Twelve myths about shared decision making

'What you suggest is not what I expected': How pre-consultation expectations affect shared decision-making in patients with low back pain

OBJECTIVE

Existing studies on shared decision-making (SDM) have hardly taken into consideration that patients could have independently developed expectations prior to their consultation with a healthcare provider, nor have studies explored how such expectations affect SDM. Therefore, we explore how pre-consultation expectations affect SDM in patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study through telephone interviews with 10 patients and seven care professionals (physicians, nurse, physician assistants) and 63 in-person observations of patient-physician consultations in an outpatient clinic in the Netherlands. Transcripts were analyzed through an open coding process.

RESULTS

A discrepancy existed between what patients expected and what care professionals could offer. Professionals perceived they had to undertake additional efforts to address patients' 'unrealistic' expectations while attempting SDM. Patients, in turn, were often dissatisfied with the outcomes of the SDM encounter, as they believed their own expectations were not reflected in the final decision.

CONCLUSION

Unaddressed pre-consultation expectations form a barrier to constructive SDM encounters.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Patients' pre-consultation expectations need to be explored during the SDM encounter. To achieve decisions that are truly shared by care professionals and patients, patients' pre-consultation expectations should be better incorporated into SDM models and education.

The Role of Health Care Communication in Treatment Outcomes

The physician-patient relationship has evolved significantly in the past century. Physician authority has been reduced while patients have been empowered. This review focuses on face-to-face clinical care and argues that current physician-patient relations range from partnerships between social actors who each play critical roles in negotiating care to a more adversarial duel in which both participants advocate for goals that are not necessarily shared. While the former is the hope of increased patient involvement, the latter is increasingly common. Through our discussion of existing studies, we document that while high levels of patient participation are beneficial to treatment outcomes, this engagement also has a dark side that threatens treatment outcomes. We discuss some communication resources patients use that affect treatment outcomes, exemplify how patient engagement affects physician communication, and discuss some strategies that current research finds effective for communicating about treatment with today's engaged patients.

Exploring clinician perspectives on patients with atrial fibrillation who are not prescribed anticoagulation therapy

Objective

To explore themes underlying why anticoagulants are under-prescribed for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients from the clinician's perspective and characteristics of those patients.

Methods

Clinicians at the University of Utah Health system were recruited for semi-structured 15-minute interviews. An interview guide focused on anticoagulant prescribing practices for patients with AF. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Two reviewers independently coded passages corresponding with key themes.

Results

Eleven practitioners were interviewed from cardiology, internal medicine, and family practice. Five themes were found: the role of compliance in anticoagulation decision making, the role of pharmacists in supporting clinicians, the use of shared decision making and risk communication, risk of bleeding as the main barrier to taking anticoagulants, and the variety of reasons patients have for not starting or discontinuing anticoagulants.

Conclusion

Fear of bleeding was the foremost reason underlying anticoagulant underutilization in patients with AF followed by compliance, and patient worries. Communication between patients and clinicians as well as interdisciplinary teamwork are key to understanding and improving anticoagulant prescribing in AF.

Innovation

Our study was the first to assess the role pharmacists play in prescribing clinician's decisions surrounding anticoagulant use in AF. Pharmacists could play an important collaborative role in SDM.

Cross-sectional analysis of generational differences in pain attitudes and beliefs of patients receiving physical therapy care in outpatient clinics

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain is a common reason to seek outpatient physical therapy care. Generational differences regarding attitudes and beliefs have been found in many areas, but it has not been explored regarding pain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine generational differences in attitudes and beliefs regarding pain and the potential differences between beneficial and non-beneficial treatment options in patients receiving care in outpatient physical therapy clinics.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional descriptive survey.

METHOD

A survey was developed to explore attitudes, beliefs, and treatment preferences. The survey was emailed out to past and current physical therapy patients as part of the customer satisfaction survey over a four-month period.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

2260 surveys were completed during the collection period. Generational differences