SDM is not feasible. Future work is needed to develop and test additional SDM interventions in the ED and to identify contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation in practice. © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

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

PubMed

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

2017-03-01

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

Shared decision-making in mental health care-A user perspective on decisional needs in community-based services.

PubMed

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.

A Descriptive Study of Decision-Making Conversations during Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Family Conferences.

PubMed

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.

Relationships of Shared Decision Making with Parental Perceptions of Child Mental Health Functioning and Care

PubMed Central

Weller, Bridget; Titus, Courtney

2016-01-01

Experts encourage parents and practitioners to engage in shared decision making (SDM) to provide high quality child mental health care. However, little is known regarding SDM among families of children with common mental health conditions. The objectives of this study were to examine associations between parental report of SDM and parental perceptions of (a) receiving child mental health care and (b) child mental health functioning. We analyzed cross-sectional data on children with a common mental health condition (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional-defiant or conduct disorder, anxiety, or depression) from the 2009/2010 National Survey of Children with Special Healthcare Needs (N = 9,434). The primary independent variable was parent-reported SDM, and the dependent variables were parental perception of (a) their child receiving all needed mental health care (b) their children's impairment in school attendance and extracurricular activity participation, and (c) severity of their children's mental health condition. Multivariate logistic and multinomial regression analyses were conducted. Greater parent-reported SDM was associated with parental perceptions of receiving all needed child mental health care and children not having school or extracurricular impairment. Greater SDM was also associated with perceptions of children having a mild mental health condition compared to children having a moderate or severe condition. Findings provide a basis for future longitudinal and intervention studies to examine the benefit of SDM for improving parental perceptions of the quality of child mental health care and mental health functioning among children with common mental health conditions. PMID:25577238

Relationships of Shared Decision Making with Parental Perceptions of Child Mental Health Functioning and Care.

PubMed

Butler, Ashley M; Weller, Bridget; Titus, Courtney

2015-11-01

Experts encourage parents and practitioners to engage in shared decision making (SDM) to provide high quality child mental health care. However, little is known regarding SDM among families of children with common mental health conditions. The objectives of this study were to examine associations between parental report of SDM and parental perceptions of (a) receiving child mental health care and (b) child mental health functioning. We analyzed cross-sectional data on children with a common mental health condition (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional-defiant or conduct disorder, anxiety, or depression) from the 2009/2010 National Survey of Children with Special Healthcare Needs (N = 9,434). The primary independent variable was parent-reported SDM, and the dependent variables were parental perception of (a) their child receiving all needed mental health care (b) their children's impairment in school attendance and extracurricular activity participation, and (c) severity of their children's mental health condition. Multivariate logistic and multinomial regression analyses were conducted. Greater parent-reported SDM was associated with parental perceptions of receiving all needed child mental health care and children not having school or extracurricular impairment. Greater SDM was also associated with perceptions of children having a mild mental health condition compared to children having a moderate or severe condition. Findings provide a basis for future longitudinal and intervention studies to examine the benefit of SDM for improving parental perceptions of the quality of child mental health care and mental health functioning among children with common mental health conditions.

Perceived Appropriateness of Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: A Survey Study.

PubMed

Probst, Marc A; Kanzaria, Hemal K; Frosch, Dominick L; Hess, Erik P; Winkel, Gary; Ngai, Ka Ming; Richardson, Lynne D

2016-04-01

The objective was to describe perceptions of practicing emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the appropriateness and medicolegal implications of using shared decision-making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED). We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EPs at a large, national professional meeting to assess perceived appropriateness of SDM for different categories of ED management (e.g., diagnostic testing, treatment, disposition) and in common clinical scenarios (e.g., low-risk chest pain, syncope, minor head injury). A 21-item survey instrument was iteratively developed through review by content experts, cognitive testing, and pilot testing. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted. We approached 737 EPs; 709 (96%) completed the survey. Two-thirds (67.8%) of respondents were male; 51% practiced in an academic setting and 44% in the community. Of the seven management decision categories presented, SDM was reported to be most frequently appropriate for deciding on invasive procedures (71.5%), computed tomography (CT) scanning (56.7%), and post-ED disposition (56.3%). Among the specific clinical scenarios, use of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke was felt to be most frequently appropriate for SDM (83.4%), followed by lumbar puncture to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage (73.8%) and CT head for pediatric minor head injury (69.9%). Most EPs (66.8%) felt that using and documenting SDM would decrease their medicolegal risk while a minority (14.2%) felt that it would increase their risk. Acceptance of SDM among EPs appears to be strong across management categories (diagnostic testing, treatment, and disposition) and in a variety of clinical scenarios. SDM is perceived by most EPs to be medicolegally protective. © 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Perceived Appropriateness of Shared Decision-Making in the Emergency Department: A Survey Study

PubMed Central

Probst, Marc A.; Kanzaria, Hemal K.; Frosch, Dominick L.; Hess, Erik P.; Winkel, Gary; Ngai, Ka Ming; Richardson, Lynne D.

2017-01-01

Objective To describe perceptions of practicing emergency physicians regarding the appropriateness and medicolegal implications of using shared decision-making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED). Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of emergency physicians (EPs) at a large, national professional meeting to assess perceived appropriateness of SDM for different categories of ED management (e.g. diagnostic testing, treatment, disposition) and in common clinical scenarios (e.g. low-risk chest pain, syncope, minor head injury). A 21-item survey instrument was iteratively developed through review by content experts, cognitive testing, and pilot testing. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted. Results We approached 737 EPs; 709 (96%) completed the survey. Two thirds (67.8%) of respondents were male, 51% practiced in an academic setting; 44% in the community. Of the 7 management decision categories presented, SDM was reported to be most frequently appropriate for deciding on invasive procedures (71.5%), computed tomography (CT) scanning (56.7%), and post-ED disposition (56.3%). Among the specific clinical scenarios, use of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke was felt to be most frequently appropriate for SDM (83.4%), followed by lumbar puncture to rule out sub-arachnoid hemorrhage (73.8%), and CT head for pediatric minor head injury (69.9%). Most EPs (66.8%) felt that using and documenting SDM would decrease their medicolegal risk while a minority (14.2%) felt it would increase their risk. Conclusions Acceptance of SDM among emergency physicians appears to be strong across management categories (diagnostic testing, treatment, and disposition) and in a variety of clinical scenarios. SDM is perceived by most EPs to be medicolegally protective. PMID:26806170

A design process for using normative models in shared decision making: a case study in the context of prenatal testing.

PubMed

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.

Getting (Along) With the Guidelines: Reconciling Patient Autonomy and Quality Improvement Through Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Xu, Yan; Wells, Philip S

2016-07-01

In past decades, stark differences in practice pattern, cost, and outcomes of care across regions with similar health demographics have prompted calls for reform. As health systems answer the growing call for accountability in the form of quality indices, while responding to increased scrutiny on practice variation in the form of pay for performance (P4P), a rift is widening between the system and individual patients. Currently, three areas are inadequately considered by P4P structures based largely on physician adherence to guidelines: diversity of patient values and preferences; time and financial burden of therapy in the context of multimorbidity; and narrow focus on quantitative measures that distract clinicians from providing optimal care. As health care reform efforts place greater emphasis on value-for-money of care delivered, they provide an opportunity to consider the other "value"-the values of each patient and care delivery that aligns with them.The inherent balance of risks and benefits in every treatment, especially those involving chronic conditions, calls for engagement of patients in decision-making processes, recognizing the diversity of preferences at the individual level. Shared decision making (SDM) is an attractive option and should be an essential component of quality health care rather than its adjunct. Four interwoven steps toward the meaningful implementation of SDM in clinical practice-embedding SDM as a health care quality measure, "real-world" evaluation of SDM effectiveness, pursuit of an SDM-favorable health system, and patient-centered medical education-are proposed to bring focus back to the beneficiary of health care accountability, the patient.

Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: a systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

PubMed

Thompson-Leduc, Philippe; Clayman, Marla L; Turcotte, Stéphane; Légaré, France

2015-10-01

Shared decision making (SDM) requires health professionals to change their practice. Socio-cognitive theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), provide the needed theoretical underpinnings for designing behaviour change interventions. We systematically reviewed studies that used the TPB to assess SDM behaviours in health professionals to explore how theory is being used to explain influences on SDM intentions and/or behaviours, and which construct is identified as most influential. We searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to theses, Proquest dissertations and Current Contents for all years up to April 2012. We included all studies in French or English that used the TPB and related socio-cognitive theories to assess SDM behavioural intentions or behaviours in health professionals. We used Makoul & Clayman's integrative SDM model to identify SDM behaviours. We extracted study characteristics, nature of the socio-cognitive theory, SDM behaviour, and theory-based determinants of the SDM behavioural intention or behaviour. We computed simple frequency counts. Of 12,388 titles, we assessed 136 full-text articles for eligibility. We kept 20 eligible studies, all published in English between 1996 and 2012. Studies were conducted in Canada (n = 8), the USA (n = 6), the Netherlands (n = 3), the United Kingdom (n = 2) and Australia (n = 1). The determinant most frequently and significantly associated with intention was the subjective norm (n = 15/21 analyses). There was great variance in the way socio-cognitive theories predicted SDM intention and/or behaviour, but frequency of significance indicated that subjective norm was most influential. © 2014 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shared decision making among parents of children with mental health conditions compared to children with chronic physical conditions.

PubMed

Butler, Ashley M; Elkins, Sara; Kowalkowski, Marc; Raphael, Jean L

2015-02-01

High quality care in pediatrics involves shared decision making (SDM) between families and providers. The extent to which children with common mental health disorders experience SDM is not well known. The objectives of this study were to examine how parent-reported SDM varies by child health (physical illness, mental health condition, and comorbid mental and physical conditions) and to examine whether medical home care attenuates any differences. We analyzed data on children (2-17 years) collected through the 2009/2010 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. The sample consisted of parents of children in one of three child health categories: (1) children with a chronic physical illness but no mental health condition; (2) children with a common mental health condition but no chronic physical condition; and (3) children with comorbid mental and chronic physical conditions. The primary dependent variable was parent-report of provider SDM. The primary independent variable was health condition category. Multivariate linear regression analyses were conducted. Multivariate analyses controlling for sociodemographic variables and parent-reported health condition impact indicated lower SDM among children with a common mental health condition-only (B = -0.40; p < 0.01) and children with comorbid conditions (B = -0.67; p < 0.01) compared to children with a physical condition-only. Differences in SDM for children with a common mental health condition-only were no longer significant in the model adjusting for medical home care. However, differences in SDM for children with comorbid conditions persisted after adjusting for medical home care. Increasing medical home care may help mitigate differences in SDM for children with mental health conditions-only. Other interventions may be needed to improve SDM among children with comorbid mental and physical conditions.

How shared is shared decision-making? A care-ethical view on the role of partner and family.

PubMed

van Nistelrooij, Inge; Visse, Merel; Spekkink, Ankana; de Lange, Jasmijn

2017-09-01

The aim of shared decision-making (SDM) is to provide information to patients in order to enable them to decide autonomously and freely about treatment together with the doctor, without interference, force or coercion by others. Relatives may be considered as hindering or impeding a patient's own decision. Qualitative-empirical research into lived experience of SDM of patients with cancer, however, problematises the patient's autonomy when facing terminal illness and the need to make decisions regarding treatment. Confronted with this difficulty, this contribution tries to think through patients' dependency of others, and make their autonomy more relational, drawing on care-ethical critics of a one-sided view of autonomy and on Ricoeur's view of the fundamentally intersubjective, relational self. We aim to conceptualise relatives not as a third party next to the doctor and the patient, but as co-constituents of the patient's identity and as such present in the decision-making process from the outset. What is more, partners and the family may be of inestimable help in retrieving the patient's identity in line with the past, present and possible future. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Dyadic OPTION: Measuring perceptions of shared decision-making in practice.

PubMed

Melbourne, Emma; Roberts, Stephen; Durand, Marie-Anne; Newcombe, Robert; Légaré, France; Elwyn, Glyn

2011-04-01

Current models of the medical consultation emphasize shared decision-making (SDM), whereby the expertise of both the doctor and the patient are recognised and seen to equally contribute to the consultation. The evidence regarding the desirability and effectiveness of the SDM approach is often conflicting. It is proposed that the conflicts are due to the nature of assessment, with current assessments from the perspective of an outside observer. To empirically assess perceived involvement in the medical consultation using the dyadic OPTION instrument. 36 simulated medical consultations were organised between general practitioners and standardized- patients, using the observer OPTION and the newly developed dyadic OPTION instruments. SDM behaviours observed in the consultations were seen to depend on both members of the doctor and patient dyad, rather than each in isolation. Thus a dyadic approach to measurement is supported. This current study highlights the necessity for a dyadic approach to assessment and introduces a novel research instrument: the dyadic OPTION instrument. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

The vexing problem of defining the meaning, role and measurement of values in treatment decision-making.

PubMed

Charles, Cathy; Gafni, Amiram

2014-03-01

Two international movements, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision-making (SDM) have grappled for some time with issues related to defining the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in their respective models of treatment decision-making. In this article, we identify and describe unresolved problems in the way that each movement addresses these issues. The starting point for this discussion is that at least two essential ingredients are needed for treatment decision-making: research information about treatment options and their potential benefits and risks; and the values/preferences of participants in the decision-making process. Both the EBM and SDM movements have encountered difficulties in defining the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in treatment decision-making. In the EBM model of practice, there is no clear and consistent definition of patient values/preferences and no guidance is provided on how to integrate these into an EBM model of practice. Methods advocated to measure patient values are also problematic. Within the SDM movement, patient values/preferences tend to be defined and measured in a restrictive and reductionist way as patient preferences for treatment options or attributes of options, while broader underlying value structures are ignored. In both models of practice, the meaning and expected role of physician values in decision-making are unclear. Values clarification exercises embedded in patient decision aids are suggested by SDM advocates to identify and communicate patient values/preferences for different treatment outcomes. Such exercises have the potential to impose a particular decision-making theory and/or process onto patients, which can change the way they think about and process information, potentially impeding them from making decisions that are consistent with their true values. The tasks of clarifying the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in treatment decision-making models such as EBM and SDM, and determining whose values ought to count are complex and difficult tasks that will not be resolved quickly. Additional conceptual thinking and research are needed to explore and clarify these issues. To date, the values component of these models remains elusive and underdeveloped.

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

PubMed

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

2018-06-01

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

Trying to optimise the German version of the OPTION scale regarding the dyadic aspect of shared decision making.

PubMed

Keller, H; Hirsch, O; Müller-Engelmann, M; Heinzel-Gutenbrunner, M; Krones, T; Donner-Banzhoff, N

2013-01-01

The OPTION scale ("observing patient involvement in decision making") assesses the extent to which clinicians involve patients in decisions across a range of situations in clinical practice. It so far just covers physician behavior. We intended to modify the scoring of the OPTION scale to incorporate active patient behavior in consultations. Modification was done on scoring level, attempting a dyadic, relationship-centred approach in that high ratings can be evoked also by the behaviour of active patients. The German version of the OPTION scale was compared with a modified version by analysing video recordings of primary care consultations dealing with cardiovascular prevention. Fifteen general practitioners provided 40 videotaped consultations. Videos were analysed by two rater pairs and two experts in shared decision making (SDM). Reliability measures of the modified version were lower than those of the original scale. Significant associations of the dichotomised scale with the expert SDM rating as well as with physicians' expertise in SDM were only found for the modified OPTION scale. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses confirmed a valid differentiation between the presence of SDM (yes/no) on total score level, even though the cut-off point was quite low. Standard deviations of the single items in the modified version were higher compared to the original OPTION scale, while the means of total scores were similar. The original OPTION scale is physician-centered and neglects the activity and a possible self-involvement of the patient. Our modified instruction was able to capture the dyadic element partially. The development of a separate dyadic instrument might be more promising.

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

PubMed

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

2010-08-01

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

Using Simulation to Assess the Influence of Race and Insurer on Shared Decision-making in Periviable Counseling

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

Introduction Sociodemographic differences have been observed in the treatment of extremely premature (periviable) neonates, but the source of this variation is not well understood. We assessed the feasibility of using simulation to test the effect of maternal race and insurance status on shared decision-making (SDM) in periviable counseling. Methods We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial simulation experiment in which obstetricians and neonatologists counseled two consecutive standardized patients (SPs) diagnosed with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, counterbalancing race (black/white) and insurance status using random permutation. We assessed verisimilitude of the simulation in semi-structured debriefing interviews. We coded physician communication related to resuscitation, mode of delivery, and steroid decisions using a 9-point SDM coding framework; then compared communication scores by SP race and insurer using ANOVA. Results Sixteen obstetricians and 15 neonatologists participated; 71% were women, 84% married, and 75% parents; 91% of physicians rated the simulation as highly realistic. Overall, SDM scores were relatively high, with means ranging from 6.4–7.9 (out of 9). There was a statistically significant interaction between race and insurer for SDM related to steroid use and mode of delivery (p<0.01 and p=0.01, respectively). Between group comparison revealed non-significant differences p=<0.10) between SDM scores for privately-insured black patients vs privately-insured white patients, Medicaid-insured white patients vs Medicaid-insured black patients, and privately-insured black patients vs Medicaid-insured black patients. Conclusions This study confirms that simulation is a feasible method for studying sociodemographic effects on periviable counseling. SDM may occur differentially based on patients’ sociodemographic characteristics and deserves further study. PMID:25188489

Shared decision making and patient decision aids: knowledge, attitudes, and practices among Hawai'i physicians.

PubMed

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.

Physicians' reactions to uncertainty in the context of shared decision making.

PubMed

Politi, Mary C; Légaré, France

2010-08-01

Physicians' reactions towards uncertainty may influence their willingness to engage in shared decision making (SDM). This study aimed to identify variables associated with physician's anxiety from uncertainty and reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients. We conducted a cross-sectional secondary analysis of longitudinal data of an implementation study of SDM among primary care professionals (n=122). Outcomes were anxiety from uncertainty and reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients. Hypothesized factors that would be associated with outcomes included attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control, intention to implement SDM in practice, and socio-demographics. Stepwise linear regression was used to identify predictors of anxiety from uncertainty and reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients. In multivariate analyses, anxiety from uncertainty was influenced by female gender (beta=0.483; p=0.0039), residency status (1st year: beta=0.600; p=0.001; 2nd year: beta=0.972; p<0.001), and number of hours worked per week (beta=-0.012; p=0.048). Reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients was influenced by having more years in formal education (beta=-1.996; p=0.012). Variables associated with anxiety from uncertainty differ from those associated with reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients. Given the importance of communicating uncertainty during SDM, measuring physicians' reactions to uncertainty is essential in SDM implementation studies. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making.

PubMed

Légaré, France; St-Jacques, Sylvie; Gagnon, Susie; Njoya, Merlin; Brisson, Michel; Frémont, Pierre; Rousseau, François

2011-04-01

To assess the willingness of women and their family physicians (FPs) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM) as regards prenatal Down-syndrome screening and the factors that might influence their willingness to do so. We conducted a survey of participants in Québec City, Canada, using the theory of planned behavior. We used a general linear model and multilevel approach that took the fact that some women consulted the same FP into account. This study comprised 109 pregnant women and 41 FPs. On a scale of - 3 to + 3, the pregnant women's and FPs' response scores were, respectively, 2.11 ± 1.38 and 2.66 ± 0.40. In women, attitude, significant others, self-efficacy, perceived moral correctness, and their FP's attitude influenced their willingness to engage in SDM. However, women without a post-secondary education were less likely to engage in SDM than women with a post-secondary education, mostly because the former lacked a sense of self-efficacy. In FPs, only attitude and significant others influenced their willingness to engage in SDM. Overall, the women and their FPs wished to engage in SDM as regards prenatal Down-syndrome screening. Only a few factors influenced this desire which therefore may be modifiable. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Applying strategies from libertarian paternalism to decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Background Despite the recent publication of results from two randomized clinical trials, prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains a controversial issue. There is lack of agreement across studies that PSA screening significantly reduces prostate cancer mortality. In spite of these facts, the widespread use of PSA testing in the United States leads to overdetection and overtreatment of clinically indolent prostate cancer, and its associated harms of incontinence and impotence. Discussion Given the inconclusive results from clinical trials and incongruent PSA screening guidelines, the decision to screen for prostate cancer with PSA testing is an uncertain one for patients and health care providers. Screening guidelines from some health organizations recommend an informed decision making (IDM) or shared decision making (SDM) approach for deciding on PSA screening. These approaches aim to empower patients to choose among the available options by making them active participants in the decision making process. By increasing involvement of patients in the clinical decision-making process, IDM/SDM places more of the responsibility for a complex decision on the patient. Research suggests, however, that patients are not well-informed of the harms and benefits associated with prostate cancer screening and are also subject to an assortment of biases, emotion, fears, and irrational thought that interferes with making an informed decision. In response, the IDM/SDM approaches can be augmented with strategies from the philosophy of libertarian paternalism (LP) to improve decision making. LP uses the insights of behavioural economics to help people better make better choices. Some of the main strategies of LP applicable to PSA decision making are a default decision rule, framing of decision aids, and timing of the decision. In this paper, we propose that applying strategies from libertarian paternalism can help with PSA screening decision-making. Summary Our proposal to augment IDM and SDM approaches with libertarian paternalism strategies is intended to guide patients toward a better decision about testing while maintaining personal freedom of choice. While PSA screening remains controversial and evidence conflicting, a libertarian-paternalism influenced approach to decision making can help prevent the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. PMID:21510865

Applying strategies from libertarian paternalism to decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening.

PubMed

Wheeler, David C; Szymanski, Konrad M; Black, Amanda; Nelson, David E

2011-04-21

Despite the recent publication of results from two randomized clinical trials, prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains a controversial issue. There is lack of agreement across studies that PSA screening significantly reduces prostate cancer mortality. In spite of these facts, the widespread use of PSA testing in the United States leads to overdetection and overtreatment of clinically indolent prostate cancer, and its associated harms of incontinence and impotence. Given the inconclusive results from clinical trials and incongruent PSA screening guidelines, the decision to screen for prostate cancer with PSA testing is an uncertain one for patients and health care providers. Screening guidelines from some health organizations recommend an informed decision making (IDM) or shared decision making (SDM) approach for deciding on PSA screening. These approaches aim to empower patients to choose among the available options by making them active participants in the decision making process. By increasing involvement of patients in the clinical decision-making process, IDM/SDM places more of the responsibility for a complex decision on the patient. Research suggests, however, that patients are not well-informed of the harms and benefits associated with prostate cancer screening and are also subject to an assortment of biases, emotion, fears, and irrational thought that interferes with making an informed decision. In response, the IDM/SDM approaches can be augmented with strategies from the philosophy of libertarian paternalism (LP) to improve decision making. LP uses the insights of behavioural economics to help people better make better choices. Some of the main strategies of LP applicable to PSA decision making are a default decision rule, framing of decision aids, and timing of the decision. In this paper, we propose that applying strategies from libertarian paternalism can help with PSA screening decision-making. Our proposal to augment IDM and SDM approaches with libertarian paternalism strategies is intended to guide patients toward a better decision about testing while maintaining personal freedom of choice. While PSA screening remains controversial and evidence conflicting, a libertarian-paternalism influenced approach to decision making can help prevent the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

The complicated 'Yes': Decision-making processes and receptivity to lung cancer screening among head and neck cancer survivors.

PubMed

Seaman, Aaron T; Dukes, Kimberly; Hoffman, Richard M; Christensen, Alan J; Kendell, Nicholas; Sussman, Andrew L; Veléz-Bermúdez, Miriam; Volk, Robert J; Pagedar, Nitin A

2018-04-22

Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended when offering lung cancer screening (LCS)-which presents challenges with tobacco-related cancer survivors because they were excluded from clinical trials. Our objective was to characterize head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward LCS and SDM. Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 HNC survivors, focusing on patients' cancer and smoking history, receptivity to and perceptions of LCS, and decision-making preferences RESULTS: Participants were receptive to LCS, referencing their successful HNC outcomes. They perceived that LCS might reduce uncertainty and emphasized the potential benefits of early diagnosis. Some expressed concern over costs or overdiagnosis, but most minimized potential harms, including false positives and radiation exposure. Participants preferred in-person LCS discussions, often ideally with their cancer specialist. HNC survivors may have overly optimistic expectations for LCS, and clinicians need to account for this in SDM discussions. Supporting these patients in making informed decisions will be challenging because we lack clinical data on the potential benefits and harms of LCS for cancer survivors. While some patients prefer discussing LCS with their cancer specialists, the ability of specialists to support high-quality decision making is uncertain. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Shared decision-making in older patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer: Determinants of patients' and observers' perceptions.

PubMed

Geessink, Noralie H; Ofstad, Eirik H; Olde Rikkert, Marcel G M; van Goor, Harry; Kasper, Jürgen; Schoon, Yvonne

2018-06-13

To identify determinants of older patients' perceptions of involvement in decision-making on colorectal (CRC) or pancreatic cancer (PC) treatment, and to compare these with determinants of observers' perceptions. Patients' perceptions of involvement were constructed by the 9-item SDM questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and a Visual Analogue Scale for Involvement (VAS-I). Observers' perceptions were constructed by the OPTION5, OPTION12, and MAPPIN'SDM. Convergent validities were calculated between the patient-sided and observer instruments using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Linear regression was used to identify determinants per criterion. 58 CRC and 22 PC patients were included (mean age: 71.8 ± 5.2 years, 45.0% female). No significant correlations were found between the patient-sided and observer instruments. Patients' impression of involvement was influenced by patient characteristics such as quality of life and satisfaction, while observers' perceptions mainly referred to encounter characteristics such as the mean duration of consultations and general communication skills. Due to evident differences in determinants, older CRC/PC patients' and observers' perceptions of involvement should both be collected in evaluating the quality of medical decision-making. General communication skills should be integrated in SDM training interventions. New SDM measurement tools for patients are needed to sufficiently discriminate between the constructs of involvement and satisfaction. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

A Qualitative Analysis of Patients' Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: "Let Me Know I Have a Choice".

PubMed

Schoenfeld, Elizabeth M; Goff, Sarah L; Downs, Gwendolyn; Wenger, Robert J; Lindenauer, Peter K; Mazor, Kathleen M

2018-03-25

Despite increasing attention to the use of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), little is known about ED patients' perspectives regarding this practice. We sought to explore the use of SDM from the perspectives of ED patients, focusing on what affects patients' desired level of involvement and what barriers and facilitators patients find most relevant to their experience. We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of ED patients or their proxies at two sites. An interview guide was developed from existing literature and expert consensus and based on a framework underscoring the importance of both knowledge and power. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process by a three-person coding team. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized. Twenty-nine patients and proxies participated. The mean age of participants was 56 years (range, 20 to 89 years), and 13 were female. Participants were diverse in regard to race/ethnicity, education, number of previous ED visits, and presence of chronic conditions. All participants wanted some degree of involvement in decision making. Participants who made statements suggesting high self-efficacy and those who expressed mistrust of the health care system or previous negative experiences wanted a greater degree of involvement. Facilitators to involvement included familiarity with the decision at hand, physicians' good communication skills, and clearly delineated options. Some participants felt that their own relative lack of knowledge, compared to that of the physicians, made their involvement inappropriate or unwanted. Many participants had no expectation for SDM and although they did want involvement when asked explicitly, they were otherwise likely to defer to physicians without discussion. Many did not recognize opportunities for SDM in their clinical care. This exploration of ED patients' perceptions of SDM suggests that most patients want some degree of involvement in medical decision making but more proactive engagement of patients by clinicians is often needed. Further research should examine these issues in a larger and more representative population. © 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care--systematic decision aid development and study protocol.

PubMed

Yu, Catherine H; Stacey, Dawn; Sale, Joanna; Hall, Susan; Kaplan, David M; Ivers, Noah; Rezmovitz, Jeremy; Leung, Fok-Han; Shah, Baiju R; Straus, Sharon E

2014-01-22

Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice.2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness.3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity.4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis.5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach.

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care - systematic decision aid development and study protocol

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. Objectives To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice. 2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness. 3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity. 4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis. 5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Discussion Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach. PMID:24450385

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Association of Decision-making with Patients' Perceptions of Care and Knowledge during Longitudinal Pulmonary Nodule Surveillance.

PubMed

Sullivan, Donald R; Golden, Sara E; Ganzini, Linda; Wiener, Renda Soylemez; Eden, Karen B; Slatore, Christopher G

2017-11-01

Patient participation in medical decision-making is widely advocated, but outcomes are inconsistent. We examined the associations between medical decision-making roles, and patients' perceptions of their care and knowledge while undergoing pulmonary nodule surveillance. The study setting was an academically affiliated Veterans Affairs hospital network in which 121 participants had 319 decision-making encounters. The Control Preferences Scale was used to assess patients' decision-making roles. Associations between decision-making, including role concordance (i.e., agreement between patients' preferred and actual roles), shared decision-making (SDM), and perceptions of care and knowledge, were assessed using logistic regression and generalized estimating equations. Participants had a preferred role in 98% of encounters, and most desired an active role (shared or patient controlled). For some encounters (36%), patients did not report their actual decision-making role, because they did not know what their role was. Role concordance and SDM occurred in 56% and 26% of encounters, respectively. Role concordance was associated with greater satisfaction with medical care (adjusted odds ratio [Adj-OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-17.26), higher quality of patient-reported care (Adj-OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31-6.27), and more disagreement that care could be better (Adj-OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.12-4.16). Role concordance was not associated with improved pulmonary nodule knowledge with respect to lung cancer risk (Adj-OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.00) or nodule information received (Adj-OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.31-4.13). SDM was not associated with perceptions of care or knowledge. Among patients undergoing longitudinal nodule surveillance, a majority had a preference for having active roles in decision-making. Interestingly, during some encounters, patients did not know what their role was or that a decision was being made. Role concordance was associated with greater patient-reported satisfaction and quality of medical care, but not with improved knowledge. Patient participation in decision-making may influence perceptions of care; however, clinicians may need to focus on other communication strategies or domains to improve patient knowledge and health outcomes.

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

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-12-01

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

Using Argumentation Theory to Identify the Challenges of Shared Decision-Making when the Doctor and the Patient have a Difference of Opinion

PubMed Central

Zanini, Claudia A.; Rubinelli, Sara

2012-01-01

This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making. Acknowledgements the authors would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for funding this project (project number: PDFMP1_132523. Enhancing doctor-patient argumentation through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Insights from a study in the field of chronic pain). PMID:25170461

Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer.

PubMed

Shirk, Joseph D; Crespi, Catherine M; Saucedo, Josemanuel D; Lambrechts, Sylvia; Dahan, Ely; Kaplan, Robert; Saigal, Christopher

2017-12-01

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to medical decision making that can improve decisional quality. Decision aids are tools that facilitate SDM in the context of limited physician time; however, many decision aids do not incorporate preference measurement. We aim to understand whether adding preference measurement to a standard patient educational intervention improves decisional quality and is feasible in a busy clinical setting. Men with incident localized prostate cancer (n = 122) were recruited from the Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center urology clinic, Olive View UCLA Medical Center, and Harbor UCLA Medical Center from January 2011 to May 2015 and randomized to education with a brochure about prostate cancer treatment or software-based preference assessment in addition to the brochure. Men undergoing preference assessment received a report detailing the relative strength of their preferences for treatment outcomes used in review with their doctor. Participants completed instruments measuring decisional conflict, knowledge, SDM, and patient satisfaction with care before and/or after their cancer consultation. Baseline knowledge scores were low (mean 62%). The baseline mean total score on the Decisional Conflict Scale was 2.3 (±0.9), signifying moderate decisional conflict. Men undergoing preference assessment had a significantly larger decrease in decisional conflict total score (p = 0.023) and the Perceived Effective Decision Making subscale (p = 0.003) post consult compared with those receiving education only. Improvements in satisfaction with care, SDM, and knowledge were similar between groups. Individual-level preference assessment is feasible in the clinic setting. Patients with prostate cancer who undergo preference assessment are more certain about their treatment decisions and report decreased levels of decisional conflict when making these decisions.

Development of a shared decision-making tool to assist patients and clinicians with decisions on oral anticoagulant treatment for atrial fibrillation.

PubMed

Kaiser, Karen; Cheng, Wendy Y; Jensen, Sally; Clayman, Marla L; Thappa, Andrew; Schwiep, Frances; Chawla, Anita; Goldberger, Jeffrey J; Col, Nananda; Schein, Jeff

2015-12-01

Decision aids (DAs) are increasingly used to operationalize shared decision-making (SDM) but their development is not often described. Decisions about oral anticoagulants (OACs) for atrial fibrillation (AF) involve a trade-off between lowering stroke risk and increasing OAC-associated bleeding risk, and consideration of how treatment affects lifestyle. The benefits and risks of OACs hinge upon a patient's risk factors for stroke and bleeding and how they value these outcomes. We present the development of a DA about AF that estimates patients' risks for stroke and bleeding and assesses their preferences for outcomes. Based on a literature review and expert discussions, we identified stroke and major bleeding risk prediction models and embedded them into risk assessment modules. We identified the most important factors in choosing OAC treatment (warfarin used as the default reference OAC) through focus group discussions with AF patients who had used warfarin and clinician interviews. We then designed preference assessment and introductory modules accordingly. We integrated these modules into a prototype AF SDM tool and evaluated its usability through interviews. Our tool included four modules: (1) introduction to AF and OAC treatment risks and benefits; (2) stroke risk assessment; (3) bleeding risk assessment; and (4) preference assessment. Interactive risk calculators estimated patient-specific stroke and bleeding risks; graphics were developed to communicate these risks. After cognitive interviews, the content was improved. The final AF tool calculates patient-specific risks and benefits of OAC treatment and couples these estimates with patient preferences to improve clinical decision-making. The AF SDM tool may help patients choose whether OAC treatment is best for them and represents a patient-centered, integrative approach to educate patients on the benefits and risks of OAC treatment. Future research is needed to evaluate this tool in a real-world setting. The development process presented can be applied to similar SDM tools.

The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making.

PubMed

Barr, Paul J; O'Malley, Alistair James; Tsulukidze, Maka; Gionfriddo, Michael R; Montori, Victor; Elwyn, Glyn

2015-08-01

Observer OPTION(5) was designed as a more efficient version of OPTION(12), the most commonly used measure of shared decision making (SDM). The current paper assesses the psychometric properties of OPTION(5). Two raters used OPTION(5) to rate recordings of clinical encounters from two previous patient decision aid (PDA) trials (n=201; n=110). A subsample was re-rated two weeks later. We assessed discriminative validity, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, and concurrent validity. OPTION(5) demonstrated discriminative validity, with increases in SDM between usual care and PDA arms. OPTION(5) also demonstrated concurrent validity with OPTION(12), r=0.61 (95%CI 0.54, 0.68) and intra-rater reliability, r=0.93 (0.83, 0.97). The mean difference in rater score was 8.89 (95% Credibility Interval, 7.5, 10.3), with intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.67 (95% Credibility Interval, 0.51, 0.91) for the accuracy of rater scores and 0.70 (95% Credibility Interval, 0.56, 0.94) for the consistency of rater scores across encounters, indicating good inter-rater reliability. Raters reported lower cognitive burden when using OPTION(5) compared to OPTION(12). OPTION(5) is a brief, theoretically grounded observer measure of SDM with promising psychometric properties in this sample and low burden on raters. OPTION(5) has potential to provide reliable, valid assessment of SDM in clinical encounters. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2014-06-01

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

What do stakeholders need to implement shared decision making in routine cancer care? A qualitative needs assessment.

PubMed

Müller, Evamaria; Hahlweg, Pola; Scholl, Isabelle

2016-12-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is particularly relevant in oncology, where complex treatment options with varying side effects may lead to meaningful changes in the patient's quality of life. For several years, health policies have called for the implementation of SDM, but SDM remains poorly implemented in routine clinical practice. Implementation science has highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholders' needs to inform the development of implementation programs. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess different stakeholders' needs regarding the implementation of SDM in routine care. A qualitative study using focus groups and interviews was conducted. Focus groups were carried out with junior physicians, senior physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers (HPCs) (e.g. psycho-oncologists, physiotherapists), patients and family members. Head physicians as well as other HPCs in management positions were interviewed. Audiotapes of focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. Six focus groups with a total of n = 42 stakeholders as well as n = 17 interviews were conducted. Focus groups and interviews revealed five main categories of needs to be fulfilled in order to achieve a better implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) changes in communication, 2) involvement of other parties, 3) a trustful patient-physician relationship, 4) culture change and 5) structural changes. Stakeholders discussed four clusters of intervention strategies that could foster the implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) clinician-mediated interventions, 2) patient-mediated interventions, 3) provision of patient information material and 4) the establishment of a patient advocate. Study results show that stakeholders voiced a diversity of needs to foster implementation of SDM in routine cancer care, of which some can be directly addressed by intervention strategies. Present results can be used to develop an implementation program to foster SDM in routine cancer care.

Organizational- and system-level characteristics that influence implementation of shared decision-making and strategies to address them - a scoping review.

PubMed

Scholl, Isabelle; LaRussa, Allison; Hahlweg, Pola; Kobrin, Sarah; Elwyn, Glyn

2018-03-09

Shared decision-making (SDM) is poorly implemented in routine care, despite being promoted by health policies. No reviews have solely focused on an in-depth synthesis of the literature around organizational- and system-level characteristics (i.e., characteristics of healthcare organizations and of healthcare systems) that may affect SDM implementation. A synthesis would allow exploration of interventions to address these characteristics. The study aim was to compile a comprehensive overview of organizational- and system-level characteristics that are likely to influence the implementation of SDM, and to describe strategies to address those characteristics described in the literature. We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. The search strategy included an electronic search and a secondary search including gray literature. We included publications reporting on projects that promoted implementation of SDM or other decision support interventions in routine healthcare. We screened titles and abstracts, and assessed full texts for eligibility. We used qualitative thematic analysis to identify organizational- and system-level characteristics. After screening 7745 records and assessing 354 full texts for eligibility, 48 publications on 32 distinct implementation projects were included. Most projects (N = 22) were conducted in the USA. Several organizational-level characteristics were described as influencing the implementation of SDM, including organizational leadership, culture, resources, and priorities, as well as teams and workflows. Described system-level characteristics included policies, clinical guidelines, incentives, culture, education, and licensing. We identified potential strategies to influence the described characteristics, e.g., examples how to facilitate distribution of decision aids in a healthcare institution. Although infrequently studied, organizational- and system-level characteristics appear to play a role in the failure to implement SDM in routine care. A wide range of characteristics described as supporting and inhibiting implementation were identified. Future studies should assess the impact of these characteristics on SDM implementation more thoroughly, quantify likely interactions, and assess how characteristics might operate across types of systems and areas of healthcare. Organizations that wish to support the adoption of SDM should carefully consider the role of organizational- and system-level characteristics. Implementation and organizational theory could provide useful guidance for how to address facilitators and barriers to change.

Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of decision boxes on shared decision-making processes.

PubMed

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.

Patient and provider perspectives on uptake of a shared decision making intervention for asthma in primary care practices.

PubMed

Welch, Madelyn; Ludden, Tom; Mottus, Kathleen; Bray, Paul; Hendrickson, Lori; Rees, Jennifer; Halladay, Jacqueline; Tapp, Hazel

2018-06-21

Poor outcomes and health disparities related to asthma result in part from difficulty disseminating new evidence such as shared decision making (SDM) into clinical practice. As part of a three-arm cluster randomized dissemination study, evaluation of the impact of different dissemination methods was studied. Here we evaluate themes from patient and provider focus groups to assess the impact of a facilitated, traditional dissemination approach, or no intervention, on patient and provider perspectives of asthma care. Using semi-structured questions, twenty-four pre- and post-intervention focus groups with patients and providers took place across primary care practices. Discussions were held in all three arms both before and after the time of intervention rollout. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed for themes. Across all sites patients and providers discussed themes of communication, asthma self-management, barriers, education, and patient awareness. After the intervention, compared to traditional sites, facilitated practices were more likely to discuss themes related to SDM, such as patient-centered communication, patient-provider negotiation on treatment plan, planning, goal-setting, and solutions to barriers. Emergent themes allowed for further understanding of how the SDM implementation was perceived at the patient and provider level. The facilitated implementation was associated with higher adoption of the SDM intervention. These themes and supporting quotes add to knowledge of best practices associated with implementing an evidence-based SDM intervention for asthma into primary care and will inform researchers, practices, and providers as they work to improve adoption of evidence-based interventions into practice.

Shared Decision Making With Vulnerable Populations in the Emergency Department.

PubMed

Castaneda-Guarderas, Ana; Glassberg, Jeffrey; Grudzen, Corita R; Ngai, Ka Ming; Samuels-Kalow, Margaret E; Shelton, Erica; Wall, Stephen P; Richardson, Lynne D

2016-12-01

The emergency department (ED) occupies a unique position within the healthcare system, serving as a safety net for vulnerable patients, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or medical diagnosis. Shared decision making (SDM) presents special challenges when used with vulnerable population groups. The differing circumstances, needs, and perspectives of vulnerable groups invoke issues of provider bias, disrespect, judgmental attitudes, and lack of cultural competence, as well as patient mistrust and the consequences of their social and economic disenfranchisement. A research agenda that includes community-engaged approaches, mixed-methods studies, and cost-effectiveness analyses is proposed to address the following questions: 1) What are the best processes/formats for SDM among racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, social, or otherwise vulnerable groups who experience disadvantage in the healthcare system? 2) What organizational or systemic changes are needed to support SDM in the ED whenever appropriate? 3) What competencies are needed to enable emergency providers to consider patients' situation/context in an unbiased way? 4) How do we teach these competencies to students and residents? 5) How do we cultivate these competencies in practicing emergency physicians, nurses, and other clinical providers who lack them? The authors also identify the importance of using accurate, group-specific data to inform risk estimates for SDM decision aids for vulnerable populations and the need for increased ED-based care coordination and transitional care management capabilities to create additional care options that align with the needs and preferences of vulnerable populations. © 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Does a strategy to promote shared decision-making reduce medical practice variation in the choice of either single or double embryo transfer after in vitro fertilisation? A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

PubMed

Brabers, Anne E M; van Dijk, Liset; Groenewegen, Peter P; van Peperstraten, Arno M; de Jong, Judith D

2016-05-06

The hypothesis that shared decision-making (SDM) reduces medical practice variations is increasingly common, but no evidence is available. We aimed to elaborate further on this, and to perform a first exploratory analysis to examine this hypothesis. This analysis, based on a limited data set, examined how SDM is associated with variation in the choice of single embryo transfer (SET) or double embryo transfer (DET) after in vitro fertilisation (IVF). We examined variation between and within hospitals. A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. 5 hospitals in the Netherlands. 222 couples (woman aged <40 years) on a waiting list for a first IVF cycle, who could choose between SET and DET (ie, ≥2 embryos available). SDM via a multifaceted strategy aimed to empower couples in deciding how many embryos should be transferred. The strategy consisted of decision aid, support of IVF nurse and the offer of reimbursement for an extra treatment cycle. Control group received standard IVF care. Difference in variation due to SDM in the choice of SET or DET, both between and within hospitals. There was large variation in the choice of SET or DET between hospitals in the control group. Lower variation between hospitals was observed in the group with SDM. Within most hospitals, variation in the choice of SET or DET appeared to increase due to SDM. Variation particularly increased in hospitals where mainly DET was chosen in the control group. Although based on a limited data set, our study gives a first insight that including patients' preferences through SDM results in less variation between hospitals, and indicates another pattern of variation within hospitals. Variation that results from patient preferences could be potentially named the informed patient rate. Our results provide the starting point for further research. NCT00315029; Post-results. 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/

Competing priorities in treatment decision-making: a US national survey of individuals with depression and clinicians who treat depression.

PubMed

Barr, Paul J; Forcino, Rachel C; Mishra, Manish; Blitzer, Rachel; Elwyn, Glyn

2016-01-08

To identify information priorities for consumers and clinicians making depression treatment decisions and assess shared decision-making (SDM) in routine depression care. 20 questions related to common features of depression treatments were provided. Participants were initially asked to select which features were important, and in a second stage they were asked to rank their top 5 'important features' in order of importance. Clinicians were asked to provide rankings according to both consumer and clinician perspectives. Consumers completed CollaboRATE, a measure of SDM. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified consumer characteristics associated with CollaboRATE scores. Online cross-sectional surveys fielded in September to December 2014. We administered surveys to convenience samples of US adults with depression and clinicians who treat depression. Consumer sampling was targeted to reflect age, gender and educational attainment of adults with depression in the USA. Information priority rankings; CollaboRATE, a 3-item consumer-reported measure of SDM. 972 consumers and 244 clinicians completed the surveys. The highest ranked question for both consumers and clinicians was 'Will the treatment work?' Clinicians were aware of consumers' priorities, yet did not always prioritise that information themselves, particularly insurance coverage and cost of treatment. Only 18% of consumers reported high levels of SDM. Working with a psychiatrist (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.26) and female gender (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.34) were associated with top CollaboRATE scores. While clinicians know what information is important to consumers making depression treatment decisions, they do not always address these concerns. This mismatch, coupled with low SDM, adversely affects the quality of depression care. Development of a decision support intervention based on our findings can improve levels of SDM and provide clinicians and consumers with a tool to address the existing misalignment in information priorities. 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/

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

PubMed

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

2014-04-07

Despite policy interest, an ethical imperative, and evidence of the benefits of patient decision support tools, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) in day-to-day clinical practice remains slow and is inhibited by barriers that include culture and attitudes; resources and time pressures. Patient decision support tools often require high levels of health and computer literacy. Option Grids are one-page evidence-based summaries of the available condition-specific treatment options, listing patients' frequently asked questions. They are designed to be sufficiently brief and accessible enough to support a better dialogue between patients and clinicians during routine consultations. This paper describes a study to assess whether an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA of the knee) facilitates SDM, and explores the use of Option Grids by patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy. This will be a stepped wedge exploratory trial involving 72 patients with OA of the knee referred from primary medical care to a specialist musculoskeletal service in Oldham. Six physiotherapists will sequentially join the trial and consult with six patients using usual care procedures. After a period of brief training in using the Option Grid, the same six physiotherapists will consult with six further patients using an Option Grid in the consultation. The primary outcome will be efficacy of the Option Grid in facilitating SDM as measured by observational scores using the OPTION scale. Comparisons will be made between patients who have received the Option Grid and those who received usual care. A Decision Quality Measure (DQM) will assess quality of decision making. The health literacy of patients will be measured using the REALM-R instrument. Consultations will be observed and audio-recorded. Interviews will be conducted with the physiotherapists, patients and any interpreters present to explore their views of using the Option Grid. Option Grids offer a potential solution to the barriers to implementing traditional decision aids into routine clinical practice. The study will assess whether Option Grids can facilitate SDM in day-to-day clinical practice and explore their use with patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94871417.

Shared decision making for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Kunneman, Marleen; Branda, Megan E; Noseworthy, Peter A; Linzer, Mark; Burnett, Bruce; Dick, Sara; Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela; Fernandez, Cara A; Gorr, Haeshik; Wambua, Mike; Keune, Shelly; Zeballos-Palacios, Claudia; Hargraves, Ian; Shah, Nilay D; Montori, Victor M

2017-09-29

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common ongoing health problem that places patients at risk of stroke. Whether and how a patient addresses this risk depends on each patient's goals, context, and values. Consequently, leading cardiovascular societies recommend using shared decision making (SDM) to individualize antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool promotes high-quality SDM and influences anticoagulation uptake and adherence in patients with AF at risk of strokes. This study protocol describes a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial to assess the effect of using the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool in the clinical encounter, compared to usual care. The participating centers include an academic hospital system, a suburban community group practice, and an urban safety net hospital, all in Minnesota, USA. Patients with ongoing nonvalvular AF at risk of strokes (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 1 in men, or ≥ 2 in women) will be eligible for participation. We aim to include 999 patients and their clinicians. The primary outcome is the quality of SDM as perceived by participants, and as assessed by a post-encounter survey that ascertains (a) knowledge transfer, (b) concordance of the decision made, (c) quality of communication, and (d) satisfaction with the decision-making process. Recordings of encounters will be reviewed to assess the extent of patient involvement and how participants use the tool (fidelity). Anticoagulant use, choice of agent, and adherence will be drawn from patients' medical and pharmacy records. Strokes and bleeding events will be drawn from patient records. This study will provide a valid and precise measure of the effect of the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool on SDM quality and processes, and on the treatment choices and adherence to therapy among AF patients at risk of stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032 . Registered on 9 September 2016.

Engagement in decision-making and patient satisfaction: a qualitative study of older patients' perceptions of dialysis initiation and modality decisions.

PubMed

Ladin, Keren; Lin, Naomi; Hahn, Emily; Zhang, Gregory; Koch-Weser, Susan; Weiner, Daniel E

2017-08-01

Although shared decision-making (SDM) can better align patient preferences with treatment, barriers remain incompletely understood and the impact on patient satisfaction is unknown. This is a qualitative study with semistructured interviews. A purposive sample of prevalent dialysis patients ≥65 years of age at two facilities in Greater Boston were selected for diversity in time from initiation, race, modality and vintage. A codebook was developed and interrater reliability was 89%. Codes were discussed and organized into themes. A total of 31 interviews with 23 in-center hemodialysis patients, 1 home hemodialysis patient and 7 peritoneal dialysis patients were completed. The mean age was 76 ± 9 years. Two dominant themes (with related subthemes) emerged: decision-making experiences and satisfaction, and barriers to SDM. Subthemes included negative versus positive decision-making experiences, struggling for autonomy, being a 'good patient' and lack of choice. In spite of believing that dialysis initiation should be the patient's choice, no patients perceived that they had made a choice. Patients explained that this is due to the perception of imminent death or that the decision to start dialysis belonged to physicians. Clinicians and family frequently overrode patient preferences, with patient autonomy honored mostly to select dialysis modality. Poor decision-making experiences were associated with low treatment satisfaction. Despite recommendations for SDM, many older patients were unaware that dialysis initiation was voluntary, held mistaken beliefs about their prognosis and were not engaged in decision-making, resulting in poor satisfaction. Patients desired greater information, specifically focusing on the acuity of their choice, prognosis and goals of care. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.

Use of implicit persuasion in decision making about adjuvant cancer treatment: A potential barrier to shared decision making.

PubMed

Engelhardt, Ellen G; Pieterse, Arwen H; van der Hout, Anja; de Haes, Hanneke J C J M; Kroep, Judith R; Quarles van Ufford-Mannesse, Patricia; Portielje, Johanneke E A; Smets, Ellen M A; Stiggelbout, Anne M

2016-10-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is widely advocated, especially for preference-sensitive decisions like those on adjuvant treatment for early-stage cancer. Here, decision making involves a subjective trade-off between benefits and side-effects, and therefore, patients' informed preferences should be taken into account. If clinicians consciously or unconsciously steer patients towards the option they think is in their patients' best interest (i.e. implicit persuasion), they may be unwittingly subverting their own efforts to implement SDM. We assessed the frequency of use of implicit persuasion during consultations and whether the use of implicit persuasion was associated with expected treatment benefit and/or decision making. Observational study design in which consecutive consultations about adjuvant systemic therapy with stage I-II breast cancer patients treated at oncology outpatient clinics of general teaching hospitals and university medical centres were audiotaped, transcribed and coded by two researchers independently. In total, 105 patients (median age = 59; range: 35-87 years) were included. A median of five (range: 2-10) implicitly persuasive behaviours were employed per consultation. The number of behaviours used did not differ by disease stage (P = 0.07), but did differ by treatment option presented (P = 0.002) and nodal status (P = 0.01). About 50% of patients with stage I or node-negative disease were steered towards undergoing chemotherapy, whereas 96% of patients were steered towards undergoing endocrine therapy, irrespective of expected treatment benefit. Decisions were less often postponed if more implicit persuasion was used (P = 0.03). Oncologists frequently use implicit persuasion, steering patients towards the treatment option that they think is in their patients' best interest. Expected treatment benefit does not always seem to be the driving force behind implicit persuasion. Awareness of one's use of these steering behaviours during decision making is a first step to help overcome the performance gap between advocating and implementing SDM. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Participatory modeling and structured decision making

USGS Publications Warehouse

Robinson, Kelly F.; Fuller, Angela K.

2016-01-01

Structured decision making (SDM) provides a framework for making sound decisions even when faced with uncertainty, and is a transparent, defensible, and replicable method used to understand complex problems. A hallmark of SDM is the explicit incorporation of values and science, which often includes participation from multiple stakeholders, helping to garner trust and ultimately result in a decision that is more likely to be implemented. The core steps in the SDM process are used to structure thinking about natural resources management choices, and include: (1) properly defining the problem and the decision context, (2) determining the objectives that help describe the aspirations of the decision maker, (3) devising management actions or alternatives that can achieve those objectives, (4) evaluating the outcomes or consequences of each alternative on each of the objectives, (5) evaluating trade-offs, and (6) implementing the decision. Participatory modeling for SDM includes engaging stakeholders in some or all of the steps of the SDM process listed above. In addition, participatory modeling often is crucial for creating qualitative and quantitative models of how the system works, providing data for these models, and eliciting expert opinion when data are unavailable. In these ways, SDM provides a framework for decision making in natural resources management that includes participation from stakeholder groups throughout the process, including the modeling phase.

Comparing the ability of OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) to assess shared decision-making in genetic counselling.

PubMed

Vortel, Martina A; Adam, Shelin; Port-Thompson, Ashley V; Friedman, Jan M; Grande, Stuart W; Birch, Patricia H

2016-10-01

OPTION(12) is the most widely used tool to measure shared decision-making (SDM) in health care. A newer scale, OPTION(5), has been proposed as a more parsimonious measure that better addresses core concepts of SDM. This study compares OPTION(5) to OPTION(12) in prenatal genetic counselling. Two raters independently used OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) to score 27 clinical encounters between genetic counsellors (GC) and women with pregnancies at increased risk for genetic conditions. Global and item scores on the two instruments were compared to test concurrent validity and to identify usability in this context. Inter-rater reliability was also assessed for both instruments. Mean scores for OPTION(12) were 43.8 (SD=9.7), and for OPTION(5) were=60.6 (SD=12.5). The correlation between OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) scores was r=0.70. Inter-rater reliability was 0.70 and 0.85 for OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) respectively, however mean inter-rater reliability for individual items was 0.31 and 0.63 for OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) respectively. GCs exhibit SDM as measured by both OPTION instruments. OPTION(5) exhibits improved psychometric performance relative to OPTION(12), and more specifically targets the core constructs of SDM. However, refinement of OPTION instruments or manuals is needed to improve reliability and validity in GC assessment. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

Brackett, Charles D; Kearing, Stephen

2015-04-01

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

Shared decision making: prostate cancer patients' appraisal of treatment alternatives and oncologists' eliciting and responding behavior, an explorative study.

PubMed

Pieterse, Arwen H; Henselmans, Inge; de Haes, Hanneke C J M; Koning, Caro C E; Geijsen, Elisabeth D; Smets, Ellen M A

2011-12-01

To assess clinicians' use of shared decision making (SDM) skills, enabling patient treatment evaluations (appraisals); and varieties of patient appraisals and clinicians' preceding and following utterances. Two coders rated videotaped initial visits of 25 early-stage prostate cancer patients to their radiation oncologist. SDM skills were assessed using the Decision Analysis System for Oncology (DAS-O); appraisals and clinicians' utterances were labeled using qualitative methodology. Clinicians offered a treatment choice to 10 patients. They informed 15/25 about pros and 20/25 about cons of options. Patients expressed 67 appraisals (median/visit=2; range, 0-12). Half of appraisals were favorable and one-fourth was unfavorable toward treatment options. One-fifth referred to explicit tradeoffs. One-third of appraisals followed clinician requests; 58% followed clinician information. Clinicians approved almost half of appraisals. They contested, ignored or highlighted a minority. Clinicians infrequently offered patients a choice or explored appraisals. Most appraisals supported rather than challenged treatment options. Clinicians most often legitimized appraisals, thereby helping patients to feel good about the decision. Exploring appraisals may help patients in forming more stable preferences, thus benefiting patients in the long run. Clinicians should request patient appraisals and ascertain whether these seem well-informed before making treatment recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

What are the Essential Elements to Enable Patient Participation in Medical Decision Making?

PubMed Central

McGraw, Sarah

2007-01-01

BACKGROUND Patient participation in shared decision making (SDM) results in increased patient knowledge, adherence, and improved outcomes. Despite the benefits of the SDM model, many patients do not attain the level of participation they desire. OBJECTIVE To gain a more complete understanding of the essential elements, or the prerequisites, critical to active patient participation in medical decision making from the patient’s perspective. DESIGN Qualitative study. SETTING Individual, in-depth patient interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Two analysts independently read the transcripts and jointly developed a list of codes. PATIENTS Twenty-six consecutive subjects drawn from community dwelling subjects undergoing bone density measurements. MEASUREMENTS Respondents’ experiences and beliefs related to patient participation in SDM. RESULTS Five elements were repeatedly described by respondents as being essential to enable patient participation in medical decision making: (1) patient knowledge, (2) explicit encouragement of patient participation by physicians, (3) appreciation of the patient’s responsibility/rights to play an active role in decision making, (4) awareness of choice, and (5) time. LIMITATIONS The generalizability of the results is limited by the homogeneity of the study sample. CONCLUSIONS Our findings have important clinical implications and suggest that several needs must be met before patients can become active participants in decisions related to their health care. These needs include ensuring that patients (1) appreciate that there is uncertainty in medicine and “buy in” to the importance of active patient participation in decisions related to their health care, (2) understand the trade-offs related to available options, and (3) have the opportunity to discuss these options with their physician to arrive at a decision concordant with their values. PMID:17443368

Impact of socioeconomic factors on informed decision making and treatment choice in patients with hip and knee OA.

PubMed

Youm, Jiwon; Chan, Vanessa; Belkora, Jeffrey; Bozic, Kevin J

2015-02-01

It is unclear how socioeconomic (SES) status influences the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) tools. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of SES on the utility of SDM tools among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of 123 patients with hip or knee OA. Higher education and higher income were independently associated with higher knowledge survey scores. Patients with private insurance were 2.7 times more likely than patients with Medicare to arrive at a decision after the initial office visit. Higher education was associated with lower odds of choosing surgery, even after adjusting for knowledge. Patient knowledge of their medical condition and treatment options varies with SES. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Designing an implementation strategy to improve interprofessional shared decision making in sciatica: study protocol of the DISC study.

PubMed

Hofstede, Stefanie N; Marang-van de Mheen, Perla J; Assendelft, Willem J J; Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L A; Stiggelbout, Anne M; Vroomen, Patrick C A J; van den Hout, Wilbert B; Vliet Vlieland, Thea P M; van Bodegom-Vos, Leti

2012-06-15

Sciatica is a common condition worldwide that is characterized by radiating leg pain and regularly caused by a herniated disc with nerve root compression. Sciatica patients with persisting leg pain after six to eight weeks were found to have similar clinical outcomes and associated costs after prolonged conservative treatment or surgery at one year follow-up. Guidelines recommend that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and patients jointly decide about treatment options, so-called interprofessional shared decision making (SDM). However, there are strong indications that SDM for sciatica patients is not integrated in daily practice. We designed a study aiming to explore the barriers and facilitators associated with the everyday embedding of SDM for sciatica patients. All related relevant professionals and patients are involved to develop a tailored strategy to implement SDM for sciatica patients. The study consists of two phases: identification of barriers and facilitators and development of an implementation strategy. First, barriers and facilitators are explored using semi-structured interviews among eight professionals of each (para)medical discipline involved in sciatica care (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons). In addition, three focus groups will be conducted among patients. Second, the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked using a questionnaire among a representative Dutch sample of 200 GPs, 200 physical therapists, 200 neurologists, all 124 neurosurgeons, 200 orthopedic surgeons, and 100 patients. A tailored team-based implementation strategy will be developed based on the results of the first phase using the principles of intervention mapping and an expert panel. Little is known about effective strategies to increase the uptake of SDM. Most implementation strategies only target a single discipline, whereas multiple disciplines are involved in SDM among sciatica patients. The results of this study can be used as an example for implementing SDM in other patient groups receiving multidisciplinary complex care (e.g., elderly) and can be generalized to other countries with similar context, thereby contributing to a worldwide increase of SDM in preference sensitive choices.

Psychosocial Factors of Dietitians' Intentions to Adopt Shared Decision Making Behaviours: A Cross-Sectional Survey

PubMed Central

Deschênes, Sarah-Maude; Gagnon, Marie-Pierre; Légaré, France; Lapointe, Annie; Turcotte, Stéphane; Desroches, Sophie

2013-01-01

Objectives While shared decision making (SDM) promotes health-related decisions that are informed, value-based and adhered to, few studies report on theory-based approaches to SDM adoption by healthcare professionals. We aimed to identify the factors influencing dietitians' intentions to adopt two SDM behaviours: 1) present dietary treatment options to patients and 2) help patients clarify their values and preferences. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional postal survey based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour among 428 randomly selected dietitians working in clinical practice across the Province of Quebec, Canada. We performed descriptive analyses and multiple regression analyses to determine the variables that explained the variance in intention to perform the behaviours. Results A total of 203 dietitians completed the questionnaire. Their ages were from 23 to 66 and they had been practising dietetics for 15.4±11.1 years (mean ± SD). On a scale from 1 to 7 (from strongly disagree to strongly agree), dietitians' intentions to present dietary treatment options and to clarify their patients' values and preferences were 5.00±1.14 and 5.68±0.74, respectively. Perceived behavioural control (β = 0.56, ρ<0.0001), subjective norm (β = 0.16, ρ<0.05), and moral norm (β = 0.22, ρ<0.0001), were the factors significantly predicting the intention to present dietary treatment options, while perceived behavioural control (β = 0.60, ρ<0.0001), attitude (β = 0.20, ρ<0.05), and professional norm (β = 0.22, ρ<0.001), significantly predicted the intention to help patients' clarify their values and preferences. Conclusion Our results showed that dietitians intend to adopt the two SDM behaviours studied. Factors influencing intention were different for each behaviour, except for perceived behavioural control which was common to both behaviours. Thus, perceived behavioural control could be a key factor in interventions aiming to encourage implementation of SDM by dietitians. PMID:23700484

The effect of a new lifetime-cardiovascular-risk display on patients' motivation to participate in shared decision-making.

PubMed

Jegan, Nikita Roman A; Kürwitz, Sarah Anna; Kramer, Lena Kathrin; Heinzel-Gutenbrunner, Monika; Adarkwah, Charles Christian; Popert, Uwe; Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert

2018-06-09

This study investigated the effects of three different risk displays used in a cardiovascular risk calculator on patients' motivation for shared decision-making (SDM). We compared a newly developed time-to-event (TTE) display with two established absolute risk displays (i.e. emoticons and bar charts). The accessibility, that is, how understandable, helpful, and trustworthy patients found each display, was also investigated. We analysed a sample of 353 patients recruited in general practices. After giving consent, patients were introduced to one of three fictional vignettes with low, medium or high cardiovascular risk. All three risk displays were shown in a randomized order. Patients were asked to rate each display with regard to motivation for SDM and accessibility. Two-factorial repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted to compare the displays and investigate possible interactions with age. Regarding motivation for SDM, the TTE elicited the highest motivation, followed by the emoticons and bar chart (p < .001). The displays had no differential influence on the age groups (p = .445). While the TTE was generally rated more accessible than the emoticons and bar chart (p < .001), the emoticons were only superior to the bar chart in the younger subsample. However, this was only to a small effect (interaction between display and age, p < .01, η 2  = 0.018). Using fictional case vignettes, the novel TTE display was superior regarding motivation for SDM and accessibility when compared to established displays using emoticons and a bar chart. If future research can replicate these results in real-life consultations, the TTE display will be a valuable addition to current risk calculators and decision aids by improving patients' participation.

Shared decision making in Australia in 2017.

PubMed

Trevena, Lyndal; Shepherd, Heather L; Bonner, Carissa; Jansen, Jesse; Cust, Anne E; Leask, Julie; Shadbolt, Narelle; Del Mar, Chris; McCaffery, Kirsten; Hoffmann, Tammy

2017-06-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is now firmly established within national clinical standards for accrediting hospitals, day procedure services, public dental services and medical education in Australia, with plans to align general practice, aged care and disability service. Implementation of these standards and training of health professionals is a key challenge for the Australian health sector at this time. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance has also increased, with a major focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care. Tools to support shared decision making are increasingly used but there is a need for more systemic approaches to their development, cultural adaptation and implementation. Sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up-to-date with the best available evidence will be important for the future. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Arthritis patients' motives for (not) wanting to be involved in medical decision-making and the factors that hinder or promote patient involvement.

PubMed

Nota, Ingrid; Drossaert, Constance H C; Taal, Erik; van de Laar, Mart A F J

2016-05-01

The aim of this study is to gain insight into arthritis patients' motives for (not) wanting to be involved in medical decision-making (MDM) and the factors that hinder or promote patient involvement. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 patients suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Many patients perceived the questions about involvement in MDM as difficult, mostly because they were unaware of having a choice. Shared decision-making (SDM) was generally preferred, but the preferred level of involvement varied between and within individuals. Preference regarding involvement may vary according to the type of treatment and the severity of the complaints. A considerable group of respondents would have liked more participation than they had experienced in the past. Perceived barriers could be divided into doctor-related (e.g. a paternalistic attitude), patient-related (e.g. lack of knowledge) and context-related (e.g. too little time to decide) factors. This study demonstrates the complexity of predicting patients' preferences regarding involvement in MDM: most RA patients prefer SDM, but their preference may vary according to the situation they are in and the extent to which they experience barriers in getting more involved. Unawareness of having a choice is still a major barrier for patient participation. The attending physician seems to have an important role as facilitator in enhancing patient participation by raising awareness and offering options, but implementing SDM is a shared responsibility; all parties need to be involved and educated.

Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.

PubMed

Couët, Nicolas; Desroches, Sophie; Robitaille, Hubert; Vaillancourt, Hugues; Leblanc, Annie; Turcotte, Stéphane; Elwyn, Glyn; Légaré, France

2015-08-01

We have no clear overview of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in the decision-making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this. To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001-12) and gathered further data through networking. (i) OPTION scores as reported outcomes and (ii) health-care providers and patients as study participants. For analysis, we only included studies using the revised scale. Extracted data included: (i) study and participant characteristics and (ii) OPTION outcomes (scores, statistical associations and reported psychometric results). We also assessed the quality of OPTION outcomes reporting. We found 33 eligible studies, 29 of which used the revised scale. Overall, we found low levels of patient-involving behaviours: in cases where no intervention was used to implement shared decision making (SDM), the mean OPTION score was 23 ± 14 (0-100 scale). When assessed, the variables most consistently associated with higher OPTION scores were interventions to implement SDM (n = 8/9) and duration of consultations (n = 8/15). Whatever the clinical context, few health-care providers consistently attempt to facilitate patient involvement, and even fewer adjust care to patient preferences. However, both SDM interventions and longer consultations could improve this. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Impact of National Institutes of Health Gastrointestinal PROMIS Measures in Clinical Practice: Results of a Multicenter Controlled Trial.

PubMed

Almario, Christopher V; Chey, William D; Khanna, Dinesh; Mosadeghi, Sasan; Ahmed, Shahzad; Afghani, Elham; Whitman, Cynthia; Fuller, Garth; Reid, Mark; Bolus, Roger; Dennis, Buddy; Encarnacion, Rey; Martinez, Bibiana; Soares, Jennifer; Modi, Rushaba; Agarwal, Nikhil; Lee, Aaron; Kubomoto, Scott; Sharma, Gobind; Bolus, Sally; Spiegel, Brennan M R

2016-11-01

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to allow efficient, online measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but it remains untested whether PROMIS improves outcomes. Here, we aimed to compare the impact of gastrointestinal (GI) PROMIS measures vs. usual care on patient outcomes. We performed a pragmatic clinical trial with an off-on study design alternating weekly between intervention (GI PROMIS) and control arms at one Veterans Affairs and three university-affiliated specialty clinics. Adults with GI symptoms were eligible. Intervention patients completed GI PROMIS symptom questionnaires on an e-portal 1 week before their visit; PROs were available for review by patients and their providers before and during the clinic visit. Usual care patients were managed according to customary practices. Our primary outcome was patient satisfaction as determined by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included provider interpersonal skills (Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (DISQ)) and shared decision-making (9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)). There were 217 and 154 patients in the GI PROMIS and control arms, respectively. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups (P>0.05). Intervention patients had similar assessments of their providers' interpersonal skills (DISQ 89.4±11.7 vs. 89.8±16.0, P=0.79) and shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9 79.3±12.4 vs. 79.0±22.0, P=0.85) vs. This is the first controlled trial examining the impact of NIH PROMIS in clinical practice. One-time use of GI PROMIS did not improve patient satisfaction or assessment of provider interpersonal skills and shared decision-making. Future studies examining how to optimize PROs in clinical practice are encouraged before widespread adoption.

Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice.

PubMed

Elwyn, G; Edwards, A; Hood, K; Robling, M; Atwell, C; Russell, I; Wensing, M; Grol, R

2004-08-01

A consulting method known as 'shared decision making' (SDM) has been described and operationalized in terms of several 'competences'. One of these competences concerns the discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment or care options-'risk communication'. Few data exist on clinicians' ability to acquire skills and implement the competences of SDM or risk communication in consultations with patients. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of skill development workshops for SDM and the use of risk communication aids on the process of consultations. A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. Half the consultations were randomly selected for audio-taping, of which 352 patients attended and were audio-taped successfully. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were allocated randomly to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations were audio-taped from each phase. Raters (independent, trained and blinded to study phase) assessed the audio-tapes using a validated scale to assess levels of patient involvement (OPTION: observing patient involvement), and to analyse the nature of risk information discussed. Clinicians completed questionnaires after each consultation, assessing perceived clinician-patient agreement and level of patient involvement in decisions. Multilevel modelling was carried out with the OPTION score as the dependent variable, and rater, consultation and clinician levels of data, standardized by rater within clinician. Following each of the interventions, the clinicians significantly increased their involvement of patients in decision making (OPTION score increased by 10.6 following risk communication training [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9 -13.3; P < 0.001] and by 12.9 after SDM skill development (95% CI 10 -15.8, P < 0.001), a moderate effect size. The level of involvement achieved by the risk communication aids was significantly increased by the subsequent introduction of the skill development workshops (7.7 increase in OPTION score, 95% CI 3.4-12; P < 0.001). The alternative sequence (skills followed by risk communication aids) did not achieve this effect. The use of most risk information formats increased after the provision of specific risk communication aids (P < 0.001). Clinicians using the risk communication tools perceived significantly higher patient and clinician agreement on treatment (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction with information (P < 0.01), clinician satisfaction with decision (P < 0.01) and general overall satisfaction with the consultation (P < 0.001) than those who were exposed to SDM skill development workshops. These clinicians were able to acquire the skills to implement SDM competences and to use risk communication aids. Each intervention provided independent effects. Further progress towards greater patient involvement in health care decision making is possible, and skill development in this area should be incorporated into postgraduate professional development programmes.

Impact of an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes on decisional conflict--study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Yu, Catherine H; Ivers, Noah M; Stacey, Dawn; Rezmovitz, Jeremy; Telner, Deanna; Thorpe, Kevin; Hall, Susan; Settino, Marc; Kaplan, David M; Coons, Michael; Sodhi, Sumeet; Sale, Joanna; Straus, Sharon E

2015-06-27

Competing health concerns present real obstacles to people living with diabetes and other chronic diseases as well as to their primary care providers. Guideline implementation interventions rarely acknowledge this, leaving both patients and providers feeling overwhelmed by the volume of recommended actions. Interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) with the use of decision aids may help to set treatment priorities. We developed an evidence-based SDM intervention for patients with diabetes and other conditions that was framed by the IP-SDM model and followed a user-centered approach. Our objective in the present study is to pilot an IP-SDM and goal-setting toolkit following the Knowledge-to-Action Framework to assess (1) intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and (2) impact on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life and patient assessment of chronic illness care. A two-step, parallel-group, clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted, with the primary goal being to assess intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step is a provider-directed implementation only; the second (after a 6-month delay) involves both provider- and patient-directed implementation. Half of the clusters will be assigned to receive the IP-SDM toolkit, and the other will be assigned to be mailed a diabetes guidelines summary. Individual interviews with patients, their family members and health care providers will be conducted upon trial completion to explore toolkit use. A secondary purpose of this trial is to gather estimates of the toolkit's impact on decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, quality of life and chronic illness care, which will be assessed on the basis of patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data. An individualized approach to patients with multiple chronic conditions using SDM and goal setting is a desirable strategy for achieving guideline-concordant treatment in a patient-centered fashion. Our pilot trial will provide insights regarding strategies for the routine implementation of such interventions in clinical practice, and it will offer an assessment of the impact of this approach. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.

Shared decision-making in antihypertensive therapy: a cluster randomised controlled trial

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Hypertension is one of the key factors causing cardiovascular diseases. A substantial proportion of treated hypertensive patients do not reach recommended target blood pressure values. Shared decision making (SDM) is to enhance the active role of patients. As until now there exists little information on the effects of SDM training in antihypertensive therapy, we tested the effect of an SDM training programme for general practitioners (GPs). Our hypotheses are that this SDM training (1) enhances the participation of patients and (2) leads to an enhanced decrease in blood pressure (BP) values, compared to patients receiving usual care without prior SDM training for GPs. Methods The study was conducted as a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) with GP practices in Southwest Germany. Each GP practice included patients with treated but uncontrolled hypertension and/or with relevant comorbidity. After baseline assessment (T0) GP practices were randomly allocated into an intervention and a control arm. GPs of the intervention group took part in the SDM training. GPs of the control group treated their patients as usual. The intervention was blinded to the patients. Primary endpoints on patient level were (1) change of patients’ perceived participation (SDM-Q-9) and (2) change of systolic BP (24h-mean). Secondary endpoints were changes of (1) diastolic BP (24h-mean), (2) patients’ knowledge about hypertension, (3) adherence (MARS-D), and (4) cardiovascular risk score (CVR). Results In total 1357 patients from 36 general practices were screened for blood pressure control by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Thereof 1120 patients remained in the study because of uncontrolled (but treated) hypertension and/or a relevant comorbidity. At T0 the intervention group involved 17 GP practices with 552 patients and the control group 19 GP practices with 568 patients. The effectiveness analysis could not demonstrate a significant or relevant effect of the SDM training on any of the endpoints. Conclusion The study hypothesis that the SDM training enhanced patients’ perceived participation and lowered their BP could not be confirmed. Further research is needed to examine the impact of patient participation on the treatment of hypertension in primary care. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00000125 PMID:24024587

Shared decision-making in neonatology: an utopia or an attainable goal?

PubMed

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.

Aid-Assisted Decision-Making and Colorectal Cancer Screening

PubMed Central

Schroy, Paul C.; Emmons, Karen M.; Peters, Ellen; Glick, Julie T.; Robinson, Patricia A.; Lydotes, Maria A.; Mylvaganam, Shamini R.; Coe, Alison M.; Chen, Clara A.; Chaisson, Christine E.; Pignone, Michael P.; Prout, Marianne N.; Davidson, Peter K.; Heeren, Timothy C.

2014-01-01

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is a widely recommended yet unproven strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. Previous trials of decision aids to increase SDM and CRC screening uptake have yielded mixed results. Purpose To assess the impact of decision aid–assisted SDM on CRC screening uptake. Design RCT. Setting/participants The study was conducted at an urban, academic safety-net hospital and community health center between 2005 and 2010. Participants were asymptomatic, average-risk patients aged 50–75 years due for CRC screening. Intervention Study participants (n=825) were randomized to one of two intervention arms (decision aid plus personalized risk assessment or decision aid alone) or control arm. The interventions took place just prior to a routine office visit with their primary care providers. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was completion of a CRC screening test within 12 months of the study visit. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of test completion and mediators of the intervention effect. Analysis was completed in 2011. Results Patients in the decision-aid group were more likely to complete a screening test than control patients (43.1% vs 34.8%; p=0.046) within 12 months of the study visit; conversely, test uptake for the decision aid and decision aid plus personalized risk assessment arms was similar (43.1% vs 37.1%; p=0.15). Assignment to the decision-aid arm (AOR 1.48; 95% CI=1.04, 2.10), black race (AOR 1.52, 95% CI=1.12, 2.06) and a preference for a patient-dominant decisionmaking approach (AOR, 1.55; 95% CI=1.02, 2.35) were independent determinants of test completion. Activation of the screening discussion and enhanced screening intentions mediated the intervention effect. Conclusions Decision aid–assisted SDM has a modest impact on CRC screening uptake. A decision aid plus personalized risk assessment tool is no more effective than a decision aid alone. PMID:23159252

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-Relevant Patient-Centered Research Agenda

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

SUMMARY SDM in emergency medicine has the potential to improve the quality, safety, and outcomes of ED patients. Given that the ED is the gateway to care for patients with a variety of illnesses and injuries, SDM in the ED is relevant to numerous healthcare disciplines. We conducted a patient-centered one-day conference to define and develop a high-priority, timely research agenda. Participants included researchers, patients, stakeholder organizations, and content experts across many areas of medicine, health policy agencies, and federal and foundation funding organizations. The results of this conference published in this issue of Academic Emergency Medicine will provide an essential summary of the future research priorities for SDM to increase quality of care and patient-centered outcomes. PMID:27396583

Choosing an Advanced Therapy in Parkinson's Disease; is it an Evidence-Based Decision in Current Practice?

PubMed

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.

Preference phenotypes can be used to support shared decision-making at point-of-care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A proof of concept study.

PubMed

Hsiao, Betty; Binder-Finnema, Pauline; Benjamin Nowell, W; Michel, George; Wiedmeyer, Carole; Fraenkel, Liana

2018-06-28

In this proof-of-concept study, we sought to evaluate whether a value clarification tool enabling patients to view a set of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment preference phenotypes could be used to support shared decision-making (SDM) at the point-of-care. We conducted a pre-post test study. All English-speaking RA patients presenting to their scheduled outpatient visits were asked to participate. Visits for patients with active RA were transcribed. SDM components were measured using a quantitative coding scheme based on an established model of SDM. Forty-six visits were included in the pre-test and 40 in the post-test phase. Providers offered more DMARDs (two or more) in the post-test visits (60%) compared to the pre-test visits (47.8%). Overall, more patients vocalized their values and/or preferences in the post-test visits compared to the pre-test visits for treatment escalation decisions including choice of one new DMARD (90.9% versus 56.3%), two or more new DMARDs (95.8% versus 86.4%), as well as prednisone (87.5% versus 66.7%). Providers were also more likely to base their recommendations on patients' values and/or preferences in the post-test (100% of six visits) than pre-test (64.3% of 14 visits) phase during visits in which a recommendation was made. The average (SD) length of the visit was 29.9 (11.6) minutes and 25.1 (10.7) minutes in the pre- and post-test phases respectively. This study provides an early indication that a value clarification tool allowing patients to consider a set of preference phenotypes can support SDM at the point-of-care without extending visit time. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Evolution of Patient Decision-Making Regarding Medical Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PubMed

Mathews, Alexandra L; Coleska, Adriana; Burns, Patricia B; Chung, Kevin C

2016-03-01

The migration of health care toward a consumer-driven system favors increased patient participation during the treatment decision-making process. Patient involvement in treatment decision discussions has been linked to increased treatment adherence and patient satisfaction. Previous studies have quantified decision-making styles of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, none of them have considered the evolution of patient involvement after living with RA for many years. We conducted a qualitative study to determine the decision-making model used by long-term RA patients, and to describe the changes in their involvement over time. Twenty participants were recruited from the ongoing Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis study. Semistructured interviews were conducted and data were analyzed using grounded theory methodology. Nineteen out of 20 participants recalled using the paternalistic decision-making (PDM) model immediately following their diagnosis. Fourteen of the 19 participants who initially used PDM evolved to shared decision-making (SDM). Participants attributed the change in involvement to the development of a trusting relationship with their physician, as well as to becoming educated about the disease. When initially diagnosed with RA, patients may let their physician decide on the best treatment course. However, over time patients may evolve to exercise a more collaborative role. Physicians should understand that even within SDM, each patient can demonstrate a varied amount of autonomy. It is up to the physician to have a discussion with each patient to determine his or her desired level of involvement. © 2016, American College of Rheumatology.

Assessing medical student knowledge and attitudes about shared decision making across the curriculum: protocol for an international online survey and stakeholder analysis.

PubMed

Durand, Marie-Anne; Yen, Renata; Barr, Paul J; Cochran, Nan; Aarts, Johanna; Légaré, France; Reed, Malcolm; James O'Malley, A; Scalia, Peter; Painchaud Guérard, Geneviève; Elwyn, Glyn

2017-06-23

Shared decision making (SDM) is a goal of modern medicine; however, it is not currently embedded in routine care. Barriers include clinicians’ attitudes, lack of knowledge and training and time constraints. Our goal is to support the development and delivery of a robust SDM curriculum in medical education. Our objective is to assess undergraduate medical students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards SDM in four countries. The first phase of the study involves a web-based cross-sectional survey of undergraduate medical students from all years in selected schools across the United States (US), Canada and undergraduate and graduate students in the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom (UK), the survey will be circulated to all medical schools through the UK Medical School Council. We will sample students equally in all years of training and assess attitudes towards SDM, knowledge of SDM and participation in related training. Medical students of ages 18 years and older in the four countries will be eligible. The second phase of the study will involve semistructured interviews with a subset of students from phase 1 and a convenience sample of medical school curriculum experts or stakeholders. Data will be analysed using multivariable analysis in phase 1 and thematic content analysis in phase 2. Method, data source and investigator triangulation will be performed. Online survey data will be reported according to the Checklist for Reporting the Results of Internet E-Surveys. We will use the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research for all qualitative data. The study has been approved for dissemination in the US, the Netherlands, Canada and the UK. The study is voluntary with an informed consent process. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will help inform the inclusion of SDM-specific curriculum in medical education worldwide. © 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.

Lifelong Transfer Learning for Heterogeneous Teams of Agents in Sequential Decision Processes

DTIC Science & Technology

2016-06-01

making (SDM) tasks in dynamic environments with simulated and physical robots . 15. SUBJECT TERMS Sequential decision making, lifelong learning, transfer...sequential decision-making (SDM) tasks in dynamic environments with both simple benchmark tasks and more complex aerial and ground robot tasks. Our work...and ground robots in the presence of disturbances: We applied our methods to the problem of learning controllers for robots with novel disturbances in

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

PubMed

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

2015-05-01

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

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

PubMed

Santhirapala, Ramai; Moonesinghe, Ramani

2016-01-01

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

Supported Decision-Making: The Expectations Held by People With Experience of Mental Illness.

PubMed

Knight, Fauzia; Kokanović, Renata; Ridge, Damien; Brophy, Lisa; Hill, Nicholas; Johnston-Ataata, Kate; Herrman, Helen

2018-05-01

Supported decision-making (SDM) is a principle guiding mental health service provision, which aims to improve people's ability to make informed decisions about their care. Understanding diverse individual needs is vital to its success. Based on 29 narrative interviews with people diagnosed with mental illness in Australia, we examine how participants reflected on their own experiences of SDM. We find that participants' conceptualization of mental health expertise, their own experiences and sense of agency, and their varying needs for dependence and independence influenced their relationships with mental health practitioners. These factors in turn shaped their expectations about SDM. Four narrative positions emerged: the "Inward Expert," the "Outward Entrustor," the "Self-Aware Observer," and the "Social Integrator." These positionings influenced the type or style of support that participants expected and considered most useful. Our findings are relevant to developing effective approaches to SDM that take into account service users' needs and preferences.

Thresholds for conservation and management: structured decision making as a conceptual framework

USGS Publications Warehouse

Nichols, James D.; Eaton, Mitchell J.; Martin, Julien; Edited by Guntenspergen, Glenn R.

2014-01-01

changes in system dynamics. They are frequently incorporated into ecological models used to project system responses to management actions. Utility thresholds are components of management objectives and are values of state or performance variables at which small changes yield substantial changes in the value of the management outcome. Decision thresholds are values of system state variables at which small changes prompt changes in management actions in order to reach specified management objectives. Decision thresholds are derived from the other components of the decision process.We advocate a structured decision making (SDM) approach within which the following components are identified: objectives (possibly including utility thresholds), potential actions, models (possibly including ecological thresholds), monitoring program, and a solution algorithm (which produces decision thresholds). Adaptive resource management (ARM) is described as a special case of SDM developed for recurrent decision problems that are characterized by uncertainty. We believe that SDM, in general, and ARM, in particular, provide good approaches to conservation and management. Use of SDM and ARM also clarifies the distinct roles of ecological thresholds, utility thresholds, and decision thresholds in informed decision processes.

Structured decision making as a framework for large-scale wildlife harvest management decisions

USGS Publications Warehouse

Robinson, Kelly F.; Fuller, Angela K.; Hurst, Jeremy E.; Swift, Bryan L.; Kirsch, Arthur; Farquhar, James F.; Decker, Daniel J.; Siemer, William F.

2016-01-01

Fish and wildlife harvest management at large spatial scales often involves making complex decisions with multiple objectives and difficult tradeoffs, population demographics that vary spatially, competing stakeholder values, and uncertainties that might affect management decisions. Structured decision making (SDM) provides a formal decision analytic framework for evaluating difficult decisions by breaking decisions into component parts and separating the values of stakeholders from the scientific evaluation of management actions and uncertainty. The result is a rigorous, transparent, and values-driven process. This decision-aiding process provides the decision maker with a more complete understanding of the problem and the effects of potential management actions on stakeholder values, as well as how key uncertainties can affect the decision. We use a case study to illustrate how SDM can be used as a decision-aiding tool for management decision making at large scales. We evaluated alternative white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) buck-harvest regulations in New York designed to reduce harvest of yearling bucks, taking into consideration the values of the state wildlife agency responsible for managing deer, as well as deer hunters. We incorporated tradeoffs about social, ecological, and economic management concerns throughout the state. Based on the outcomes of predictive models, expert elicitation, and hunter surveys, the SDM process identified management alternatives that optimized competing objectives. The SDM process provided biologists and managers insight about aspects of the buck-harvest decision that helped them adopt a management strategy most compatible with diverse hunter values and management concerns.

Japanese physicians' preferences for decision making in rheumatoid arthritis treatment.

PubMed

Aoki, Akiko; Ohbu, Sadayoshi

2016-01-01

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a complex chronic illness requiring continued medical care. During the past decade, the therapeutic options for RA have increased significantly; these often have a higher risk of adverse effects and are more expensive than traditional drugs. Rheumatologists may hence face difficulties when deciding on the optimal modality in initiating or changing treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the Japanese physicians' usual style of and preferences for decision making regarding RA treatment. This was a cross-sectional study conducted using an Internet survey. Respondents were asked about their usual style of making treatment decisions (perceived style), and their perception of the importance of physicians' actions and patients' attitudes. Of the 485 physicians who were sent the questionnaire, 157 responded completely (response rate: 32.3%). Ninety-two percent of the respondents were men, and 57% were clinicians with more than 20 years of experience. Their specialties were general medicine (29%), rheumatology (27%), orthopedics (31%), and rehabilitation (12%). Sixty-one (39%) stated that they usually presented multiple treatment options to their patients and selected a decision for them, 42 (27%) shared the decision making with their patients, 34 (22%) let their patients choose the treatment, and 20 (13%) made the treatment decision for the patients. Physicians using the shared decision making (SDM) style desired for their patients to have supportive family and friends, to discuss with nurses, and to follow the doctors' directions more strongly compared with physicians using the other styles. There were no significant differences in sex, duration of clinical experience, major place of clinical work, and number of patients per month by the styles. More number of rheumatologists and physicians with specialist qualifications stated that they practiced SDM. To enhance patient participation, physicians need to recognize the importance of discussing treatment options with patients in addition to giving them information.

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

PubMed

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

2014-03-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

Implementing shared decision making in federally qualified health centers, a quasi-experimental design study: the Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice (Office-GAP) program.

PubMed

Olomu, Adesuwa; Hart-Davidson, William; Luo, Zhehui; Kelly-Blake, Karen; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret

2016-08-02

Use of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) and Decision Aids (DAs) has been encouraged but is not regularly implemented in primary care. The Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice (Office-GAP) intervention is an application of a previous model revised to address guidelines based care for low-income populations with diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD). To evaluate Office-GAP Program feasibility and preliminary efficacy on medication use, patient satisfaction with physician communication and confidence in decision in low-income population with diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD) in a Federally Qualified Healthcare Center (FQHC). Ninety-five patients participated in an Office-GAP program. A quasi-experimental design study, over 6 months with 12-month follow-up. Office-GAP program integrates health literacy, communication skills education for patients and physicians, patient/physician decision support tools and SDM into routine care. 1) Implementation rates of planned program elements 2) Patient satisfaction with communication and confidence in decision, and 3) Medication prescription rates. We used the GEE method for hierarchical logistic models, controlling for confounding. Feasibility of the Office-GAP program in the FQHC setting was established. We found significant increase in use of Aspirin/Plavix, statin and beta-blocker during follow-up compared to baseline: Aspirin OR 1.5 (95 % CI: 1.1, 2.2) at 3-months, 1.9 (1.3, 2.9) at 6-months, and 1.8 (1.2, 2.8) at 12-months. Statin OR 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) at 3-months and 1.5 (1.1, 2.2) at 12-months; beta-blocker 1.8 (1.1, 2.9) at 6-months and 12-months. Program elements were consistently used (≥ 98 % clinic attendance at training and tool used). Patient satisfaction with communication and confidence in decision increased. The use of Office-GAP program to teach SDM and use of DAs in real time was demonstrated to be feasible in FQHCs. It has the potential to improve satisfaction with physician communication and confidence in decisions and to improve medication use. The Office-GAP program is a brief, efficient platform for delivering patient and provider education in SDM and could serve as a model for implementing guideline based care for all chronic diseases in outpatient clinical settings. Further evaluation is needed to establish feasibility outside clinical study, reach, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

Recent advances in applying decision science to managing national forests

Treesearch

Bruce G. Marcot; Matthew P. Thompson; Michael C. Runge; Frank R. Thompson; Steven McNulty; David Cleaves; Monica Tomosy; Larry A. Fisher; Andrew Bliss

2012-01-01

Management of federal public forests to meet sustainability goals and multiple use regulations is an immense challenge. To succeed, we suggest use of formal decision science procedures and tools in the context of structured decision making (SDM). SDM entails four stages: problem structuring (framing the problem and defining objectives and evaluation criteria), problem...

Exploring factors influencing asthma control and asthma-specific health-related quality of life among children

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Little is known about factors contributing to children’s asthma control status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The study objectives were to assess the relationship between asthma control and asthma-specific HRQoL in asthmatic children, and to examine the extent to which parental health literacy, perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interaction, and satisfaction with shared decision-making (SDM) contribute to children’s asthma control and asthma-specific HRQoL. Methods This cross-sectional study utilized data collected from a sample of asthmatic children (n = 160) aged 8–17 years and their parents (n = 160) who visited a university medical center. Asthma-specific HRQoL was self-reported by children using the National Institutes of Health’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric Asthma Impact Scale. Satisfaction with SDM, perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interaction, parental health literacy, and asthma control were reported by parents using standardized measures. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to test the hypothesized pathways. Results Path analysis revealed that children with better asthma control reported higher asthma-specific HRQoL (β = 0.4, P < 0.001). Parents with higher health literacy and greater perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interactions were associated with higher satisfaction with SDM (β = 0.38, P < 0.05; β = 0.58, P < 0.001, respectively). Greater satisfaction with SDM was in turn associated with better asthma control (β = −0.26, P < 0.01). Conclusion Children’s asthma control status influenced their asthma-specific HRQoL. However, parental factors such as perceived self-efficacy with patient-physician interaction and satisfaction with shared decision-making indirectly influenced children’s asthma control status and asthma-specific HRQoL. PMID:23432913

Understanding the influences and impact of patient-clinician communication in cancer care.

PubMed

Lafata, Jennifer Elston; Shay, Laura A; Winship, Jodi M

2017-12-01

Patient-clinician communication is thought to be central to care outcomes, but when and how communication affects patient outcomes is not well understood. We propose a conceptual model and classification framework upon which the empirical evidence base for the impact of patient-clinician communication can be summarized and further built. We use the proposed model and framework to summarize findings from two recent systematic reviews, one evaluating the use of shared decision making (SDM) on cancer care outcomes and the other evaluating the role of physician recommendation in cancer screening use. Using this approach, we identified clusters of studies with positive findings, including those relying on the measurement of SDM from the patients' perspective and affective-cognitive outcomes, particularly in the context of surgical treatment decision making. We also identify important gaps in the literature, including the role of SDM in post-surgical treatment and end-of-life care decisions, and those specifying particular physician communication strategies when recommending cancer screening. Transparent linkages between key conceptual domains and the influence of methodological approaches on observed patient outcomes are needed to advance our understanding of how and when patient-clinician communication influences patient outcomes. The proposed conceptual model and classification framework can be used to facilitate the translation of empirical evidence into practice and to identify critical gaps in knowledge regarding how and when patient-clinician communication impacts care outcomes in the context of cancer and health care more broadly. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics on the efficacy of decision AIDS: a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials.

PubMed

Coylewright, Megan; Branda, Megan; Inselman, Jonathan W; Shah, Nilay; Hess, Erik; LeBlanc, Annie; Montori, Victor M; Ting, Henry H

2014-05-01

Decision aids (DAs) increase patient knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making (SDM). The extent to which they do so across diverse sociodemographic patient groups is unknown. We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials of DA versus usual care comprising 771 encounters between patients and clinicians discussing treatment options for chest pain, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and osteoporosis. Using a random effects model, we examined the impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics (age, sex, education, income, and insurance status) on the outcomes of knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. Because of small numbers of people of color in the study population, we were not powered to investigate the role of race. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (61%), white (94%), and women (59%); two thirds had greater than a high school education. Compared with usual care, DA patients gained knowledge, were more likely to know their risk, and had less decisional conflict along with greater involvement in SDM. These gains were largely consistent across sociodemographic patient groups, with DAs demonstrating similar efficacy when used with vulnerable patients such as the elderly and those with less income and less formal education. Differences in efficacy were found only in knowledge of risk in 1 subgroup, with greater efficacy among those with higher education (35% versus 18%; P=0.02). In this patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, DAs were efficacious across diverse sociodemographic groups as measured by knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. To the extent that DAs increase patient knowledge and participation in SDM, they have potential to impact health disparities related to these factors. © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Recent advances in applying decision science to managing national forests

USGS Publications Warehouse

Marcot, Bruce G.; Thompson, Matthew P.; Runge, Michael C.; Thompson, Frank R.; McNulty, Steven; Cleaves, David; Tomosy, Monica; Fisher, Larry A.; Andrew, Bliss

2012-01-01

Management of federal public forests to meet sustainability goals and multiple use regulations is an immense challenge. To succeed, we suggest use of formal decision science procedures and tools in the context of structured decision making (SDM). SDM entails four stages: problem structuring (framing the problem and defining objectives and evaluation criteria), problem analysis (defining alternatives, evaluating likely consequences, identifying key uncertainties, and analyzing tradeoffs), decision point (identifying the preferred alternative), and implementation and monitoring the preferred alternative with adaptive management feedbacks. We list a wide array of models, techniques, and tools available for each stage, and provide three case studies of their selected use in National Forest land management and project plans. Successful use of SDM involves participation by decision-makers, analysts, scientists, and stakeholders. We suggest specific areas for training and instituting SDM to foster transparency, rigor, clarity, and inclusiveness in formal decision processes regarding management of national forests.

Supported Decision-Making: Implications from Positive Psychology for Assessment and Intervention in Rehabilitation and Employment.

PubMed

Uyanik, Hatice; Shogren, Karrie A; Blanck, Peter

2017-12-01

Purpose This article reviews existing literature on positive psychology, supported decision-making (SDM), employment, and disability. It examines interventions and assessments that have been empirically evaluated for the enhancement of decision-making and overall well-being of people with disabilities. Additionally, conceptual themes present in the literature were explored. Methods A systematic review was conducted across two databases (ERIC and PsychINFO) using various combination of keywords of 'disabilit*', work rehabilitation and employment terms, positive psychology terms, and SDM components. Seven database searches were conducted with diverse combinations of keywords, which identified 1425 results in total to be screened for relevance using their titles and abstracts. Database search was supplemented with hand searches of oft-cited journals, ancestral search, and supplemental search from grey literature. Results Only four studies were identified in the literature targeting SDM and positive psychology related constructs in the employment and job development context. Results across the studies indicated small to moderate impacts of the assessment and interventions on decision-making and engagement outcomes. Conceptually there are thematic areas of potential overlap, although they are limited in the explicit integration of theory in supported decision-making, positive psychology, disability, and employment. Conclusion Results suggest a need for additional scholarship in this area that focuses on theory development and integration as well as empirical work. Such work should examine the potential utility of considering positive psychological interventions when planning for SDM in the context of career development activities to enhance positive outcomes related to decision-making, self-determination, and other positive psychological constructs.

Treatment recommendations by clinicians in stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A study of factors that influence the likelihood of accounting for the patient's preference.

PubMed

Hopmans, Wendy; Damman, Olga C; Porsius, Jarry T; Zwaan, Laura; Senan, Suresh; Timmermans, Danielle R M

2016-11-01

Surgery and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are both curative treatment options for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated in this patient group. This study explored clinician decision making in relation to the stated treatment preferences of patients. In a previous study, we conducted a binary choice experiment with hypothetical cases among 126 clinicians. Secondary data analysis was performed using multilevel logistic regression models, in which random differences between clinicians' decisions were taken into account. We analyzed the influence of patient- and clinician-related characteristics, and uncertainty as experienced by clinicians about their recommendation on the clinician's decision (either in line with the patient's preference or not). Significant interactions were observed between patient- and clinician-related characteristics, indicating that patient preferences were selectively taken into account, depending on clinicians' specialty, their views about the comparability of cancer-related outcomes following surgery and SABR, and the degree of uncertainty about the treatment recommendation. Our findings suggest that SDM for stage I NSCLC care is largely influenced by how clinicians weigh available scientific evidence. Clinicians should involve lung cancer patients more and ask for their preferences in making treatment recommendations. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening.

PubMed

Schroy, Paul C; Caron, Sarah E; Sherman, Bonnie J; Heeren, Timothy C; Battaglia, Tracy A

2015-10-01

Shared decision making (SDM) related to test preference has been advocated as a potentially effective strategy for increasing adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet primary care providers (PCPs) are often reluctant to comply with patient preferences if they differ from their own. Risk stratification advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) provides a rational strategy for reconciling these differences. To assess the importance of risk stratification in PCP decision making related to test preference for average-risk patients and receptivity to use of an electronic risk assessment tool for ACN to facilitate SDM. Mixed methods, including qualitative key informant interviews and a cross-sectional survey. PCPs at an urban, academic safety-net institution. Screening preferences, factors influencing patient recommendations and receptivity to use of a risk stratification tool. Nine PCPs participated in interviews and 57 completed the survey. Despite an overwhelming preference for colonoscopy by 95% of respondents, patient risk (67%) and patient preferences (63%) were more influential in their decision making than patient comorbidities (31%; P < 0.001). Age was the single most influential risk factor (excluding family history), with <20% of respondents choosing factors other than age. Most respondents reported that they would be likely to use a risk stratification tool in their practice either 'often' (43%) or sometimes (53%). Risk stratification was perceived to be important in clinical decision making, yet few providers considered risk factors other than age for average-risk patients. Providers were receptive to the use of a risk assessment tool for ACN when recommending an appropriate screening test for select patients. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a protocol for a realist synthesis to inform integrated care models

PubMed Central

Bunn, Frances; Goodman, Claire; Manthorpe, Jill; Durand, Marie-Anne; Hodkinson, Isabel; Rait, Greta; Millac, Paul; Davies, Sue L; Russell, Bridget; Wilson, Patricia

2017-01-01

Introduction Including the patient or user perspective is a central organising principle of integrated care. Moreover, there is increasing recognition of the importance of strengthening relationships among patients, carers and practitioners, particularly for individuals receiving substantial health and care support, such as those with long-term or multiple conditions. The overall aims of this synthesis are to provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied to integrated care models. Methods and analysis The synthesis draws on the principles of realist inquiry, to explain how, in what contexts and for whom, interventions that aim to strengthen SDM among older patients, carers and practitioners are effective. We will use an iterative, stakeholder-driven, three-phase approach. Phase 1: development of programme theory/theories that will be tested through a first scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholder groups; phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to test and develop the theories identified in phase 1; phase 3: validation of programme theory/theories with a purposive sample of participants from phase 1. The synthesis will draw on prevailing theories such as candidacy, self-efficacy, personalisation and coproduction. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval for the stakeholder interviews was obtained from the University of Hertfordshire ECDA (Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority), reference number HSK/SF/UH/02387. The propositions arising from this review will be used to develop recommendations about how to tailor SDM interventions to older people with complex health and social care needs in an integrated care setting. PMID:28174225

Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening.

PubMed

Wilkes, Michael; Srinivasan, Malathi; Cole, Galen; Tardif, Richard; Richardson, Lisa C; Plescia, Marcus

2013-11-01

Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

Interface Evaluation for Open System Architectures

DTIC Science & Technology

2014-03-01

maker (SDM) is responsible for balancing all of the influences of the IPT when making decisions. Coalescing the IPT perspectives for a single IIM...factors are considered in IIM decisions and that decisions are consistent with the preferences of the SDM, ultimately leading to a balance of schedule... board to perform ranking and weighting determinations. Rank sum, rank exponent, rank reciprocal and ROC leverage a subjective assessment of the

Development and validation of a computer-based situational judgement test to assess medical students' communication skills in the field of shared decision making.

PubMed

Kiessling, Claudia; Bauer, Johannes; Gartmeier, Martin; Iblher, Peter; Karsten, Gudrun; Kiesewetter, Jan; Moeller, Grit E; Wiesbeck, Anne; Zupanic, Michaela; Fischer, Martin R

2016-11-01

To develop a computer-based test (CBT) measuring medical students' communication skills in the field of shared decision making (SDM) and to evaluate its construct validity. The CBT was developed in the context of an experimental study comparing three different trainings for SDM (including e-learning and/or role-play) and a control group. Assessment included a CBT (Part A: seven context-poor questions, Part B: 15 context-rich questions) and interviews with two simulated patients (SP-assessment). Cronbach's α was used to test the internal consistency. Correlations between CBT and SP-assessment were used to further evaluate construct validity of the CBT. Seventy-two students took part in the study. Mean value for the CBT score was 72% of the total score. Cronbach's α was 0.582. After eliminating three items, Cronbach's α increased to 0.625. Correlations between the CBT and SP-assessment were low to moderate. The control group scored significantly lower than the training settings (p<0.001). The CBT was reliable enough to test for group differences. For summative assessment purposes, considerably more questions would be needed. We encourage teachers who particularly work with large student numbers to consider CBT as a feasible assessment method for cognitive aspects of communication skills. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

In the patient's best interest: appraising social network site information for surrogate decision making.

PubMed

Siddiqui, Shahla; Chuan, Voo Teck

2018-06-28

This paper will discuss why and how social network sites ought to be used in surrogate decision making (SDM), with focus on a context like Singapore in which substituted judgment is incorporated as part of best interest assessment for SDM, as guided by the Code of Practice for making decisions for those lacking mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act (2008). Specifically, the paper will argue that the Code of Practice already supports an ethical obligation, as part of a patient-centred care approach, to look for and appraise social network site (SNS) as a source of information for best interest decision making. As an important preliminary, the paper will draw on Berg's arguments to support the use of SNS information as a resource for SDM. It will also supplement her account for how SNS information ought to be weighed against or considered alongside other evidence of patient preference or wishes, such as advance directives and anecdotal accounts by relatives. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Consideration of reference points for the management of renewable resources under an adaptive management paradigm

USGS Publications Warehouse

Irwin, Brian J.; Conroy, Michael J.

2013-01-01

The success of natural resource management depends on monitoring, assessment and enforcement. In support of these efforts, reference points (RPs) are often viewed as critical values of management-relevant indicators. This paper considers RPs from the standpoint of objective-driven decision making in dynamic resource systems, guided by principles of structured decision making (SDM) and adaptive resource management (AM). During the development of natural resource policy, RPs have been variously treated as either ‘targets’ or ‘triggers’. Under a SDM/AM paradigm, target RPs correspond approximately to value-based objectives, which may in turn be either of fundamental interest to stakeholders or intermediaries to other central objectives. By contrast, trigger RPs correspond to decision rules that are presumed to lead to desirable outcomes (such as the programme targets). Casting RPs as triggers or targets within a SDM framework is helpful towards clarifying why (or whether) a particular metric is appropriate. Further, the benefits of a SDM/AM process include elucidation of underlying untested assumptions that may reveal alternative metrics for use as RPs. Likewise, a structured decision-analytic framework may also reveal that failure to achieve management goals is not because the metrics are wrong, but because the decision-making process in which they are embedded is insufficiently robust to uncertainty, is not efficiently directed at producing a resource objective, or is incapable of adaptation to new knowledge.

Most Important Factors for the Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Sciatica Care: Ranking among Professionals and Patients

PubMed Central

Hofstede, Stefanie N.; van Bodegom-Vos, Leti; Wentink, Manon M.; Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L. A.; Vliet Vlieland, Thea P. M.; de Mheen, Perla J. Marang-van

2014-01-01

Introduction Due to the increasing specialization of medical professionals, patients are treated by multiple disciplines. To ensure that delivered care is patient-centered, it is crucial that professionals and the patient together decide on treatment (shared decision making (SDM)). However, it is not known how SDM should be integrated in multidisciplinary practice. This study determines the most important factors for SDM implementation in sciatica care, as it is known that a prior inventory of factors is crucial to develop a successful implementation strategy. Methods 246 professionals (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons) (30% response) and 155 patients (96% response) responded to an internet-based survey. Respondents ranked barriers and facilitators identified in previous interviews, on their importance using Maximum Difference Scaling. Feeding back the personal top 5 most important factors, each respondent indicated whether these factors were barriers or facilitators. Hierarchical Bayes estimation was used to estimate the relative importance (RI) of each factor. Results Professionals assigned the highest importance to: quality of professional-patient relationship (RI 4.87; CI 4.75–4.99); importance of quick recovery of patient (RI 4.83; CI 4.69–4.97); and knowledge about treatment options (RI 6.64; CI 4.53–4.74), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Professionals working in primary care had a different ranking than those working in hospital care. Patients assigned the highest importance to: correct diagnosis by professionals (barrier, RI 8.19; CI 7.99–8.38); information provision about treatment options and potential harm and benefits (RI 7.87; CI 7.65–8.08); and explanation of the professional about the care trajectory (RI 7.16; CI 6.94–7.38), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Conclusions Knowledge, information provision and a good relationship are the most important conditions for SDM perceived by both patients and professionals. These conditions are not restricted to one specific disease or health care system, because they are mostly professional or patient dependent and require healthcare professional training. PMID:24710328

Characteristics of Treatment Decisions to Address Challenging Behaviors in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

PubMed

Anixt, Julia S; Meinzen-Derr, Jareen; Estridge, Halley; Smith, Laura; Brinkman, William B

2018-05-01

To describe the characteristics of treatment decisions to address challenging behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Parents of children aged 4 to 15 years with ASD seen in a developmental behavioral pediatric (DBP) clinic completed validated measures to characterize their child's behaviors and their own level of stress. Parents reported their treatment priority before the visit. During the visit, we assessed shared decision making (SDM) using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale and alignment of the clinician's treatment plan with the parent's priority. Before and after the visit, parents rated their uncertainty about the treatment plan using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). We calculated descriptive statistics for the measures. Fifty-four families participated. Children were a mean (SD) age of 8.8 (3.3) years, and 87% were male. Children had a variety of behavioral challenges, and parents reported high levels of stress. Commonly reported parent treatment priorities were hyperactivity, tantrums, anxiety, and poor social skills. Levels of SDM were low, with a mean (SD) OPTION score of 24.5 (9.7). Parent priorities were addressed in 65% of treatment plans. Approximately 69% of parents had elevated DCS scores before the visit. Although levels of decisional conflict were lower after the visit compared with before the visit (p < 0.03), 46% of parents continued to report high scores on the DCS. Parents leave DBP visits with feelings of uncertainty about treatment decisions and with treatment plans that do not always address their priorities. SDM interventions hold promise to improve the quality of ASD treatment decisions.

Research Using In Vivo Simulation of Meta-Organizational Shared Decision Making (SDM). Task 5: Creation of a User Friendly Knowledge Tool

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-12-01

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041227/main1.htm Chang, S. E., McDaniels, T. L., Mikawoz, J., & Peterson , K. (2007). Infrastructure failure...University. Hind, P., Frost, M., & Rowley, S. ( 1996 ). The resilience audit and the psychological contract. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 18-29...globalization by more globalization. Asian Perspective, 28, 19-44. Hurwitt, J. M., Bolotnick, T. J., Corsetti, B. A., Hershey , D. A., Hoffman, K. T

Structured decision making as a proactive approach to dealing with sea level rise in Florida

USGS Publications Warehouse

Martin, Julien; Fackler, Paul L.; Nichols, James D.; Lubow, Bruce C.; Eaton, Mitchell J.; Runge, Michael C.; Stith, Bradley M.; Langtimm, Catherine A.

2011-01-01

Sea level rise (SLR) projections along the coast of Florida present an enormous challenge for management and conservation over the long term. Decision makers need to recognize and adopt strategies to adapt to the potentially detrimental effects of SLR. Structured decision making (SDM) provides a rigorous framework for the management of natural resources. The aim of SDM is to identify decisions that are optimal with respect to management objectives and knowledge of the system. Most applications of SDM have assumed that the managed systems are governed by stationary processes. However, in the context of SLR it may be necessary to acknowledge that the processes underlying managed systems may be non-stationary, such that systems will be continuously changing. Therefore, SLR brings some unique considerations to the application of decision theory for natural resource management. In particular, SLR is expected to affect each of the components of SDM. For instance, management objectives may have to be reconsidered more frequently than under more stable conditions. The set of potential actions may also have to be adapted over time as conditions change. Models have to account for the non-stationarity of the modeled system processes. Each of the important sources of uncertainty in decision processes is expected to be exacerbated by SLR. We illustrate our ideas about adaptation of natural resource management to SLR by modeling a non-stationary system using a numerical example. We provide additional examples of an SDM approach for managing species that may be affected by SLR, with a focus on the endangered Florida manatee.

Optimal health insurance: the case of observable, severe illness.

PubMed

Chernew, M E; Encinosa, W E; Hirth, R A

2000-09-01

We explore optimal cost-sharing provisions for insurance contracts when individuals have observable, severe diseases with a discrete number of medically appropriate treatment options. Variation in preferences for alternative treatments is unobserved by the insurer and non-contractible. Interest in such situations is increasingly common, exemplified by disease carve-out programs and shared decision-making (SDM) tools. We demonstrate that optimal insurance charges a copay to patients choosing the high-cost treatment and provides consumers of the low-cost treatment a cash payment. A simulation of the effect of such a policy, based on prostate cancer, indicates a substantial reduction in moral hazard.

Preparing future fisheries professionals to make good decisions

USGS Publications Warehouse

Colvin, Michael E.; Peterson, James T.

2017-01-01

Future fisheries professionals will face decision-making challenges in an increasingly complex field of fisheries management. Though fisheries students are well trained in the use of the scientific method to understand the natural world, they are rarely exposed to structured decision making (SDM) as part of an undergraduate or graduate education. Specifically, SDM encourages users (e.g., students, managers) to think critically and communicate the problem and then identify specific, measurable objectives as they relate to the problem. Next, users must think critically and creatively about management alternatives that can be used to meet the objectives—there must be more than one alternative or there is no decision to be made. Lastly, the management alternatives are evaluated with regard to how likely they are to succeed in terms of multiple, possibly completing, objectives, such as how stakeholder groups value outcomes of management actions versus monetary cost. We believe that exposure to SDM and its elements is an important part of preparing future fisheries professional to meet the challenges they may face. These challenges include reduced budgets, the growth of potentially competing natural resource interest groups, and stakeholder desire to be involved in management decisions affecting public trust resources, just to name a few.

Social interactions elicit rapid shifts in functional connectivity in the social decision-making network of zebrafish

PubMed Central

Teles, Magda C.; Almeida, Olinda; Lopes, João S.; Oliveira, Rui F.

2015-01-01

According to the social decision-making (SDM) network hypothesis, SDM is encoded in a network of forebrain and midbrain structures in a distributed and dynamic fashion, such that the expression of a given social behaviour is better reflected by the overall profile of activation across the different loci rather than by the activity of a single node. This proposal has the implicit assumption that SDM relies on integration across brain regions, rather than on regional specialization. Here we tested the occurrence of functional localization and of functional connectivity in the SDM network. For this purpose we used zebrafish to map different social behaviour states into patterns of neuronal activity, as indicated by the expression of the immediate early genes c-fos and egr-1, across the SDM network. The results did not support functional localization, as some loci had similar patterns of activity associated with different social behaviour states, and showed socially driven changes in functional connectivity. Thus, this study provides functional support to the SDM network hypothesis and suggests that the neural context in which a given node of the network is operating (i.e. the state of its interconnected areas) is central to its functional relevance. PMID:26423839

Social interactions elicit rapid shifts in functional connectivity in the social decision-making network of zebrafish.

PubMed

Teles, Magda C; Almeida, Olinda; Lopes, João S; Oliveira, Rui F

2015-10-07

According to the social decision-making (SDM) network hypothesis, SDM is encoded in a network of forebrain and midbrain structures in a distributed and dynamic fashion, such that the expression of a given social behaviour is better reflected by the overall profile of activation across the different loci rather than by the activity of a single node. This proposal has the implicit assumption that SDM relies on integration across brain regions, rather than on regional specialization. Here we tested the occurrence of functional localization and of functional connectivity in the SDM network. For this purpose we used zebrafish to map different social behaviour states into patterns of neuronal activity, as indicated by the expression of the immediate early genes c-fos and egr-1, across the SDM network. The results did not support functional localization, as some loci had similar patterns of activity associated with different social behaviour states, and showed socially driven changes in functional connectivity. Thus, this study provides functional support to the SDM network hypothesis and suggests that the neural context in which a given node of the network is operating (i.e. the state of its interconnected areas) is central to its functional relevance. © 2015 The Author(s).

Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a protocol for a realist synthesis to inform integrated care models.

PubMed

Bunn, Frances; Goodman, Claire; Manthorpe, Jill; Durand, Marie-Anne; Hodkinson, Isabel; Rait, Greta; Millac, Paul; Davies, Sue L; Russell, Bridget; Wilson, Patricia

2017-02-07

Including the patient or user perspective is a central organising principle of integrated care. Moreover, there is increasing recognition of the importance of strengthening relationships among patients, carers and practitioners, particularly for individuals receiving substantial health and care support, such as those with long-term or multiple conditions. The overall aims of this synthesis are to provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied to integrated care models. The synthesis draws on the principles of realist inquiry, to explain how, in what contexts and for whom, interventions that aim to strengthen SDM among older patients, carers and practitioners are effective. We will use an iterative, stakeholder-driven, three-phase approach. Phase 1: development of programme theory/theories that will be tested through a first scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholder groups; phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to test and develop the theories identified in phase 1; phase 3: validation of programme theory/theories with a purposive sample of participants from phase 1. The synthesis will draw on prevailing theories such as candidacy, self-efficacy, personalisation and coproduction. Ethics approval for the stakeholder interviews was obtained from the University of Hertfordshire ECDA (Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority), reference number HSK/SF/UH/02387. The propositions arising from this review will be used to develop recommendations about how to tailor SDM interventions to older people with complex health and social care needs in an integrated care setting. 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/.

The impact of media type on shared decision processes in third-age populations.

PubMed

Reychav, Iris; Najami, Inam; Raban, Daphne Ruth; McHaney, Roger; Azuri, Joseph

2018-04-01

To examine the relationship between the media, through which medical information was made available (e.g. digital versus printed), and the patients' desire to play an active part in a medical decision in an SDM or an ISDM-based process. The goal of this research was to expand knowledge concerning social and personal factors that affect and explain patients' willingness to participate in the process. A questionnaire was distributed in this empirical study of 103 third-age participants. A theoretical model formed the basis for the study and utilized a variety of factors from technology acceptance, as well as personal and environmental influences to investigate the likelihood of subjects preferring a certain decision-making approach. The research population included men and women aged 65 or older who resided in five assisted living facilities in Israel. The sample was split randomly into 2 groups. One group used digital information and the other print. A path analysis was conducted, using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) in AMOS SPSS, to determine the influence of the information mode of presentation on the patient's choice of the SDM or ISDM model. When digital media was accessible, the information's perceived usefulness (PU) led participants to choose an ISDM-based process; this was not true with printed information. When information was available online, higher self-efficacy (SE) led participants to prefer an SDM-based process. When the information was available in print, a direct positive influence was found on the participant's choice of SDM, while a direct negative influence was found on their choice of an ISDM-based process. PU was found to be affected by external peer influences, particularly when resources were made available in print. This meant that digital resources tended to be accepted at face value more readily. Cognitive absorption had a positive effect on the research variables only when the information was available digitally. The findings suggest the use of digital information may be related to cognitive functions of older adults, since the use of digital technology and information requires more cognitive effort. The study illustrates factors that make patients choose SDM or ISDM-based processes in third-age populations. In general, the results suggest that, even though a physician may attempt to place the patient in the center of the decision process, printed information does not empower the patient in the same way that digital resources do. This may have wider ramifications if the patient does not buy into the treatment plan is and becomes less motivated to be compliant with the treatment. Another key contribution of this research is to identify processes that reflect information assessment and adoptions, and the behaviors related to medical decision making, both as a model and as a process. This study suggests what health care professionals should expect to see as the transition to more digital information sources becomes the norm among the elderly population. Future research is needed to examine this model under different conditions, and to check for other variables and mechanisms perceived as mediators in the choice of SDM or ISDM processes. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Supported Decision Making: A Synthesis of the Literature across Intellectual Disability, Mental Health, and Aging

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Shogren, Karrie A.; Wehmeyer, Michael L.; Lassmann, Heather; Forber-Pratt, Anjali J.

2017-01-01

Supported decision making (SDM) has begun to receive significant attention as means to enable people to exercise autonomy and self-determination over decisions about their life. Practice frameworks that can be used to promote the provision of supports for decision making are needed. This paper integrates the literature across intellectual and…

Do continuing medical education articles foster shared decision making?

PubMed

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

2010-01-01

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

Considering patient values and treatment preferences enhances patient involvement in rectal cancer treatment decision making.

PubMed

Kunneman, Marleen; Marijnen, Corrie A M; Baas-Thijssen, Monique C M; van der Linden, Yvette M; Rozema, Tom; Muller, Karin; Geijsen, Elisabeth D; Stiggelbout, Anne M; Pieterse, Arwen H

2015-11-01

The shared decision making (SDM) model states that patients' values and preferences should be clarified to choose a strategy that best fits the patient. This study aimed to assess whether values and preferences of rectal cancer patients are voiced and considered in deciding about preoperative radiotherapy (PRT), and whether this makes patients feel more involved in treatment decision making. Pre-treatment consultations of radiation oncologists and patients eligible for PRT were audiotaped (N=90). Tapes were transcribed and coded to identify patients' values and treatment preferences. Patients filled in a post-consultation questionnaire on their perceived involvement in decision making (N=60). Patients' values were voiced for 62/611 of benefits/harms addressed (10%), in 38/90 consultations (42%; maximum 4 values per consultation), and most often related to major long-term treatment outcomes. Patients' treatment preferences were discussed in 20/90 consultations (22%). In 16/90 consultations (18%), the oncologists explicitly indicated to consider patients' values or preferences. Patients perceived a significantly more active role in decision making if their values or preferences had been voiced or considered. Patients' values and treatment preferences are voiced or considered in a minority of consultations. If they are, this increases patients' perceived involvement in the decision making process. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Structured decision making for managing pneumonia epizootics in bighorn sheep

USGS Publications Warehouse

Sells, Sarah N.; Mitchell, Michael S.; Edwards, Victoria L.; Gude, Justin A.; Anderson, Neil J.

2016-01-01

Good decision-making is essential to conserving wildlife populations. Although there may be multiple ways to address a problem, perfect solutions rarely exist. Managers are therefore tasked with identifying decisions that will best achieve desired outcomes. Structured decision making (SDM) is a method of decision analysis used to identify the most effective, efficient, and realistic decisions while accounting for values and priorities of the decision maker. The stepwise process includes identifying the management problem, defining objectives for solving the problem, developing alternative approaches to achieve the objectives, and formally evaluating which alternative is most likely to accomplish the objectives. The SDM process can be more effective than informal decision-making because it provides a transparent way to quantitatively evaluate decisions for addressing multiple management objectives while incorporating science, uncertainty, and risk tolerance. To illustrate the application of this process to a management need, we present an SDM-based decision tool developed to identify optimal decisions for proactively managing risk of pneumonia epizootics in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in Montana. Pneumonia epizootics are a major challenge for managers due to long-term impacts to herds, epistemic uncertainty in timing and location of future epizootics, and consequent difficulty knowing how or when to manage risk. The decision tool facilitates analysis of alternative decisions for how to manage herds based on predictions from a risk model, herd-specific objectives, and predicted costs and benefits of each alternative. Decision analyses for 2 example herds revealed that meeting management objectives necessitates specific approaches unique to each herd. The analyses showed how and under what circumstances the alternatives are optimal compared to other approaches and current management. Managers can be confident that these decisions are effective, efficient, and realistic because they explicitly account for important considerations managers implicitly weigh when making decisions, including competing management objectives, uncertainty in potential outcomes, and risk tolerance.

Distinguishing values from science in decision making: Setting harvest quotas for mountain lions in Montana

USGS Publications Warehouse

Mitchell, Michael S.; Cooley, Hilary; Gude, Justin A.; Kolbe, Jay; Nowak, J. Joshua; Proffitt, Kelly M.; Sells, Sarah N.; Thompson, Mike

2018-01-01

The relative roles of science and human values can be difficult to distinguish when informal processes are used to make complex and contentious decisions in wildlife management. Structured Decision Making (SDM) offers a formal process for making such decisions, where scientific results and concepts can be disentangled from the values of differing stakeholders. We used SDM to formally integrate science and human values for a citizen working group of ungulate hunting advocates, lion hunting advocates, and outfitters convened to address the contentious allocation of harvest quotas for mountain lions (Puma concolor) in west‐central Montana, USA, during 2014. A science team consisting of mountain lion biologists and population ecologists convened to support the working group. The science team used integrated population models that incorporated 4 estimates of mountain lion density to estimate population trajectories for 5 alternative harvest quotas developed by the working group. Results of the modeling predicted that effects of each harvest quota were consistent across the 4 density estimates; harvest quotas affected predicted population trajectories for 5 years after implementation but differences were not strong. Based on these results, the focus of the working group changed to differences in values among stakeholders that were the true impediment to allocating harvest quotas. By distinguishing roles of science and human values in this process, the working group was able to collaboratively recommend a compromise solution. This solution differed little from the status quo that had been the focus of debate, but the SDM process produced understanding and buy‐in among stakeholders involved, reducing disagreements, misunderstanding, and unproductive arguments founded on informal application of scientific data and concepts. Whereas investments involved in conducting SDM may be unnecessary for many decisions in wildlife management, the investment may be beneficial for complex, contentious, and multiobjective decisions that integrate science and human values.

Acceptability and Feasibility of a Shared Decision-Making Model in Work Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives.

PubMed

Coutu, Marie-France; Légaré, France; Durand, Marie-José; Stacey, Dawn; Labrecque, Marie-Elise; Corbière, Marc; Bainbridge, Lesley

2018-04-16

Purpose To establish the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a shared decision-making (SDM) model in work rehabilitation. Methods We used a sequential mixed-methods design with diverse stakeholder groups (representatives of private and public employers, insurers, and unions, as well as workers having participated in a work rehabilitation program). First, a survey using a self-administered questionnaire enabled stakeholders to rate their level of agreement with the model's acceptability and feasibility and propose modifications, if necessary. Second, eight focus groups representing key stakeholders (n = 34) and four one-on-one interviews with workers were conducted, based on the questionnaire results. For each stakeholder group, we computed the percentage of agreement with the model's acceptability and feasibility and performed thematic analyses of the transcripts. Results Less than 50% of each stakeholder group initially agreed with the overall acceptability and feasibility of the model. Stakeholders proposed 37 modifications to the objectives, 17 to the activities, and 39 to improve the model's feasibility. Based on in-depth analysis of the transcripts, indicators were added to one objective, an interview guide was added as proposed by insurers to ensure compliance of the SDM process with insurance contract requirements, and one objective was reformulated. Conclusion Despite initially low agreement with the model's acceptability on the survey, subsequent discussions led to three minor changes and contributed to the model's ultimate acceptability and feasibility. Later steps will involve assessing the extent of implementation of the model in real rehabilitation settings to see if other modifications are necessary before assessing its impact.

Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection.

PubMed

Barr, Paul J; Forcino, Rachel C; Thompson, Rachel; Ozanne, Elissa M; Arend, Roger; Castaldo, Molly Ganger; O'Malley, A James; Elwyn, Glyn

2017-03-24

Shared decision-making (SDM) has become a policy priority, yet its implementation is not routinely assessed. To address this gap we tested the delivery of CollaboRATE, a 3-item patient reported experience measure of SDM, via multiple survey modes. To assess CollaboRATE response rates and respondent characteristics across different modes of administration, impact of mode and patient characteristics on SDM performance and cost of administration per response in a real-world primary care practice. Observational study design, with repeated assessment of SDM performance using CollaboRATE in a primary care clinic over 15 months of data collection. Different modes of administration were introduced sequentially including paper, patient portal, interactive voice response (IVR) call, text message and tablet computer. Consecutive patients ≥18 years, or parents/guardians of patients <18 years, visiting participating primary care clinicians. CollaboRATE assesses three core SDM tasks: (1) explanation about health issues, (2) elicitation of patient preferences and (3) integration of patient preferences into decisions. Responses to each item range from 0 (no effort was made) to 9 (every effort was made). CollaboRATE scores are calculated as the proportion of participants who report a score of nine on each of the three CollaboRATE questions. Scores were sensitive to mode effects: the paper mode had the highest average score (81%) and IVR had the lowest (61%). However, relative clinician performance rankings were stable across the different data collection modes used. Tablet computers administered by research staff had the highest response rate (41%), although this approach was costly. Clinic staff giving paper surveys to patients as they left the clinic had the lowest response rate (12%). CollaboRATE can be introduced using multiple modes of survey delivery while producing consistent clinician rankings. This may allow routine assessment and benchmarking of clinician and clinic SDM performance. 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/.

Completing the third person's perspective on patients' involvement in medical decision-making: approaching the full picture.

PubMed

Kasper, Jürgen; Hoffmann, Frauke; Heesen, Christoph; Köpke, Sascha; Geiger, Friedemann

2012-01-01

Shared decision making is based on the idea of cooperation and partnership between patients and doctors. In this concept both parties may initiate and perform specific decision-making steps. However, the common observation-based instruments focus solely on doctors' behaviour. Content and quality of information provided to involve patients in medical decisions are hardly considered in evaluation of SDM. This study investigates the advantages of a revised observer inventory taking into account these aspects. Based on the OPTION scale, a more comprehensive observation-based inventory was developed, additionally considering both the patient-sided indicators for patient involvement and the criteria of evidence-based patient information. The inventory comprises three scales (doctor, patient, doctor-patient dyad) and 15 indicators each. Rater training and re-analyses of 76 consultations previously analysed using the OPTION scale were conducted. Convergent validities were calculated between the observer-based scales and the patients' ratings on the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, the Decisional Conflict Scale and the Control Preference Scale. Interrater reliabilities of the revised scales were high (r=.87 to .74) and even higher when only the dyadic perspective was coded (.86). The revised inventory provided additional information on the involvement taking place. No substantive correlations were found between observation-based and patients' subjective judgments. The observers' perspective on patient involvement needs to consider patient activities. Inconsistencies of patients' and observers' judgements concerning patient participation need further investigation. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Refining a brief decision aid in stable CAD: cognitive interviews.

PubMed

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.

Structured decision making as a conservation tool for recovery planning of two endangered salamanders

USGS Publications Warehouse

O'Donnell, Katherine; Messerman, Arianne F; Barichivich, William J.; Semlitsch, Raymond D.; Gorman, Thomas A.; Mitchell, Harold G; Allan, Nathan; Fenolio, Dante B.; Green, Adam; Johnson, Fred A.; Keever, Allison; Mandica, Mark; Martin, Julien; Mott, Jana; Peacock, Terry; Reinman, Joseph; Romañach, Stephanie; Titus, Greg; McGowan, Conor P.; Walls, Susan

2017-01-01

At least one-third of all amphibian species face the threat of extinction, and current amphibian extinction rates are four orders of magnitude greater than background rates. Preventing extirpation often requires both ex situ (i.e., conservation breeding programs) and in situ strategies (i.e., protecting natural habitats). Flatwoods salamanders (Ambystoma bishopi and A. cingulatum) are protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The two species have decreased from 476 historical locations to 63 recently extant locations (86.8% loss). We suggest that recovery efforts are needed to increase populations and prevent extinction, but uncertainty regarding optimal actions in both ex situ and in situ realms hinders recovery planning. We used structured decision making (SDM) to address key uncertainties regarding both captive breeding and habitat restoration, and we developed short-, medium-, and long-term goals to achieve recovery objectives. By promoting a transparent, logical approach, SDM has proven vital to recovery plan development for flatwoods salamanders. The SDM approach has clear advantages over other previous approaches to recovery efforts, and we suggest that it should be considered for other complex decisions regarding endangered species.

Using structured decision making with landowners to address private forest management and parcelization: balancing multiple objectives and incorporating uncertainty

Treesearch

Paige F. B. Ferguson; Michael J. Conroy; John F. Chamblee; Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman

2015-01-01

Parcelization and forest fragmentation are of concern for ecological, economic, and social reasons. Efforts to keep large, private forests intact may be supported by a decision-making process that incorporates landowners’ objectives and uncertainty. We used structured decision making (SDM) with owners of large, private forests in Macon County, North Carolina....

Do Men Receive Information Required for Shared Decision Making About PSA Testing? Results from a National Survey.

PubMed

Leyva, Bryan; Persoskie, Alexander; Ottenbacher, Allison; Hamilton, Jada G; Allen, Jennifer D; Kobrin, Sarah C; Taplin, Stephen H

2016-12-01

Most professional organizations, including the American College of Physicians and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, emphasize that screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test should only occur after a detailed discussion between the health-care provider and patient about the known risks and potential benefits of the test. In fact, guidelines strongly advise health-care providers to involve patients, particularly those at elevated risk of prostate cancer, in a "shared decision making" (SDM) process about PSA testing. We analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 2011-2012-a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey-to examine the extent to which health professionals provided men with information critical to SDM prior to PSA testing, including (1) that patients had a choice about whether or not to undergo PSA testing, (2) that not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and (3) that no one is sure if PSA testing saves lives. Over half (55 %) of men between the ages of 50 and 74 reported ever having had a PSA test. However, only 10 % of men, regardless of screening status, reported receiving all three pieces of information: 55 % reported being informed that they could choose whether or not to undergo testing, 22 % reported being informed that some doctors recommend PSA testing and others do not, and 14 % reported being informed that no one is sure if PSA testing actually saves lives. Black men and men with lower levels of education were less likely to be provided this information. There is a need to improve patient-provider communication about the uncertainties associated with the PSA test. Interventions directed at patients, providers, and practice settings should be considered.

Family involvement in medical decision-making: Perceptions of nursing and psychology students.

PubMed

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.

Attitudes toward concordance in psychiatry: a comparative, cross-sectional study of psychiatric patients and mental health professionals

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

Background Concordance and Shared Decision-Making (SDM) are considered measures of the quality of care that improves communication, promotes patient participation, creates a positive relationship with the healthcare professional, and results in greater adherence with the treatment plan. Methods This study compares the attitudes of 225 mental health professionals (125 psychiatrists and 100 psychiatry registrars) and 449 psychiatric outpatients towards SDM and concordance in medicine taking by using the "Leeds Attitude toward Concordance Scale" (LATCon). Results The internal consistency of the scale was good in all three samples (Cronbach's α: patients = 0.82, psychiatrists = 0.76, and registrars = 0.82). Patients scored significantly lower (1.96 ± 0.48) than professionals (P < .001 in both cases), while no statistically significant differences between psychiatrists (2.32 ± 0.32) and registrars (2.23 ± 0.35) were registered; the three groups showed a positive attitude towards concordance in most indicators. Patients are clearly in favor of being informed and that their views and preferences be taken into account during the decision-making process, although they widely consider that the final decision must be the doctor's responsibility. Among mental health professionals, the broader experience provides a greater conviction of the importance of the patient's decision about treatment. Conclusions We observed a positive attitude towards concordance in the field of psychotropic drugs prescription both in professionals and among patients, but further studies are needed to address the extent to which this apparently accepted model is reflected in the daily practice of mental health professionals. PMID:22646974

Research Using In Vivo Simulation of Meta-Organizational Shared Decision Making (SDM). Task 2: Development of an Experimental Plan for In Vivo Exercise and Simulation

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-12-01

la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2011 DRDC CSS CR 2011-31 ii...participants. Résumé …..... Introduction : Ce rapport présente la Tâche 2 du projet « Recherche par la simulation in-vivo sur la prise de décision partagée...environnement sur la prise de décision partagée in-vivo des opérations de gestion des urgences et pour colliger des données

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

PubMed

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

2017-07-01

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

Reducing fatigue damage for ships in transit through structured decision making

USGS Publications Warehouse

Nichols, J.M.; Fackler, P.L.; Pacifici, K.; Murphy, K.D.; Nichols, J.D.

2014-01-01

Research in structural monitoring has focused primarily on drawing inference about the health of a structure from the structure’s response to ambient or applied excitation. Knowledge of the current state can then be used to predict structural integrity at a future time and, in principle, allows one to take action to improve safety, minimize ownership costs, and/or increase the operating envelope. While much time and effort has been devoted toward data collection and system identification, research to-date has largely avoided the question of how to choose an optimal maintenance plan. This work describes a structured decision making (SDM) process for taking available information (loading data, model output, etc.) and producing a plan of action for maintaining the structure. SDM allows the practitioner to specify his/her objectives and then solves for the decision that is optimal in the sense that it maximizes those objectives. To demonstrate, we consider the problem of a Naval vessel transiting a fixed distance in varying sea-state conditions. The physics of this problem are such that minimizing transit time increases the probability of fatigue failure in the structural supports. It is shown how SDM produces the optimal trip plan in the sense that it minimizes both transit time and probability of failure in the manner of our choosing (i.e., through a user-defined cost function). The example illustrates the benefit of SDM over heuristic approaches to maintaining the vessel.

Use of structured decision making to identify monitoring variables and management priorities for salt marsh ecosystems

USGS Publications Warehouse

Neckles, Hilary A.; Lyons, James E.; Guntenspergen, Glenn R.; Shriver, W. Gregory; Adamowicz, Susan C.

2015-01-01

Most salt marshes in the USA have been degraded by human activities, and coastal managers are faced with complex choices among possible actions to restore or enhance ecosystem integrity. We applied structured decision making (SDM) to guide selection of monitoring variables and management priorities for salt marshes within the National Wildlife Refuge System in the northeastern USA. In general, SDM is a systematic process for decomposing a decision into its essential elements. We first engaged stakeholders in clarifying regional salt marsh decision problems, defining objectives and attributes to evaluate whether objectives are achieved, and developing a pool of alternative management actions for achieving objectives. Through this process, we identified salt marsh attributes that were applicable to monitoring National Wildlife Refuges on a regional scale and that targeted management needs. We then analyzed management decisions within three salt marsh units at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, coastal Delaware, as a case example of prioritizing management alternatives. Values for salt marsh attributes were estimated from 2 years of baseline monitoring data and expert opinion. We used linear value modeling to aggregate multiple attributes into a single performance score for each alternative, constrained optimization to identify alternatives that maximized total management benefits subject to refuge-wide cost constraints, and used graphical analysis to identify the optimal set of alternatives for the refuge. SDM offers an efficient, transparent approach for integrating monitoring into management practice and improving the quality of management decisions.

Developing scientific information to support decisions for sustainable reef ecosystem services

EPA Science Inventory

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently realigned its research enterprise around the concept of sustainability, including improving understanding of benefits derived from ecosystems. We provide an example of how EPA is applying structured decision-making (SDM)...

Who receives contraception counseling when starting new lupus medications? The potential roles of race, ethnicity, disease activity, and quality of communication.

PubMed

Ferguson, S; Trupin, L; Yazdany, J; Yelin, E; Barton, J; Katz, P

2016-01-01

Family planning discussions are an important aspect of medical care for women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) as active disease is a risk factor for poor pregnancy outcomes, and the medications used for treatment can be harmful to the fetus when used during conception and pregnancy. Our objective was to examine the impact of patient perception of quality and type of communication on receiving contraception counseling. Data were derived from patients enrolled in the University of California, San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study. Individuals participate in a yearly structured telephone interview that includes assessment of contraception counseling when starting new medications, and measures of communication and decision making. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of not receiving contraception counseling. Of the 68 women included in this analysis, one-third did not receive contraception counseling when starting new medications. Older age, white race, depressive symptoms, and higher SLE disease activity were independently associated with not receiving contraception counseling. Participants who did not receive contraception counseling rated their physicians lower in shared decision-making (SDM) communication. This study demonstrates a gap in family planning counseling among women with SLE starting new medications. Future studies to address these potential areas of intervention, including education about the need for contraception through menopause, and mechanisms to engage in SDM surrounding contraception are needed to improve quality of care for women with lupus. © The Author(s) 2015.

Factors influencing implementation of a patient decision aid in a developing country: an exploratory study.

PubMed

Tong, Wen Ting; Lee, Yew Kong; Ng, Chirk Jenn; Lee, Ping Yein

2017-03-21

Most studies on barriers and facilitators to implementation of patient decision aids (PDAs) are conducted in the west; hence, the findings may not be transferable to developing countries. This study aims to use a locally developed insulin PDA as an exemplar to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing PDAs in Malaysia, an upper middle-income country in Asia. Qualitative methodology was adopted. Nine in-depth interviews (IDIs) and three focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with policymakers (n = 6), medical officers (n = 13), diabetes educators (n = 5) and a nurse, who were involved in insulin initiation management at an academic primary care clinic. The interviews were conducted with the aid of a semi-structured interview guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic approach. Five themes emerged, and they were lack of shared decision-making (SDM) culture, role boundary, lack of continuity of care, impact on consultation time and reminder network. Healthcare providers' (HCPs) paternalistic attitude, patients' passivity and patient trust in physicians rendered SDM challenging which affected the implementation of the PDA. Clear role boundaries between the doctors and nurses made collaborative implementation of the PDA challenging, as nurses may not view the use of insulin PDA to be part of their job scope. The lack of continuity of care might cause difficulties for doctors to follow up on insulin PDA use with their patient. While time was the most commonly cited barrier for PDA implementation, use of the PDA might reduce consultation time. A reminder network was suggested to address the issue of forgetfulness as well as to trigger interest in using the PDA. The suggested reminders were peer reminders (i.e. HCPs reminding one another to use the PDA) and system reminders (e.g. incorporating electronic medical record prompts, displaying posters/notices, making the insulin PDA available and visible in the consultation rooms). When implementing PDAs, it is crucial to consider the healthcare culture and system, particularly in developing countries such as Malaysia where concepts of SDM and PDAs are still novel.

Strategic Decision-Making Learning from Label Distributions: An Approach for Facial Age Estimation.

PubMed

Zhao, Wei; Wang, Han

2016-06-28

Nowadays, label distribution learning is among the state-of-the-art methodologies in facial age estimation. It takes the age of each facial image instance as a label distribution with a series of age labels rather than the single chronological age label that is commonly used. However, this methodology is deficient in its simple decision-making criterion: the final predicted age is only selected at the one with maximum description degree. In many cases, different age labels may have very similar description degrees. Consequently, blindly deciding the estimated age by virtue of the highest description degree would miss or neglect other valuable age labels that may contribute a lot to the final predicted age. In this paper, we propose a strategic decision-making label distribution learning algorithm (SDM-LDL) with a series of strategies specialized for different types of age label distribution. Experimental results from the most popular aging face database, FG-NET, show the superiority and validity of all the proposed strategic decision-making learning algorithms over the existing label distribution learning and other single-label learning algorithms for facial age estimation. The inner properties of SDM-LDL are further explored with more advantages.

Strategic Decision-Making Learning from Label Distributions: An Approach for Facial Age Estimation

PubMed Central

Zhao, Wei; Wang, Han

2016-01-01

Nowadays, label distribution learning is among the state-of-the-art methodologies in facial age estimation. It takes the age of each facial image instance as a label distribution with a series of age labels rather than the single chronological age label that is commonly used. However, this methodology is deficient in its simple decision-making criterion: the final predicted age is only selected at the one with maximum description degree. In many cases, different age labels may have very similar description degrees. Consequently, blindly deciding the estimated age by virtue of the highest description degree would miss or neglect other valuable age labels that may contribute a lot to the final predicted age. In this paper, we propose a strategic decision-making label distribution learning algorithm (SDM-LDL) with a series of strategies specialized for different types of age label distribution. Experimental results from the most popular aging face database, FG-NET, show the superiority and validity of all the proposed strategic decision-making learning algorithms over the existing label distribution learning and other single-label learning algorithms for facial age estimation. The inner properties of SDM-LDL are further explored with more advantages. PMID:27367691

Influential factors on treatment decision making among patients with colorectal cancer: A scoping review.

PubMed

Cranley, Nicole M; Curbow, Barbara; George, Thomas J; Christie, Juliette

2017-09-01

In recent years, a greater emphasis has been placed on shared decision-making (SDM) techniques between providers and patients with the goal of helping patients make informed decisions about their care and subsequently to improve patient health outcomes. Previous research has shown variability in treatment decision-making among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), and there is little comprehensive information available to help explain this variability. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the current state of the literature on factors that are influential in treatment decision-making among patients with CRC. A priori search terms using Boolean connectors were used to examine PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE for relevant studies. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study included patients with CRC and examination of influences on CRC treatment decision-making. All relevant data were extracted including, author, title and year, study methodology, and study results. Findings (n = 13) yielded influences in four areas: informational, patient treatment goals, patient role preferences, and relationship with provider. Quality of life and trust in physician were rated a high priority among patients when making decisions between different therapeutic options. Several studies found that patients wanted to be informed and involved but did not necessarily want to make autonomous treatment choices, with many preferring a more passive role. Providers who initiate a dialog to better understand their patients' treatment goals can establish rapport, increase patient understanding of treatment options, and help patients assume their desired role in their decision-making. Overall, there were a small number of studies that met all inclusion criteria with most used a cross-sectional design.

Use of Low-Literacy Decision Aid to Enhance Knowledge and Reduce Decisional Conflict Among a Diverse Population of Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Pilot Study.

PubMed

Barton, Jennifer L; Trupin, Laura; Schillinger, Dean; Evans-Young, Gina; Imboden, John; Montori, Victor M; Yelin, Edward

2016-07-01

Despite innovations in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), adherence is poor and disparities persist. Shared decision making (SDM) promotes patient engagement and enhances adherence; however, few tools support SDM in RA. Our objective was to pilot a low-literacy medication guide and decision aid to facilitate patient-clinician conversations about RA medications. RA patients were consecutively enrolled into 1 of 3 arms: 1) control; patients received existing medication guide prior to clinic visit, 2) adapted guide prior to visit, and 3) adapted guide prior to plus decision aid during visit. Outcomes were collected immediately postvisit, at 1-week, and at 3- and 6-month interviews. Eligible adults had to have failed at least 1 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and fulfill 1 of the following: age >65 years, immigrant, non-English speaker, less than high school education, limited health literacy, and racial/ethnic minority. Primary outcomes were knowledge of RA medications, decisional conflict, and acceptability of interventions. The majority of 166 patients were immigrants (66%), non-English speakers (54%), and had limited health literacy (71%). Adequate RA knowledge postvisit in arm 3 was higher (78%) than arm 1 (53%; adjusted odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.2, 6.1). Among patients with a medication change, there was lower (better) mean decisional conflict in arms 2 and 3 (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in acceptability. A low-literacy medication guide and decision aid was acceptable, improved knowledge, and reduced decisional conflict among vulnerable RA patients. Enhancing knowledge and patient engagement with decision support tools may lead to medication choices better aligned with RA patients' values and preferences. © 2016, American College of Rheumatology.

Advance care planning in Australia: what does the law say?

PubMed

Carter, Rachel Z; Detering, Karen M; Silvester, William; Sutton, Elizabeth

2016-09-01

Advance care planning (ACP) assists people to plan for their future health and personal care. ACP encourages a person to legally appoint a substitute decision maker (SDM) and to document any specific wishes regarding their future health care in an advance care directive (ACD). Formal documentation of wishes increases the chances that a person's wishes will be known and followed. However, one of the biggest impediments for doctors following the person's wishes is uncertainty surrounding the law, which is complicated and varies between the states and territories of Australia. SDM legislation varies regarding who can be appointed, how they are appointed, the powers that an SDM can be given and the decision-making principles that the SDM needs to follow. In circumstances where an SDM has not been appointed, the hierarchy for determining the default SDM for a person also varies between states. Although many states have legislated ACD forms allowing for documentation of a person's health care wishes, these forms allow for different things to be documented and have different requirements to be valid. The Australian population is mobile, with patients frequently moving between states. The status of ACP documentation created in a state other than the state in which a patient requires treatment also varies, with some states recognising interstate ACDs whereas others do not. This article outlines the legal status of ACDs, within Australian jurisdictions, including the legal validity of interstate ACDs, and argues that uniform laws and documents would assist with awareness and understanding of, and compliance with, ACDs.

Linking Decisions to Stakeholder Values in the Guanica Bay Watershed, Puerto Rico

EPA Science Inventory

This presentation lays the foundation for the session by introducing the Structured Decision-Making (SDM) approach that is being used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Guánica Bay watershed of southwestern Puerto Rico. EPA is working with other agencies i...

Deliberative democracy in health care: current challenges and future prospects.

PubMed

Safaei, Jalil

2015-01-01

There is a vast body of literature on deliberative, participative, or engaged democracy. In the area of health care there is a rapidly expanding literature on deliberative democracy as embodied in various notions of public engagement, shared decision-making (SDM), patient-centered care, and patient/care provider autonomy over the past few decades. It is useful to review such literature to get a sense of the challenges and prospects of introducing deliberative democracy in health care. This paper reviews the key literature on deliberative democracy and SDM in health care settings with a focus on identifying the main challenges of promoting this approach in health care, and recognizing its progress so far for mapping out its future prospects in the context of advanced countries. Several databases were searched to identify the literature pertinent to the subject of this study. A total of 56 key studies in English were identified and reviewed carefully for indications and evidence of challenges and/or promising avenues of promoting deliberative democracy in health care. Time pressure, lack of financial motivation, entrenched professional interests, informational imbalance, practical feasibility, cost, diversity of decisions, and contextual factors are noted as the main challenges. As for the prospects, greater clarity on conception of public engagement and policy objectives, real commitment of the authorities to public input, documenting evidence of the effectiveness of public involvement, development of patient decision supports, training of health professionals in SDM, and use of multiple and flexible methods of engagement leadership suited to specific contexts are the main findings in the reviewed literature. Seeking deliberative democracy in health care is both challenging and rewarding. The challenges have been more or less identified. However, its prospects are potentially significant. Such prospects are more likely to materialize if deliberative democracy is pursued more systematically in the broader sociopolitical domains.

Deliberative democracy in health care: current challenges and future prospects

PubMed Central

Safaei, Jalil

2015-01-01

Background There is a vast body of literature on deliberative, participative, or engaged democracy. In the area of health care there is a rapidly expanding literature on deliberative democracy as embodied in various notions of public engagement, shared decision-making (SDM), patient-centered care, and patient/care provider autonomy over the past few decades. It is useful to review such literature to get a sense of the challenges and prospects of introducing deliberative democracy in health care. Objective This paper reviews the key literature on deliberative democracy and SDM in health care settings with a focus on identifying the main challenges of promoting this approach in health care, and recognizing its progress so far for mapping out its future prospects in the context of advanced countries. Method Several databases were searched to identify the literature pertinent to the subject of this study. A total of 56 key studies in English were identified and reviewed carefully for indications and evidence of challenges and/or promising avenues of promoting deliberative democracy in health care. Results Time pressure, lack of financial motivation, entrenched professional interests, informational imbalance, practical feasibility, cost, diversity of decisions, and contextual factors are noted as the main challenges. As for the prospects, greater clarity on conception of public engagement and policy objectives, real commitment of the authorities to public input, documenting evidence of the effectiveness of public involvement, development of patient decision supports, training of health professionals in SDM, and use of multiple and flexible methods of engagement leadership suited to specific contexts are the main findings in the reviewed literature. Conclusion Seeking deliberative democracy in health care is both challenging and rewarding. The challenges have been more or less identified. However, its prospects are potentially significant. Such prospects are more likely to materialize if deliberative democracy is pursued more systematically in the broader sociopolitical domains. PMID:29355181

Use of Decision Aids with Minority Patients: a Systematic Review.

PubMed

Nathan, Aviva G; Marshall, Imani M; Cooper, Jennifer M; Huang, Elbert S

2016-06-01

One potential approach to reducing health disparities among minorities is through the promotion of shared decision making (SDM). The most commonly studied SDM intervention is the decision aid (DA). While DAs have been extensively studied, we know relatively little about their use in minority populations. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the application and effectiveness of DAs in racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities. We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DAs between 2004 and 2013. We included trials that enrolled adults (> 18 years of age) with > 50 % representation by minority patients. Four reviewers independently assessed 597 initially identified articles, and those with inconclusive results were discussed to consensus. We abstracted decision quality, patient-doctor communication, and clinical treatment decision outcomes. Results were considered significantly modified by the DA if the study reported p < 0.05. We reviewed 18 RCTs of DA interventions in minority populations. The majority of interventions (78 %) addressed cancer screening. The most common mode of delivery for the DAs was personal counseling (46 %), followed by multi-media (29 %), and print materials (25 %). Most of the trials studied racial (78 %) or ethnic (17 %) minorities with only one trial focused on sexual minorities and none on gender minorities. Ten studies tailored their interventions for their minority populations. Comparing intervention vs. control, decision quality outcomes improved in six out of eight studies and patient-doctor communication improved in six out of seven studies. Of the 15 studies that reported on clinical decisions, eight demonstrated significant changes in decisions with DAs. DAs have been effective in improving patient-doctor communication and decision quality outcomes in minority populations and could help address health disparities. However, the existing literature is almost non-existent for sexual and gender minorities and has not included the full breadth of clinical decisions that affect minority populations.

Construct and face validity of the American College of Surgeons/Association of Program Directors in Surgery laparoscopic troubleshooting team training exercise.

PubMed

Arain, Nabeel A; Hogg, Deborah C; Gala, Rajiv B; Bhoja, Ravi; Tesfay, Seifu T; Webb, Erin M; Scott, Daniel J

2012-01-01

Our aim was to develop an objective scoring system and evaluate construct and face validity for a laparoscopic troubleshooting team training exercise. Surgery and gynecology novices (n = 14) and experts (n = 10) participated. Assessments included the following: time-out, scenario decision making (SDM) score (based on essential treatments rendered and completion time), operating room communication assessment (investigator developed), line operations safety audits (teamwork), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (workload). Significant differences were detected for SDM scores for scenarios 1 (192 vs 278; P = .01) and 3 (129 vs 225; P = .004), operating room communication assessment (67 vs 91; P = .002), and line operations safety audits (58 vs 87; P = .001), but not for time-out (46 vs 51) or scenario 2 SDM score (301 vs 322). Workload was similar for both groups and face validity (8.8 on a 10-point scale) was strongly supported. Objective decision-making scoring for 2 of 3 scenarios and communication and teamwork ratings showed construct validity. Face validity and participant feedback were excellent. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Capturing multi-stage fuzzy uncertainties in hybrid system dynamics and agent-based models for enhancing policy implementation in health systems research.

PubMed

Liu, Shiyong; Triantis, Konstantinos P; Zhao, Li; Wang, Youfa

2018-01-01

In practical research, it was found that most people made health-related decisions not based on numerical data but on perceptions. Examples include the perceptions and their corresponding linguistic values of health risks such as, smoking, syringe sharing, eating energy-dense food, drinking sugar-sweetened beverages etc. For the sake of understanding the mechanisms that affect the implementations of health-related interventions, we employ fuzzy variables to quantify linguistic variable in healthcare modeling where we employ an integrated system dynamics and agent-based model. In a nonlinear causal-driven simulation environment driven by feedback loops, we mathematically demonstrate how interventions at an aggregate level affect the dynamics of linguistic variables that are captured by fuzzy agents and how interactions among fuzzy agents, at the same time, affect the formation of different clusters(groups) that are targeted by specific interventions. In this paper, we provide an innovative framework to capture multi-stage fuzzy uncertainties manifested among interacting heterogeneous agents (individuals) and intervention decisions that affect homogeneous agents (groups of individuals) in a hybrid model that combines an agent-based simulation model (ABM) and a system dynamics models (SDM). Having built the platform to incorporate high-dimension data in a hybrid ABM/SDM model, this paper demonstrates how one can obtain the state variable behaviors in the SDM and the corresponding values of linguistic variables in the ABM. This research provides a way to incorporate high-dimension data in a hybrid ABM/SDM model. This research not only enriches the application of fuzzy set theory by capturing the dynamics of variables associated with interacting fuzzy agents that lead to aggregate behaviors but also informs implementation research by enabling the incorporation of linguistic variables at both individual and institutional levels, which makes unstructured linguistic data meaningful and quantifiable in a simulation environment. This research can help practitioners and decision makers to gain better understanding on the dynamics and complexities of precision intervention in healthcare. It can aid the improvement of the optimal allocation of resources for targeted group (s) and the achievement of maximum utility. As this technology becomes more mature, one can design policy flight simulators by which policy/intervention designers can test a variety of assumptions when they evaluate different alternatives interventions.

Patient autonomy in multiple sclerosis--possible goals and assessment strategies.

PubMed

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.

Depressed patients’ perceptions of depression treatment decision‐making

PubMed Central

Simon, Daniela; Loh, Andreas; Wills, Celia E.; Härter, Martin

2006-01-01

Abstract Objective  Little is known about the feasibility and effects of patient‐clinician shared decision‐making (SDM) for depression treatment. Within a goal of informing the design of a SDM intervention, the objective of this study was to investigate depressed patients’ perceptions of the treatment decision‐making process with general practitioners (GPs). Setting and participants  Data were gathered from a convenience sample of 40 depressed patients to understand key aspects of treatment decision‐making from the patient perspective. The sample varied in depression severity and type of setting in which treatment was sought. Main variables studied  Semi‐structured interview questions focused on patients’ prior experiences with depression and treatment, perceptions of the treatment decision‐making process, and needs and expectations about treatment. Current depression severity was also assessed. Results  Patient lack of insight regarding depression severity substantially delayed patient engagement in treatment seeking and decision‐making. Patients expected their GPs to be a first and main source of objective information and discussion about depression and treatment and to provide emotional support for decision‐making. Patients also identified needs for additional information about depression and its treatment, as well as concerns about certain aspects of treatment. Conclusions  The depression treatment context has some aspects that differ from treatment decision‐making for other types of health conditions. SDM approaches for depression treatment should be adapted based on depression severity and patient‐identified needs. PMID:17324195

Shared protection based virtual network mapping in space division multiplexing optical networks

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Zhang, Huibin; Wang, Wei; Zhao, Yongli; Zhang, Jie

2018-05-01

Space Division Multiplexing (SDM) has been introduced to improve the capacity of optical networks. In SDM optical networks, there are multiple cores/modes in each fiber link, and spectrum resources are multiplexed in both frequency and core/modes dimensions. Enabled by network virtualization technology, one SDM optical network substrate can be shared by several virtual networks operators. Similar with point-to-point connection services, virtual networks (VN) also need certain survivability to guard against network failures. Based on customers' heterogeneous requirements on the survivability of their virtual networks, this paper studies the shared protection based VN mapping problem and proposes a Minimum Free Frequency Slots (MFFS) mapping algorithm to improve spectrum efficiency. Simulation results show that the proposed algorithm can optimize SDM optical networks significantly in terms of blocking probability and spectrum utilization.

Development and testing of a decision aid on goals of care for advanced dementia.

PubMed

Einterz, Seth F; Gilliam, Robin; Lin, Feng Chang; McBride, J Marvin; Hanson, Laura C

2014-04-01

Decision aids are effective to improve decision-making, yet they are rarely tested in nursing homes (NHs). Study objectives were to (1) examine the feasibility of a goals of care (GOC) decision aid for surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) of persons with dementia; and (2) to test its effect on quality of communication and decision-making. Pre-post intervention to test a GOC decision aid intervention for SDMs for persons with dementia in NHs. Investigators collected data from reviews of resident health records and interviews with SDMs at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Two NHs in North Carolina. Eighteen residents who were over 65 years of age, had moderate to severe dementia on the global deterioration scale (5, 6, or 7), and an English-speaking surrogate decision-maker. (1) GOC decision aid video viewed by the SDM and (2) a structured care plan meeting between the SDM and interdisciplinary NH team. Surrogate knowledge, quality of communication with health care providers, surrogate-provider concordance on goals of care, and palliative care domains addressed in the care plan. Eighty-nine percent of the SDMs thought the decision aid was relevant to their needs. After viewing the video decision aid, SDMs increased the number of correct responses on knowledge-based questions (12.5 vs 14.2; P < .001). At 3 months, they reported improved quality of communication scores (6.1 vs 6.8; P = .01) and improved concordance on primary goal of care with NH team (50% vs 78%; P = .003). The number of palliative care domains addressed in the care plan increased (1.8 vs 4.3; P < .001). The decision-support intervention piloted in this study was feasible and relevant for surrogate decision-makers of persons with advanced dementia in NHs, and it improved quality of communication between SDM and NH providers. A larger randomized clinical trial is underway to provide further evidence of the effects of this decision aid intervention. Copyright © 2014 American Medical Directors Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Improving Value for Patients with Eczema.

PubMed

Block, Julie

2018-04-01

Chronic diseases now represent a cost majority in the United States health care system. Contributing factors to rising costs include expensive novel and emerging therapies, under-treatment of disease, under-management of comorbidities, and patient dissatisfaction with care results. Critical to identifying replicable improvement methods is a reliable model to measure value. If we understand value within healthcare consumerism to be equal to a patient's health outcome improvement over costs associated with care (Value=Outcomes/Costs), we can use this equation to measure the improvement of value. Research and literature show that patient activation-the skills and confidence that equip patients to become actively engaged in their health care-impact health outcomes, costs, and patient experience. Reaching patient activation through engagement methods including shared decision-making (SDM) lead to improved value of care received. The National Eczema Association (NEA) Shared Decision-Making Resource Center can be a transformative strategy to measure and evaluate value of health care interventions for eczema patients to advance a value-driven health care system in the United States. Through this Resource Center, NEA will measure patient value through their own perceptions using validated PRO instruments and other patient-generated health data. Assessment of this data will reveal findings that can assist researchers in evaluating the impact this care framework on patient-perceived value across other chronic diseases. Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The Choice of Renal Replacement Therapy (CORETH) project: dialysis patients' psychosocial characteristics and treatment satisfaction.

PubMed

Robinski, Maxi; Mau, Wilfried; Wienke, Andreas; Girndt, Matthias

2017-02-01

Until today, research has underestimated the role of psychosocial conditions as contributing factors to dialysis modality choice. The novelty within the Choice of Renal Replacement Therapy (CORETH) project (German Clinical Trials Register #DRKS00006350) is its focus on the multivariate associations between these aspects and their consecutive significance regarding treatment satisfaction (TS) in peritoneal dialysis (PD) versus haemodialysis (HD) patients. In this article, we present the baseline results of a multicentre study, which is supported by a grant from the German Ministry for Education and Research. Six to 24 months after initiation of dialysis, 780 patients from 55 dialysis centres all over Germany were surveyed. The questionnaire addressed psychosocial, physical, socio-demographic and shared decision-making (SDM) aspects. Furthermore, cognitive functioning was tested. After indexing the measures, two propensity score-matched groups (n = 482) were compared in a first step, after having chosen PD or HD. In a second step, a moderated multiple regression (n = 445) was conducted to initially investigate the multivariate impact of patient characteristics on TS. In comparison with HD patients, PD patients were more satisfied with their treatment (P < 0.001), had a more autonomy-seeking personality (P = 0.04), had better cognitive functioning (P = 0.001), indicated more satisfying SDM (P < 0.001) and had a larger living space (P < 0.001). All patients were more satisfied when they had a good psychological state and received SDM. Especially in HD patients, TS was higher when the patient had a less autonomous personality, lower cognitive functioning, more social support, a poorer physical state and poorer socio-demographic conditions (R2 = 0.26). Psychosocial characteristics play a major role in TS in dialysis patients. Within a multivariate approach, these factors are even more important than physical or environment-related factors. In practice, focusing on SDM and screening patient characteristics at an early stage can foster patients’ TS. Changes will be examined in a 1-year follow-up.

Patient preference for radial versus femoral vascular access for elective coronary procedures: The PREVAS study.

PubMed

Kok, Marlies M; Weernink, Marieke G M; von Birgelen, Clemens; Fens, Anneloes; van der Heijden, Liefke C; van Til, Janine A

2018-01-01

To explore patient preference for vascular access site in percutaneous coronary procedures, the perceived importance of benefits and risks of transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) were assessed. In addition, direct preference for vascular access and preference for shared decision making (SDM) were evaluated. TRA has gained significant ground on TFA during the last decades. Surveys on patient preference have mostly been performed in dedicated TRA trials. In the PREVAS study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02625493) a stated preference elicitation method best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for six treatment attributes: bleeding, switch of access-site, postprocedural vessel quality, mobilization and comfort, and over-night stay. Based on software-generated treatment scenarios, 142 patients indicated which characteristics they perceived most and least important in treatment choice. Best-minus-Worst scores and attribute importance were calculated. Bleeding risk was considered most important (attribute importance 31.3%), followed by length of hospitalization (22.6%), and mobilization(20.2%). Most patients preferred the approach of their current procedure (85.9%); however, 71.1% of patients with experience with both access routes favored TRA (P < 0.001). Most patients (38.0%) appreciated SDM, balanced between patient and cardiologist. Patients appreciate lower bleeding risk and early ambulation, factors favoring TRA. Previous experience with a single access route has a major impact on preference, while experience with both routes generally resulted in preference for TRA. Most patients prefer balanced SDM. © 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Limitations to the Use of Species-Distribution Models for Environmental-Impact Assessments in the Amazon.

PubMed

Carneiro, Lorena Ribeiro de A; Lima, Albertina P; Machado, Ricardo B; Magnusson, William E

2016-01-01

Species-distribution models (SDM) are tools with potential to inform environmental-impact studies (EIA). However, they are not always appropriate and may result in improper and expensive mitigation and compensation if their limitations are not understood by decision makers. Here, we examine the use of SDM for frogs that were used in impact assessment using data obtained from the EIA of a hydroelectric project located in the Amazon Basin in Brazil. The results show that lack of knowledge of species distributions limits the appropriate use of SDM in the Amazon region for most target species. Because most of these targets are newly described and their distributions poorly known, data about their distributions are insufficient to be effectively used in SDM. Surveys that are mandatory for the EIA are often conducted only near the area under assessment, and so models must extrapolate well beyond the sampled area to inform decisions made at much larger spatial scales, such as defining areas to be used to offset the negative effects of the projects. Using distributions of better-known species in simulations, we show that geographical-extrapolations based on limited information of species ranges often lead to spurious results. We conclude that the use of SDM as evidence to support project-licensing decisions in the Amazon requires much greater area sampling for impact studies, or, alternatively, integrated and comparative survey strategies, to improve biodiversity sampling. When more detailed distribution information is unavailable, SDM will produce results that generate uncertain and untestable decisions regarding impact assessment. In many cases, SDM is unlikely to be better than the use of expert opinion.

Limitations to the Use of Species-Distribution Models for Environmental-Impact Assessments in the Amazon

PubMed Central

Carneiro, Lorena Ribeiro de A.; Lima, Albertina P.; Machado, Ricardo B.; Magnusson, William E.

2016-01-01

Species-distribution models (SDM) are tools with potential to inform environmental-impact studies (EIA). However, they are not always appropriate and may result in improper and expensive mitigation and compensation if their limitations are not understood by decision makers. Here, we examine the use of SDM for frogs that were used in impact assessment using data obtained from the EIA of a hydroelectric project located in the Amazon Basin in Brazil. The results show that lack of knowledge of species distributions limits the appropriate use of SDM in the Amazon region for most target species. Because most of these targets are newly described and their distributions poorly known, data about their distributions are insufficient to be effectively used in SDM. Surveys that are mandatory for the EIA are often conducted only near the area under assessment, and so models must extrapolate well beyond the sampled area to inform decisions made at much larger spatial scales, such as defining areas to be used to offset the negative effects of the projects. Using distributions of better-known species in simulations, we show that geographical-extrapolations based on limited information of species ranges often lead to spurious results. We conclude that the use of SDM as evidence to support project-licensing decisions in the Amazon requires much greater area sampling for impact studies, or, alternatively, integrated and comparative survey strategies, to improve biodiversity sampling. When more detailed distribution information is unavailable, SDM will produce results that generate uncertain and untestable decisions regarding impact assessment. In many cases, SDM is unlikely to be better than the use of expert opinion. PMID:26784891

Addressing wild turkey population declines using structured decision making

USGS Publications Warehouse

Robinson, Kelly F.; Fuller, Angela K.; Schiavone, Michael V.; Swift, Bryan L.; Diefenbach, Duane R.; Siemer, William F.; Decker, Daniel J.

2017-01-01

We present a case study from New York, USA, of the use of structured decision making (SDM) to identify fall turkey harvest regulations that best meet stakeholder objectives, in light of recent apparent declines in abundance of wild turkeys in the northeastern United States. We used the SDM framework to incorporate the multiple objectives associated with turkey hunting, stakeholder desires, and region-specific ecological and environmental factors that could influence fall harvest. We identified a set of 4 fall harvest regulations, composed of different season lengths and bag limits, and evaluated their relative achievement of the objectives. We used a stochastic turkey population model, statistical modeling, and expert elicitation to evaluate the consequences of each harvest regulation on each of the objectives. We conducted a statewide mail survey of fall turkey hunters in New York to gather the necessary information to evaluate tradeoffs among multiple objectives associated with hunter satisfaction. The optimal fall harvest regulation was a 2-week season and allowed for the harvest of 1 bird/hunter. This regulation was the most conservative of those evaluated, reflecting the concerns about recent declines in turkey abundance among agency wildlife biologists and the hunting public. Depending on the region of the state, the 2-week, 1-bird regulation was predicted to result in 7–32% more turkeys on the landscape after 5 years. The SDM process provided a transparent framework for setting fall turkey harvest regulations and reduced potential stakeholder conflict by explicitly taking the multiple objectives of different stakeholder groups into account.

Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ.

PubMed

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

2017-12-06

To implement informed shared decision-making (ISDM) in breast care centres, we developed and piloted an inter-professional complex intervention. We developed an intervention consisting of three components: an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ, a decision-coaching led by specialised nurses (breast care nurses and oncology nurses) and structured physician encounters. In order to enable professionals to gain ISDM competencies, we developed and tested a curriculum-based training programme for specialised nurses and a workshop for physicians. After successful testing of the components, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the entire revised intervention in two breast care centres. Here the acceptance of the intervention by women and professionals, the applicability to the breast care centres' procedures, women's knowledge, patient involvement in treatment decision-making assessed with the MAPPIN'SDM-observer instrument MAPPIN'O dyad, and barriers to and facilitators of the implementation were taken into consideration. We used questionnaires, structured verbal and written feedback and video recordings. Qualitative data were analysed descriptively, and mean values and ranges of quantitative data were calculated. To test the DA, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 27 women. Six expert reviews were obtained. The components of the nurse training were tested with 18 specialised nurses and 19 health science students. The development and piloting of the components were successful. The pilot test of the entire intervention included seven patients. In general, the intervention is applicable. Patients attained adequate knowledge (range of correct answers: 9-11 of 11). On average, a basic level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was observed for nurses and patient-nurse dyads (M(MAPPIN-O dyad ): 2.15 and M(MAPPIN-O nurse ): 1.90). Relevant barriers were identified; physicians barely tolerated women's preferences that were not in line with the medical recommendation. Classifying women as inappropriate for ISDM due to age or education led physicians to neglect eligible women during the recruitment phase. Decision-coaching is feasible. Nevertheless, there are some indications that structural changes are needed for long-term implementation. We are currently evaluating the intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 breast care centres.

Decisional needs assessment of patients with complex care needs in primary care: a participatory systematic mixed studies review protocol

PubMed Central

Pluye, Pierre; Légaré, France; Haggerty, Jeannie; Gore, Genevieve C; Sherif, Reem El; Poitras, Marie-Ève; Beaulieu, Marie-Claude; Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique; Bush, Paula L; Couturier, Yves; Débarges, Béatrice; Gagnon, Justin; Giguère, Anik; Grad, Roland; Granikov, Vera; Goulet, Serge; Hudon, Catherine; Kremer, Bernardo; Kröger, Edeltraut; Kudrina, Irina; Lebouché, Bertrand; Loignon, Christine; Lussier, Marie-Thérèse; Martello, Cristiano; Nguyen, Quynh; Pratt, Rebekah; Rihoux, Benoit; Rosenberg, Ellen; Samson, Isabelle; Senn, Nicolas; Li Tang, David; Tsujimoto, Masashi; Vedel, Isabelle; Ventelou, Bruno; Wensing, Michel; Bigras, Magali

2017-01-01

Introduction Patients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers). Methods and analysis This review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs’ qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders). Ethics and dissemination This systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs’ decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015020558. PMID:29133314

Decisional needs assessment of patients with complex care needs in primary care: a participatory systematic mixed studies review protocol.

PubMed

Bujold, Mathieu; Pluye, Pierre; Légaré, France; Haggerty, Jeannie; Gore, Genevieve C; Sherif, Reem El; Poitras, Marie-Eve; Beaulieu, Marie-Claude; Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique; Bush, Paula L; Couturier, Yves; Débarges, Beatrice; Gagnon, Justin; Giguère, Anik; Grad, Roland; Granikov, Vera; Goulet, Serge; Hudon, Catherine; Kremer, Bernardo; Kröger, Edeltraut; Kudrina, Irina; Lebouché, Bertrand; Loignon, Christine; Lussier, Marie-Therese; Martello, Cristiano; Nguyen, Quynh; Pratt, Rebekah; Rihoux, Benoit; Rosenberg, Ellen; Samson, Isabelle; Senn, Nicolas; Li Tang, David; Tsujimoto, Masashi; Vedel, Isabelle; Ventelou, Bruno; Wensing, Michel

2017-11-12

Patients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers). This review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs' qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders). This systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs' decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network. CRD42015020558. © 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.

The Mother’s Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale: Patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care

PubMed Central

Vedam, Saraswathi; Stoll, Kathrin; Martin, Kelsey; Rubashkin, Nicholas; Partridge, Sarah; Thordarson, Dana; Jolicoeur, Ganga

2017-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is core to person-centered care and is associated with improved health outcomes. Despite this, there are no validated scales measuring women’s agency and ability to lead decision making during maternity care. Objective To develop and validate a new instrument that assesses women’s autonomy and role in decision making during maternity care. Design Through a community-based participatory research process, service users designed, content validated, and administered a cross-sectional quantitative survey, including 31 items on the experience of decision-making. Setting and participants Pregnancy experiences (n = 2514) were reported by 1672 women who saw a single type of primary maternity care provider in British Columbia. They described care by a midwife, family physician or obstetrician during 1, 2 or 3 maternity care cycles. We conducted psychometric testing in three separate samples. Main outcome measures We assessed reliability, item-to-total correlations, and the factor structure of the The Mothers’ Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale. We report MADM scores by care provider type, length of prenatal appointments, preferences for role in decision-making, and satisfaction with experience of decision-making. Results The MADM scale measures a single construct: autonomy in decision-making during maternity care. Cronbach alphas for the scale exceeded 0.90 for all samples and all provider groups. All item-to-total correlations were replicable across three samples and exceeded 0.7. Eigenvalue and scree plots exhibited a clear 90-degree angle, and factor analysis generated a one factor scale. MADM median scores were highest among women who were cared for by midwives, and 10 or more points lower for those who saw physicians. Increased time for prenatal appointments was associated with higher scale scores, and there were significant differences between providers with respect to average time spent in prenatal appointments. Midwifery care was associated with higher MADM scores, even during short prenatal appointments (<15 minutes). Among women who preferred to lead decisions around their care (90.8%), and who were dissatisfied with their experience of decision making, MADM scores were very low (median 14). Women with physician carers were consistently more likely to report dissatisfaction with their involvement in decision making. Discussion The Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale is a reliable instrument for assessment of the experience of decision making during maternity care. This new scale was developed and content validated by community members representing various populations of childbearing women in BC including women from vulnerable populations. MADM measures women’s ability to lead decision making, whether they are given enough time to consider their options, and whether their choices are respected. Women who experienced midwifery care reported greater autonomy than women under physician care, when engaging in decision-making around maternity care options. Differences in models of care, professional education, regulatory standards, and compensation for prenatal visits between midwives and physicians likely affect the time available for these discussions and prioritization of a shared decision making process. Conclusion The MADM scale reflects person-driven priorities, and reliably assesses interactions with maternity providers related to a person’s ability to lead decision-making over the course of maternity care. PMID:28231285

Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials.

PubMed

Enard, Kimberly R; Dolan Mullen, Patricia; Kamath, Geetanjali R; Dixon, Nickell M; Volk, Robert J

2016-06-06

Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered a key component of high quality cancer care and may be supported by patient decision aids (PtDAs). Many patients, however, face multiple social disadvantages that may influence their ability to fully participate in SDM or to use PtDAs; additionally, these social disadvantages are among the determinants of health associated with greater cancer risk, unwarranted variations in care and worse outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the extent to which disadvantaged social groups in the United States (US) have been included in trials of cancer-related PtDAs and to highlight strategies, lessons learned and future opportunities for developing and evaluating PtDAs that are appropriate for disadvantaged populations. We selected cancer-related US studies from the Cochrane 2014 review of PtDAs and added RCTs meeting Cochrane criteria from searches of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO (January 2010 to December 2013); and reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts; three reviewers independently screened full text articles, performed data extraction and assessed: 1) inclusion of participants based on seven indicators of social disadvantage (limited education; female gender; uninsured or Medicaid status; non-U.S. nativity; non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity; limited English proficiency; low-literacy), and 2) attention to social disadvantage in the development or evaluation of PtDAs. Twenty-three of 39 eligible RCTs included participants from at least one disadvantaged subgroup, most frequently racial/ethnic minorities or individuals with limited education and/or low-literacy. Seventeen studies discussed strategies and lessons learned in attending to the needs of disadvantaged social groups in PtDA development; 14 studies targeted disadvantaged groups or addressed subgroup differences in PtDA evaluation. The diversity of the US population is represented in a majority of cancer-related PtDA RCTs, but fewer studies have tailored PtDAs to address the multiple social disadvantages that may impact patients' participation in SDM. More detailed attention to the comprehensive range of social factors that determine cancer risk, variations in care and outcomes is needed in the development and evaluation of PtDAs for disadvantaged populations. Registered 24 October 2014 in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews ( CRD42014014470 ).

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

PubMed

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

2017-03-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

Development and usability testing of a web-based decision support for users and health professionals in psychiatric services.

PubMed

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

2017-09-01

Shared decision making (SMD) related to treatment and rehabilitation is considered a central component in recovery-oriented practice. Although decision aids are regarded as an essential component for successfully implementing SDM, these aids are often lacking within psychiatric services. The aim of this study was to use a participatory design to facilitate the development of a user-generated, web-based decision aid for individuals receiving psychiatric services. The results of this effort as well as the lessons learned during the development and usability processes are reported. The participatory design included 4 iterative cycles of development. Various qualitative methods for data collection were used with potential end users participating as informants in focus group and individual interviews and as usability and pilot testers. Interviewing and testing identified usability problems that then led to refinements and making the subsequent prototypes increasingly user-friendly and relevant. In each phase of the process, feedback from potential end-users provided guidance in developing the formation of the web-based decision aid that strengthens the position of users by integrating access to information regarding alternative supports, interactivity between staff and users, and user preferences as a continual focus in the tool. This web-based decision aid has the potential to strengthen service users' experience of self-efficacy and control as well as provide staff access to user knowledge and preferences. Studies employing participatory models focusing on usability have potential to significantly contribute to the development and implementation of tools that reflect user perspectives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Continue, adjust, or stop antipsychotic medication: developing and user testing an encounter decision aid for people with first-episode and long-term psychosis.

PubMed

Zisman-Ilani, Yaara; Shern, David; Deegan, Patricia; Kreyenbuhl, Julie; Dixon, Lisa; Drake, Robert; Torrey, William; Mishra, Manish; Gorbenko, Ksenia; Elwyn, Glyn

2018-05-22

People with psychosis struggle with decisions about their use of antipsychotics. They often want to reduce the dose or stop, while facing uncertainty regarding the effects these decisions will have on their treatment and recovery. They may also fear raising this issue with clinicians. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a shared decision making (SDM) tool to support patients and clinicians in making decisions about antipsychotics. A diverse editorial research team developed an Encounter Decision Aid (EDA) for patients and clinicians to use as part of the psychiatric consultation. The EDA was tested using 24 semistructured interviews with participants representing six stakeholder groups: patients with first-episode psychosis, patients with long-term psychosis, family members, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and administrators. We used inductive and deductive coding of interview transcripts to identify points to revise within three domains: general impression and purpose of the EDA; suggested changes to the content, wording, and appearance; and usability and potential contribution to the psychiatric consultation. An EDA was developed in an iterative process that yielded evidence-based answers to five frequently asked questions about antipsychotic medications. Patients with long-term psychosis and mental health counselors suggested more changes and revisions than patients with first-episode psychosis and psychiatrists. Family members suggested more revisions to the answers about potential risks of stopping or adjusting antipsychotics than other respondents. The EDA was perceived as potentially useful and feasible in psychiatric routine care, especially if presented during the consultation.

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

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie; Slyer, Jason T

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Mahmoodi, Neda; Sargeant, Sally

2017-01-01

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

Measuring Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Care

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

Use of structured decision-making to explicitly incorporate environmental process understanding in management of coastal restoration projects: Case study on barrier islands of the northern Gulf of Mexico.

PubMed

Dalyander, P Soupy; Meyers, Michelle; Mattsson, Brady; Steyer, Gregory; Godsey, Elizabeth; McDonald, Justin; Byrnes, Mark; Ford, Mark

2016-12-01

Coastal ecosystem management typically relies on subjective interpretation of scientific understanding, with limited methods for explicitly incorporating process knowledge into decisions that must meet multiple, potentially competing stakeholder objectives. Conversely, the scientific community lacks methods for identifying which advancements in system understanding would have the highest value to decision-makers. A case in point is barrier island restoration, where decision-makers lack tools to objectively use system understanding to determine how to optimally use limited contingency funds when project construction in this dynamic environment does not proceed as expected. In this study, collaborative structured decision-making (SDM) was evaluated as an approach to incorporate process understanding into mid-construction decisions and to identify priority gaps in knowledge from a management perspective. The focus was a barrier island restoration project at Ship Island, Mississippi, where sand will be used to close an extensive breach that currently divides the island. SDM was used to estimate damage that may occur during construction, and guide repair decisions within the confines of limited availability of sand and funding to minimize adverse impacts to project objectives. Sand was identified as more limiting than funds, and unrepaired major breaching would negatively impact objectives. Repairing minor damage immediately was determined to be generally more cost effective (depending on the longshore extent) than risking more damage to a weakened project. Key gaps in process-understanding relative to project management were identified as the relationship of island width to breach formation; the amounts of sand lost during breaching, lowering, or narrowing of the berm; the potential for minor breaches to self-heal versus developing into a major breach; and the relationship between upstream nourishment and resiliency of the berm to storms. This application is a prototype for using structured decision-making in support of engineering projects in dynamic environments where mid-construction decisions may arise; highlights uncertainty about barrier island physical processes that limit the ability to make robust decisions; and demonstrates the potential for direct incorporation of process-based models in a formal adaptive management decision framework. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Use of structured decision-making to explicitly incorporate environmental process understanding in management of coastal restoration projects: Case study on barrier islands of the northern Gulf of Mexico

USGS Publications Warehouse

Dalyander, P. Soupy; Meyers, Michelle B.; Mattsson, Brady; Steyer, Gregory; Godsey, Elizabeth; McDonald, Justin; Byrnes, Mark R.; Ford, Mark

2016-01-01

Coastal ecosystem management typically relies on subjective interpretation of scientific understanding, with limited methods for explicitly incorporating process knowledge into decisions that must meet multiple, potentially competing stakeholder objectives. Conversely, the scientific community lacks methods for identifying which advancements in system understanding would have the highest value to decision-makers. A case in point is barrier island restoration, where decision-makers lack tools to objectively use system understanding to determine how to optimally use limited contingency funds when project construction in this dynamic environment does not proceed as expected. In this study, collaborative structured decision-making (SDM) was evaluated as an approach to incorporate process understanding into mid-construction decisions and to identify priority gaps in knowledge from a management perspective. The focus was a barrier island restoration project at Ship Island, Mississippi, where sand will be used to close an extensive breach that currently divides the island. SDM was used to estimate damage that may occur during construction, and guide repair decisions within the confines of limited availability of sand and funding to minimize adverse impacts to project objectives. Sand was identified as more limiting than funds, and unrepaired major breaching would negatively impact objectives. Repairing minor damage immediately was determined to be generally more cost effective (depending on the longshore extent) than risking more damage to a weakened project. Key gaps in process-understanding relative to project management were identified as the relationship of island width to breach formation; the amounts of sand lost during breaching, lowering, or narrowing of the berm; the potential for minor breaches to self-heal versus developing into a major breach; and the relationship between upstream nourishment and resiliency of the berm to storms. This application is a prototype for using structured decision-making in support of engineering projects in dynamic environments where mid-construction decisions may arise; highlights uncertainty about barrier island physical processes that limit the ability to make robust decisions; and demonstrates the potential for direct incorporation of process-based models in a formal adaptive management decision framework.

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

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review

PubMed Central

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie; Slyer, Jason T.

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-05-01

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

Sharing is Caring: Minimizing the Disruption with Palliative Care.

PubMed

Abu Dabrh, Abd Moain; Shannon, Robert P; Presutti, Richard J

2018-03-13

There is an upward trend incidence of multiple chronic life-limiting conditions with a well-documented associated impact on patients and their caregivers. When patients approach the end of life, they are often faced with a challenging multidimensional burden while navigating a complex health care system. Patients and families/caregivers are faced with daily decisions, often with little or no frame of reference or medical knowledge. The "what, how, when, and where" puzzle during this challenging time can be overwhelming for patients and their families, and when clinicians do not contemplate this associated workload's impact on patients and caregivers' capacity for self-care, patients and caregivers scramble to find compensatory solutions, often putting their health care at lower priority. This consequently warrants the underlying importance of palliative care and integrating it into the patients' health care plans earlier. There is increasing evidence from recent trials that supported implementing national policies regarding the early integration of palliative care and its role in improving the quality of life, increasing survival, and supporting patients' and caregivers' values when making decisions about their health care while possibly minimizing the burden of illness. The mission of palliative care is to assess, anticipate, and alleviate the challenges and suffering for patients and their caregivers by providing well-constructed approaches to disease-related physical treatments as well as psychological, financial, and spiritual aspects. Communication among all participants (the patient, family/caregivers, and all involved health care professionals) ought to be timely, thorough, and patient-centric. Palliative medicine arguably represents an example of shared decision-making (SDM)-facilitating a patient-centered, informed decision-making through an empathic conversation that is supported by clinicians' expertise and the best available evidence that takes patients values and preferences into consideration. Palliative care teams often consider the burden placed on patients and their caregivers, thus treatment plans would be assessed and introduced into the patients' lives with reflection on the related workload and the potential capacity to take on those plans. Such an approach to pause-and-examine, understand-and-discuss, and assess-and-alleviate might provide a possible example of a health care system that is minimally disruptive to patients and their families. This is an opportunity to replace the information-filled encounter with a more constructive engagement and empowerment to all major stakeholders to participate-an axiom integral to palliative care. Using the best available evidence in caring for patients while enacting SDM, palliative care, primary care, and other subspecialty clinicians need to consider the significant workload and burden that comes with health care and thus explore pathways to minimize the disruption in patients and caregivers' lives. As we collaborate to end cancer and all other mobdeities, we a need a concurrent movement to transform this disease-centered, payer-driven health care era to a rather patient-entered, thoughtful, and minimally disruptive one will benefit patients and physicians alike.

Attention and Motivated Response to Simulated Male Advertisement Call Activates Forebrain Dopaminergic and Social Decision-Making Network Nuclei in Female Midshipman Fish.

PubMed

Forlano, Paul M; Licorish, Roshney R; Ghahramani, Zachary N; Timothy, Miky; Ferrari, Melissa; Palmer, William C; Sisneros, Joseph A

2017-10-01

Little is known regarding the coordination of audition with decision-making and subsequent motor responses that initiate social behavior including mate localization during courtship. Using the midshipman fish model, we tested the hypothesis that the time spent by females attending and responding to the advertisement call is correlated with the activation of a specific subset of catecholaminergic (CA) and social decision-making network (SDM) nuclei underlying auditory- driven sexual motivation. In addition, we quantified the relationship of neural activation between CA and SDM nuclei in all responders with the goal of providing a map of functional connectivity of the circuitry underlying a motivated state responsive to acoustic cues during mate localization. In order to make a baseline qualitative comparison of this functional brain map to unmotivated females, we made a similar correlative comparison of brain activation in females who were unresponsive to the advertisement call playback. Our results support an important role for dopaminergic neurons in the periventricular posterior tuberculum and ventral thalamus, putative A11 and A13 tetrapod homologues, respectively, as well as the posterior parvocellular preoptic area and dorsomedial telencephalon, (laterobasal amygdala homologue) in auditory attention and appetitive sexual behavior in fishes. These findings may also offer insights into the function of these highly conserved nuclei in the context of auditory-driven reproductive social behavior across vertebrates. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

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

PubMed

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

2018-05-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

Shared decision-making, gender and new technologies.

PubMed

Zeiler, Kristin

2007-09-01

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

Conceptualizing surrogate decision making at end of life in the intensive care unit using cognitive task analysis.

PubMed

Dionne-Odom, J Nicholas; Willis, Danny G; Bakitas, Marie; Crandall, Beth; Grace, Pamela J

2015-01-01

Surrogate decision makers (SDMs) face difficult decisions at end of life (EOL) for decisionally incapacitated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. To identify and describe the underlying psychological processes of surrogate decision making for adults at EOL in the ICU. Qualitative case study design using a cognitive task analysis interviewing approach. Participants were recruited from October 2012 to June 2013 from an academic tertiary medical center's ICU located in the rural Northeastern United States. Nineteen SDMs for patients who had died in the ICU completed in-depth semistructured cognitive task analysis interviews. The conceptual framework formulated from data analysis reveals that three underlying, iterative, psychological dimensions (gist impressions, distressing emotions, and moral intuitions) impact an SDM's judgment about the acceptability of either the patient's medical treatments or his or her condition. The framework offers initial insights about the underlying psychological processes of surrogate decision making and may facilitate enhanced decision support for SDMs. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Twelve myths about shared decision making.

PubMed

Légaré, France; Thompson-Leduc, Philippe

2014-09-01

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

Shared decision-making in epilepsy management.

PubMed

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

2015-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2010-07-14

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-04-01

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

The Danish version of the questionnaire on pain communication: preliminary validation in cancer patients.

PubMed

Jacobsen, R; Møldrup, C; Christrup, L; Sjøgren, P; Hansen, O B

2009-07-01

The modified version of the patients' Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (M-PICS) is a tool designed to assess cancer patients' perceptions of patient-health care provider pain communication process. The objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the shortened Danish version of the M-PICS (SDM-PICS). The validated English version of the M-PICS was translated into Danish following the repeated back-translation procedure. Cancer patients were recruited for the study from specialized pain management facilities. Thirty-three patients responded to the SDM-PICS, Danish Barriers Questionnaire II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity Scale. A factor analysis of the SDM-PICS resulted in two factors: Factor one, patient information, consisted of four items assessing the extent to which the patient shared information with his/her health care provider, and Factor two, health care provider information, consisted of four items measuring the degree to which a health care provider was perceived as the one who shares information. Two separate items addressed the perceived level of information exchange between the patient and the health care provider. The SDM-PICS total had an internal consistency of 0.88. The SDM-PICS scores were positively related to pain relief and inversely related to the measures of cognitive pain management barriers, anxiety, and reported pain levels. The SDM-PICS seems to be a reliable and valid measure of perceived patient-health care provider communication in the context of cancer pain.

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

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

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie

2013-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-05-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2010-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-03-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

Understanding shared decision making in pediatric otolaryngology.

PubMed

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

2015-05-01

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

Developing objectives with multiple stakeholders: adaptive management of horseshoe crabs and Red Knots in the Delaware Bay

USGS Publications Warehouse

McGowan, Conor P.; Lyons, James E.; Smith, David

2015-01-01

Structured decision making (SDM) is an increasingly utilized approach and set of tools for addressing complex decisions in environmental management. SDM is a value-focused thinking approach that places paramount importance on first establishing clear management objectives that reflect core values of stakeholders. To be useful for management, objectives must be transparently stated in unambiguous and measurable terms. We used these concepts to develop consensus objectives for the multiple stakeholders of horseshoe crab harvest in Delaware Bay. Participating stakeholders first agreed on a qualitative statement of fundamental objectives, and then worked to convert those objectives to specific and measurable quantities, so that management decisions could be assessed. We used a constraint-based approach where the conservation objectives for Red Knots, a species of migratory shorebird that relies on horseshoe crab eggs as a food resource during migration, constrained the utility of crab harvest. Developing utility functions to effectively reflect the management objectives allowed us to incorporate stakeholder risk aversion even though different stakeholder groups were averse to different or competing risks. While measurable objectives and quantitative utility functions seem scientific, developing these objectives was fundamentally driven by the values of the participating stakeholders.

Developing Objectives with Multiple Stakeholders: Adaptive Management of Horseshoe Crabs and Red Knots in the Delaware Bay

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

McGowan, Conor P.; Lyons, James E.; Smith, David R.

2015-04-01

Structured decision making (SDM) is an increasingly utilized approach and set of tools for addressing complex decisions in environmental management. SDM is a value-focused thinking approach that places paramount importance on first establishing clear management objectives that reflect core values of stakeholders. To be useful for management, objectives must be transparently stated in unambiguous and measurable terms. We used these concepts to develop consensus objectives for the multiple stakeholders of horseshoe crab harvest in Delaware Bay. Participating stakeholders first agreed on a qualitative statement of fundamental objectives, and then worked to convert those objectives to specific and measurable quantities, so that management decisions could be assessed. We used a constraint-based approach where the conservation objectives for Red Knots, a species of migratory shorebird that relies on horseshoe crab eggs as a food resource during migration, constrained the utility of crab harvest. Developing utility functions to effectively reflect the management objectives allowed us to incorporate stakeholder risk aversion even though different stakeholder groups were averse to different or competing risks. While measurable objectives and quantitative utility functions seem scientific, developing these objectives was fundamentally driven by the values of the participating stakeholders.

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

PubMed Central

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

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-12-01

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

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

PubMed

van Staveren, Remke

2011-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-10-12

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-09-05

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

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

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Stead, Ute; Morant, Nicola; Ramon, Shulamit

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2009-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Blyer, Kristina; Hulton, Linda

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Stead, Ute; Morant, Nicola; Ramon, Shulamit

2017-08-01

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

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

PubMed

Brogan, Paula; Hasson, Felicity; McIlfatrick, Sonja

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

Edwards, Adrian; Elwyn, Glyn

2006-01-01

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

Shared decision-making and patient autonomy.

PubMed

Sandman, Lars; Munthe, Christian

2009-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-06-01

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

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

PubMed

Birchley, Giles

2014-09-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

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

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

PubMed

Jo, Kae-Hwa; An, Gyeong-Ju

2015-12-01

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

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

PubMed

Levin, Lia; Schwartz-Tayri, Talia

2017-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-02-21

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

Advance directives lessen the decisional burden of surrogate decision-making for the chronically critically ill.

PubMed

Hickman, Ronald L; Pinto, Melissa D

2014-03-01

To identify the relationships between advance directive status, demographic characteristics and decisional burden (role stress and depressive symptoms) of surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) of patients with chronic critical illness. Although the prevalence of advance directives among Americans has increased, SDMs are ultimately responsible for complex medical decisions of the chronically critically ill patient. Decisional burden has lasting psychological effects on SDMs. There is insufficient evidence on the influence of advance directives on the decisional burden of surrogate decision-makers of patients with chronic critical illness. The study was a secondary data analysis of cross-sectional data. Data were obtained from 489 surrogate decision-makers of chronically critically ill patients at two academic medical centres in Northeast Ohio, United States, between September 2005-May 2008. Data were collected using demographic forms and questionnaires. A single-item measure of role stress and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CESD) scale were used to capture the SDM's decisional burden. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, chi-square and path analyses were performed. Surrogate decision-makers who were nonwhite, with low socioeconomic status and low education level were less likely to have advance directive documentation for their chronically critically ill patient. The presence of an advance directive mitigates the decisional burden by directly reducing the SDM's role stress and indirectly lessening the severity of depressive symptoms. Most SDMs of chronically critically ill patients will not have the benefit of knowing the patient's preferences for life-sustaining therapies and consequently be at risk of increased decisional burden. Study results are clinically useful for patient education on the influence of advance directives. Patients may be informed that SDMs without advance directives are at risk of increased decisional burden and will require decisional support to facilitate patient-centred decision-making. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shared Decision Making for Better Schools.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Brost, Paul

2000-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

The impact of the Rasouli decision: a Survey of Canadian intensivists.

PubMed

Cape, David; Fox-Robichaud, Alison; Turgeon, Alexis F; Seely, Andrew; Hall, Richard; Burns, Karen; Singal, Rohit K; Dodek, Peter; Bagshaw, Sean; Sibbald, Robert; Downar, James

2016-03-01

In a landmark 2013 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled that the withdrawal of life support in certain circumstances is a treatment requiring patient or substitute decision maker (SDM) consent. How intensive care unit (ICU) physicians perceive this ruling is unknown. To determine physician knowledge of and attitudes towards the SCC decision, as well as the self-reported changes in practice attributed to the decision. We surveyed intensivists at university hospitals across Canada. We used a knowledge test and Likert-scale questions to measure respondent knowledge of and attitudes towards the ruling. We used vignettes to assess decision making in cases of intractable physician-SDM conflict over the management of patients with very poor prognoses. We compared management choices pre-SCC decision versus post-SCC decision versus the subjective, respondent-defined most appropriate choice. Responses were compared across predefined subgroups. We performed qualitative analysis on free-text responses. We received 82 responses (response rate=42%). Respondents reported providing high levels of self-defined inappropriate treatment. Although most respondents reported no change in practice, there was a significant overall shift towards higher intensity and less subjectively appropriate management after the SCC decision. Attitudes to the SCC decision and approaches to disputes over end-of-life (EoL) care in the ICU were highly variable. There were no significant differences among predefined subgroups. Many Canadian ICU physicians report providing a higher intensity of treatment, and less subjectively appropriate treatment, in situations of dispute over EoL care after the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Cuthbertson versus Rasouli. 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/

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

PubMed

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

2013-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

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

The Office Guidelines Applied to Practice program improves secondary prevention of heart disease in Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers.

PubMed

Olomu, Adesuwa; Khan, Nazia Naz; Todem, David; Huang, Qinhua; Kumar, Esha; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret

2016-12-01

The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among minority and low-income populations is well documented. This study aimed to assess the impact of patient activation and shared decision-making (SDM) on medication use through the Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice (Office-GAP) intervention in Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers (FQHCs). Patients (243) with diabetes and CHD participated in Office-GAP between October 2010 and March 2014. Two-site (FQHCs) intervention/control design. Office-GAP integrates health literacy, communication skills education for patients and physicians, decision support tools, and SDM into routine care. 1) implementation rates, 2) medication use at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months, and 3) predictors of medication use. Logistic regression with propensity scoring assessed impact on medication use. Intervention arm had 120 and control arm had 123 patients. We found that program elements were consistently used. Compared to control, the Office-GAP program significantly improved medications use from baseline: ACEIs or ARBs at 3 months (OR 1.88, 95% CI = 1.07; 3.30, p < 0.03), 6 months (OR 2.68, 95% CI = 1.58;4.54; p < 0.01); statin at 3 months (OR 2.00, 95% CI = 0.1.22; 3.27; p < 0.05), 6 months (OR 3.05, 95% CI = 1.72; 5.43; p < 0.01), Aspirin and/or clopidogrel at 3 months OR 1.59, 95% CI = 1.02, 2.48; p < 0.05), 6 months (OR 3.67, 95% CI = 1.67; 8.08; p < 0.01). Global medication adherence was predicted only by Office-GAP intervention presence and hypertension. Office-GAP resulted in increased use of guideline-based medications for secondary CVD prevention in underserved populations. The Office-GAP program could serve as a model for implementing guideline-based care for other chronic diseases.

Surrogate decision makers' perspectives on preventable breakdowns in care among critically ill patients: A qualitative study.

PubMed

Fisher, Kimberly A; Ahmad, Sumera; Jackson, Madeline; Mazor, Kathleen M

2016-10-01

To describe surrogate decision makers' (SDMs) perspectives on preventable breakdowns in care among critically ill patients. We screened 70 SDMs of critically ill patients for those who identified a preventable breakdown in care, defined as an event where the SDM believes something "went wrong", that could have been prevented, and resulted in harm. In-depth interviews were conducted with SDMs who identified an eligible event. 32 of 70 participants (46%) identified at least one preventable breakdown in care, with a total of 75 discrete events. Types of breakdowns involved medical care (n=52), communication (n=59), and both (n=40). Four additional breakdowns were related to problems with SDM bedside access to the patient. Adverse consequences of breakdowns included physical harm, need for additional medical care, emotional distress, pain, suffering, loss of trust, life disruption, impaired decision making, and financial expense. 28 of 32 SDMs raised their concerns with clinicians, yet only 25% were satisfactorily addressed. SDMs of critically ill patients frequently identify preventable breakdowns in care which result in harm. An in-depth understanding of the types of events SDMs find problematic and the associated harms is an important step towards improving the safety and patient-centeredness of healthcare. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2016-09-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-03-06

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

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

PubMed

Sandman, Lars; Gustavsson, Erik; Munthe, Christian

2016-10-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2008-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

Practitioner perspectives from seven health professional groups on core competencies in the context of chronic care.

PubMed

Fouche, Christa; Kenealy, Timothy; Mace, Jennifer; Shaw, John

2014-11-01

The prevalence of chronic illness is growing worldwide and management is increasingly undertaken by interprofessional teams, yet education is still generally provided in separate professions. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of New Zealand healthcare practitioners from seven professional groups involved in chronic care (general practice medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, social work, and speech language therapy) on the core competencies required of those working in this area. The study was set in the context of the chronic care and shared decision-making (SDM) models. The core competencies for chronic care practitioners proposed by the World Health Organisation were used to shape the research questions. Focus groups with expert clinicians (n = 20) and semi-structured interviews with practitioners (n = 32) were undertaken. Findings indicated a high level of agreement that the core competencies were appropriate and relevant for chronic care practitioners but that many educational and practice gaps existed and interprofessional education in New Zealand was not currently addressing these gaps. Among the key issues highlighted for attention by educators and policy-makers were the following: teams and teamwork, professional roles and responsibilities, interprofessional communication, cultural competence, better engagement with patients, families, and carers, and common systems, information sharing and confidentiality.

How contextual issues can distort shared decision making.

PubMed

Gartlehner, Gerald; Matyas, Nina

2016-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2009-06-01

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

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

PubMed

Suh, Won S; Lee, Chae Kyung

2010-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-05-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

Decision analysis for habitat conservation of an endangered, range-limited salamander

USGS Publications Warehouse

Robinson, Orin J.; McGowan, Conor P.; Apodaca, J.J.

2016-01-01

Many species of conservation concern are habitat limited and often a major focus of management for these species is habitat acquisition and/or restoration. Deciding the location of habitat restoration or acquisition to best benefit a protected species can be a complicated subject with competing management objectives, ecological uncertainties and stochasticity. Structured decision making (SDM) could be a useful approach for explicitly incorporating those complexities while still working toward species conservation and/or recovery. We applied an SDM approach to Red Hills salamander Phaeognathus hubrichti habitat conservation decision making. Phaeognathus hubrichti is a severely range-limited endemic species in south central Alabama and has highly specific habitat requirements. Many known populations live on private lands and the primary mode of habitat protection is habitat conservation planning, but such plans are non-binding and not permanent. Working with stakeholders, we developed an objectives hierarchy linking land acquisition or protection actions to fundamental objectives. We built a model to assess and compare the quality of the habitat in the known range of P. hubrichti. Our model evaluated key habitat attributes of 5814 pixels of 1 km2 each and ranked the pixels from best to worst with respect to P. hubrichti habitat requirements. Our results are a spatially explicit valuation of each pixel, with respect to its probable benefit to P. hubrichti populations. The results of this effort will be used to rank pixels from most to least beneficial, then identify land owners in the most useful areas for salamanders who are willing to sell or enter into a permanent easement agreement.

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

PubMed

Herlitz, Anders

2017-01-01

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

Swarm intelligence: when uncertainty meets conflict.

PubMed

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

2013-11-01

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

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

PubMed

Weiss, Marjorie C; Peters, Tim J

2008-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-03-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-06-01

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

Shared decision making for patients living with inflammatory arthritis.

PubMed

Palmer, Deborah; El Miedany, Yasser

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

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

PubMed

Westermann, G M A; Maurer, J M G

2015-01-01

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

Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions.

PubMed

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

2016-08-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-12-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-09-01

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

Shared Decision-Making as the Future of Emergency Cardiology.

PubMed

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

2018-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-06-01

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

Shared Decision Making: Improving Care for Children with Autism

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2014-07-07

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-11-01

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

An introduction to behavioural decision-making theories for paediatricians.

PubMed

Haward, Marlyse F; Janvier, Annie

2015-04-01

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

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

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Shepherd, Andrew; Shorthouse, Oliver; Gask, Linda

2014-05-01

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

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

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie

2015-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

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

How Do Children Share Information in Groups?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-06-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-07-01

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

Shared Decision-Making and Patient Empowerment in Preventive Cardiology.

PubMed

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

2016-05-01

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

Cultural Challenges to Engaging Patients in Shared Decision Making

PubMed Central

Hawley, Sarah T.; Morris, Arden M.

2016-01-01

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

Cultural challenges to engaging patients in shared decision making.

PubMed

Hawley, Sarah T; Morris, Arden M

2017-01-01

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

Shared Decision Making 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…

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

PubMed Central

Dolan, James G.

2008-01-01

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

Improving shared decision-making in adolescents through antibiotic education.

PubMed

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

2017-02-01

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

Linking Swedish health data registers to establish a research database and a shared decision-making tool in hip replacement.

PubMed

Cnudde, Peter; Rolfson, Ola; Nemes, Szilard; Kärrholm, Johan; Rehnberg, Clas; Rogmark, Cecilia; Timperley, John; Garellick, Göran

2016-10-04

Sweden offers a unique opportunity to researchers to construct comprehensive databases that encompass a wide variety of healthcare related data. Statistics Sweden and the National Board of Health and Welfare collect individual level data for all Swedish residents that ranges from medical diagnoses to socioeconomic information. In addition to the information collected by governmental agencies the medical profession has initiated nationwide Quality Registers that collect data on specific diagnoses and interventions. The Quality Registers analyze activity within healthcare institutions, with the aims of improving clinical care and fostering clinical research. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) has been collecting data since 1979. Joint replacement in general and hip replacement in particular is considered a success story with low mortality and complication rate. It is credited to the pioneering work of the SHAR that the revision rate following hip replacement surgery in Sweden is amongst the lowest in the world. This has been accomplished by the diligent follow-up of patients with feedback of outcomes to the providers of the healthcare along with post market surveillance of individual implant performance. During its existence SHAR has experienced a constant organic growth. One major development was the introduction of the Patient Reported Outcome Measures program, giving a voice to the patients in healthcare performance evaluation. The next aim for SHAR is to integrate patients' wishes and expectations with the surgeons' expertise in the form of a Shared Decision-Making (SDM) instrument. The first step in building such an instrument is to assemble the necessary data. This involves linking the SHARs database with the two aforementioned governmental agencies. The linkage is done by the 10-digit personal identity number assigned at birth (or immigration) for every Swedish resident. The anonymized data is stored on encrypted serves and can only be accessed after double identification. This data will serve as starting point for several research projects and clinical improvement work.

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

PubMed

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

2012-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-07-22

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

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

PubMed

Obeidat, Rana; Khrais, Huthaifah I

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2006-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Park, Eun Sook; Cho, In Young

2017-09-13

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

Spatial decision support system for tobacco enterprise based on spatial data mining

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Mei, Xin; Liu, Junyi; Zhang, Xuexia; Cui, Weihong

2007-11-01

Tobacco enterprise is a special enterprise, which has strong correlation to regional geography. But in the past research and application, the combination between tobacco and GIS is limited to use digital maps to assist cigarette distribution. How to comprehensively import 3S technique and spatial data mining (SDM) to construct spatial decision support system (SDSS) of tobacco enterprise is the main research aspect in this paper. The paper concretely analyzes the GIS requirements in tobacco enterprise for planning location of production, monitoring production management and product sale at the beginning. Then holistic solution is presented and frame design for tobacco enterprise spatial decision based on SDM is given. This paper describes how to use spatial analysis and data mining to realize the spatial decision processing such as monitoring tobacco planted acreage, analyzing and planning the cigarette sale network and so on.

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

Couple decision making and use of cultural scripts in Malawi.

PubMed

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

2008-01-01

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

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…

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

PubMed

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

2017-04-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-06-01

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

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

PubMed

Dy, Sydney M; Purnell, Tanjala S

2012-02-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2008-01-01

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

Sorting Through the Safety Data Haystack: Using Machine Learning to Identify Individual Case Safety Reports in Social-Digital Media.

PubMed

Comfort, Shaun; Perera, Sujan; Hudson, Zoe; Dorrell, Darren; Meireis, Shawman; Nagarajan, Meenakshi; Ramakrishnan, Cartic; Fine, Jennifer

2018-06-01

There is increasing interest in social digital media (SDM) as a data source for pharmacovigilance activities; however, SDM is considered a low information content data source for safety data. Given that pharmacovigilance itself operates in a high-noise, lower-validity environment without objective 'gold standards' beyond process definitions, the introduction of large volumes of SDM into the pharmacovigilance workflow has the potential to exacerbate issues with limited manual resources to perform adverse event identification and processing. Recent advances in medical informatics have resulted in methods for developing programs which can assist human experts in the detection of valid individual case safety reports (ICSRs) within SDM. In this study, we developed rule-based and machine learning (ML) models for classifying ICSRs from SDM and compared their performance with that of human pharmacovigilance experts. We used a random sampling from a collection of 311,189 SDM posts that mentioned Roche products and brands in combination with common medical and scientific terms sourced from Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and a spectrum of news media blogs to develop and evaluate three iterations of an automated ICSR classifier. The ICSR classifier models consisted of sub-components to annotate the relevant ICSR elements and a component to make the final decision on the validity of the ICSR. Agreement with human pharmacovigilance experts was chosen as the preferred performance metric and was evaluated by calculating the Gwet AC1 statistic (gKappa). The best performing model was tested against the Roche global pharmacovigilance expert using a blind dataset and put through a time test of the full 311,189-post dataset. During this effort, the initial strict rule-based approach to ICSR classification resulted in a model with an accuracy of 65% and a gKappa of 46%. Adding an ML-based adverse event annotator improved the accuracy to 74% and gKappa to 60%. This was further improved by the addition of an additional ML ICSR detector. On a blind test set of 2500 posts, the final model demonstrated a gKappa of 78% and an accuracy of 83%. In the time test, it took the final model 48 h to complete a task that would have taken an estimated 44,000 h for human experts to perform. The results of this study indicate that an effective and scalable solution to the challenge of ICSR detection in SDM includes a workflow using an automated ML classifier to identify likely ICSRs for further human SME review.

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

PubMed

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

2018-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Simiyu, Sheillah; Swilling, Mark; Cairncross, Sandy

2017-10-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-07-19

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

Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making.

PubMed

Epstein, Ronald Mark

2013-02-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-08-01

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

An Intelligent Decision Support System for Leukaemia Diagnosis using Microscopic Blood Images.

PubMed

Chin Neoh, Siew; Srisukkham, Worawut; Zhang, Li; Todryk, Stephen; Greystoke, Brigit; Peng Lim, Chee; Alamgir Hossain, Mohammed; Aslam, Nauman

2015-10-09

This research proposes an intelligent decision support system for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia diagnosis from microscopic blood images. A novel clustering algorithm with stimulating discriminant measures (SDM) of both within- and between-cluster scatter variances is proposed to produce robust segmentation of nucleus and cytoplasm of lymphocytes/lymphoblasts. Specifically, the proposed between-cluster evaluation is formulated based on the trade-off of several between-cluster measures of well-known feature extraction methods. The SDM measures are used in conjuction with Genetic Algorithm for clustering nucleus, cytoplasm, and background regions. Subsequently, a total of eighty features consisting of shape, texture, and colour information of the nucleus and cytoplasm sub-images are extracted. A number of classifiers (multi-layer perceptron, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Dempster-Shafer ensemble) are employed for lymphocyte/lymphoblast classification. Evaluated with the ALL-IDB2 database, the proposed SDM-based clustering overcomes the shortcomings of Fuzzy C-means which focuses purely on within-cluster scatter variance. It also outperforms Linear Discriminant Analysis and Fuzzy Compactness and Separation for nucleus-cytoplasm separation. The overall system achieves superior recognition rates of 96.72% and 96.67% accuracies using bootstrapping and 10-fold cross validation with Dempster-Shafer and SVM, respectively. The results also compare favourably with those reported in the literature, indicating the usefulness of the proposed SDM-based clustering method.

An Intelligent Decision Support System for Leukaemia Diagnosis using Microscopic Blood Images

PubMed Central

Chin Neoh, Siew; Srisukkham, Worawut; Zhang, Li; Todryk, Stephen; Greystoke, Brigit; Peng Lim, Chee; Alamgir Hossain, Mohammed; Aslam, Nauman

2015-01-01

This research proposes an intelligent decision support system for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia diagnosis from microscopic blood images. A novel clustering algorithm with stimulating discriminant measures (SDM) of both within- and between-cluster scatter variances is proposed to produce robust segmentation of nucleus and cytoplasm of lymphocytes/lymphoblasts. Specifically, the proposed between-cluster evaluation is formulated based on the trade-off of several between-cluster measures of well-known feature extraction methods. The SDM measures are used in conjuction with Genetic Algorithm for clustering nucleus, cytoplasm, and background regions. Subsequently, a total of eighty features consisting of shape, texture, and colour information of the nucleus and cytoplasm sub-images are extracted. A number of classifiers (multi-layer perceptron, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Dempster-Shafer ensemble) are employed for lymphocyte/lymphoblast classification. Evaluated with the ALL-IDB2 database, the proposed SDM-based clustering overcomes the shortcomings of Fuzzy C-means which focuses purely on within-cluster scatter variance. It also outperforms Linear Discriminant Analysis and Fuzzy Compactness and Separation for nucleus-cytoplasm separation. The overall system achieves superior recognition rates of 96.72% and 96.67% accuracies using bootstrapping and 10-fold cross validation with Dempster-Shafer and SVM, respectively. The results also compare favourably with those reported in the literature, indicating the usefulness of the proposed SDM-based clustering method. PMID:26450665

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

PubMed

Olthuis, Gert; Leget, Carlo; Grypdonck, Mieke

2014-07-01

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

Research in Brief: Shared Decision Making Enhances Instructional Leadership.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lindle, Joan Clark

1992-01-01

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

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

PubMed

Astbury, Ruth; Shepherd, Ashley; Cheyne, Helen

2017-01-01

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

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

PubMed

King, Jaime; Moulton, Benjamin

2013-02-01

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

Simulation Data Management - Requirements and Design Specification

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

Clay, Robert L.; Friedman-Hill, Ernest J.; Gibson, Marcus J.

Simulation Data Management (SDM), the ability to securely organize, archive, and share analysis models and the artifacts used to create them, is a fundamental requirement for modern engineering analysis based on computational simulation. We have worked separately to provide secure, network SDM services to engineers and scientists at our respective laboratories for over a decade. We propose to leverage our experience and lessons learned to help develop and deploy a next-generation SDM service as part of a multi-laboratory team. This service will be portable across multiple sites and platforms, and will be accessible via a range of command-line tools andmore » well-documented APIs. In this document, we’ll review our high-level and low-level requirements for such a system, review one existing system, and briefly discuss our proposed implementation.« less

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

PubMed

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

2015-09-01

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

[Adapting and validating the generic instrument CollaboRATE™ to measure women's participation in health related decision-making during the reproductive process].

PubMed

Bravo, Paulina; Contreras, Aixa; Dois, Angelina; Villarroel, Luis

2018-05-01

There is a worldwide interest in involving patients in health related decisions, so patients can actively search for therapeutic options and choose course of action that allows them to have better quality of life and wellbeing. The majority of the instruments available to capture the degree of participation in medical decision-making are in English and have been developed in high income countries. To adapt and validate for the Chilean context the instrument CollaboRATE™, to measure women's participation in medical decisions during the reproductive process. Cross-sectional study to adapt and validate the instrument CollaboRATE™. Maternity units in Santiago, Chile. Puerperal women in maternity units of three public hospitals. Translation and back-translation, cultural and linguistic relevance with service users and final revision by experts. Study for validation with 90 puerperal women. The Chilean version of CollaboRATE™ demonstrated to be a reliable instrument to capture the degree of patients' participation in medical decision-making. Cronbach alpha was above 0.89. This study provides the first instrument to capture the prevalence of SDM in a Latin American country. This instrument will be critical in future research efforts that seek to explore to what extent people are being involved in the decisions related to their healthcare. Copyright © 2017. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U.

Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

The concept of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) explicitly connects ecosystem services to the people that benefit from them. This report presents a number of practical strategies for incorporating FEGS, and more broadly ecosystem services, into the decision-making process. Whether a decision process is in early or late stages, or whether a process includes informal or formal decision analysis, there are multiple points where ecosystem services concepts can be integrated. This report uses Structured Decision Making (SDM) as an organizing framework to illustrate the role ecosystem services can play in a values-focused decision-process, including: • Clarifying the decision context: Ecosystem services can help clarify the potential impacts of an issue on natural resources together with their spatial and temporal extent based on supply and delivery of those services, and help identify beneficiaries for inclusion as stakeholders in the deliberative process. • Defining objectives and performance measures: Ecosystem services may directly represent stakeholder objectives, or may be means toward achieving other objectives. • Creating alternatives: Ecosystem services can bring to light creative alternatives for achieving other social, economic, health, or general well-being objectives. • Estimating consequences: Ecosystem services assessments can implement ecological production functions (EPFs) and ecological benefits functions (EBFs) to link decision alt

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

PubMed

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

2015-09-01

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

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

PubMed

Biedrzycki, Barbara A

2011-09-01

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

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

PubMed

Megregian, Michele; Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne

2018-05-18

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

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

PubMed Central

Bunn, Frances; Goodman, Claire

2018-01-01

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

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences.

PubMed

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

2016-08-08

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-04-07

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-04-01

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

Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say?

PubMed

Portocarrero, Maria Esther Leiva; Giguère, Anik M C; Lépine, Johanie; Garvelink, Mirjam M; Robitaille, Hubert; Delanoë, Agathe; Lévesque, Isabelle; Wilson, Brenda J; Rousseau, François; Légaré, France

2017-03-20

Patient decision aids (PtDAs) help people make difficult, values-sensitive decisions. Prenatal screening for assessing the risk of genetic conditions in the fetus is one such decision and patient decision aids are rarely used in this clinical context. We sought to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a patient decision aid for deciding about prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS). This qualitative study was embedded in a sequential mixed-methods research program whose main aim is to implement shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of prenatal screening for DS in the province of Quebec, Canada. We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 pregnant women with low-risk pregnancy consulting for prenatal care at three clinical sites. Participating women watched a video depicting a prenatal care follow-up during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA to decide about prenatal screening for DS. The women were then interviewed about factors that would influence the use of this PtDA using questions based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed content analysis of transcribed verbatim interviews. Out of 216 eligible women, 100 agreed to participate (46% response rate) and 46 were interviewed. Regarding the type of health professional responsible for their prenatal care, 19 participants (41%) reported having made a decision about prenatal screening for DS with an obstetrician-gynecologist, 13 (28%) with a midwife, 12 (26%) with a family physician, and two (4%) decided on their own. We identified 54 factors that were mapped onto nine of the 12 TDF domains. The three most frequently-mentioned were: opinion of the pregnant woman's partner (n = 33, 72%), presentation of the PtDA by health professional and a discussion (n = 27, 72%), and not having encountered a PtDA (n = 26, 57%). This study allowed us to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a PtDA for prenatal screening for DS. Use of a PtDA by health professionals and patients is one step in providing the needed decision support and our study results will allow us to design an effective implementation strategy for PtDAs for prenatal screening for DS.

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

PubMed

Suurmond, Jeanine; Seeleman, Conny

2006-02-01

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

Patient and physician views of shared decision making in cancer.

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-04-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2017-01-01

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

Background sampling and transferability of species distribution model ensembles under climate change

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Iturbide, Maialen; Bedia, Joaquín; Gutiérrez, José Manuel

2018-07-01

Species Distribution Models (SDMs) constitute an important tool to assist decision-making in environmental conservation and planning. A popular application of these models is the projection of species distributions under climate change conditions. Yet there are still a range of methodological SDM factors which limit the transferability of these models, contributing significantly to the overall uncertainty of the resulting projections. An important source of uncertainty often neglected in climate change studies comes from the use of background data (a.k.a. pseudo-absences) for model calibration. Here, we study the sensitivity to pseudo-absence sampling as a determinant factor for SDM stability and transferability under climate change conditions, focusing on European wide projections of Quercus robur as an illustrative case study. We explore the uncertainty in future projections derived from ten pseudo-absence realizations and three popular SDMs (GLM, Random Forest and MARS). The contribution of the pseudo-absence realization to the uncertainty was higher in peripheral regions and clearly differed among the tested SDMs in the whole study domain, being MARS the most sensitive - with projections differing up to a 40% for different realizations - and GLM the most stable. As a result we conclude that parsimonious SDMs are preferable in this context, avoiding complex methods (such as MARS) which may exhibit poor model transferability. Accounting for this new source of SDM-dependent uncertainty is crucial when forming multi-model ensembles to undertake climate change projections.

Gray matter abnormalities in opioid-dependent patients: A neuroimaging meta-analysis.

PubMed

Wollman, Scott C; Alhassoon, Omar M; Hall, Matthew G; Stern, Mark J; Connors, Eric J; Kimmel, Christine L; Allen, Kenneth E; Stephan, Rick A; Radua, Joaquim

2017-09-01

Prior research utilizing whole-brain neuroimaging techniques has identified structural differences in gray matter in opioid-dependent individuals. However, the results have been inconsistent. The current study meta-analytically examines the neuroimaging findings of studies published before 2016 comparing opioid-dependent individuals to drug-naïve controls. Exhaustive search of five databases yielded 12 studies that met inclusion criteria. Anisotropic Effect-Size Seed-Based d Mapping (AES-SDM) was used to analyze the data extracted by three independent researchers. Voxel-based AES-SDM distinguishes increases and decreases in brain matter significant at the whole-brain level. AES-SDM identified the fronto-temporal region, bilaterally, as being the primary site of gray matter deficits associated with opioid use. Moderator analysis revealed that length of opioid use was negatively associated with gray matter in the left cerebellar vermis and the right Rolandic operculum, including the insula. Meta-regression revealed no remaining significant areas of gray matter reductions, except in the precuneus, following longer abstinence from opioids. Opioid-dependent individuals had significantly less gray matter in several regions that play a key role in cognitive and affective processing. The findings provide evidence that opioid dependence may result in the breakdown of two distinct yet highly overlapping structural and functional systems. These are the fronto-cerebellar system that might be more responsible for impulsivity, compulsive behaviors, and affective disturbances and the fronto-insular system that might account more for the cognitive and decision-making impairments.

Assessing the Effects of Financial Literacy on Patient Engagement.

PubMed

Meyer, Melanie A; Hudak, Ronald P

2016-07-01

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

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

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Baker, Diane F.

2010-01-01

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

American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine

MedlinePlus

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

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

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2018-06-09

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

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

PubMed

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

2016-04-01

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

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

PubMed

Siminoff, L A; Sandberg, D E

2015-05-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-10-01

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

Patient Preferences and Surrogate Decision Making in Neuroscience Intensive Care Units

PubMed Central

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

2016-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2006-11-01

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

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

PubMed

Siminoff, Laura A; Step, Mary M

2005-07-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-08-01

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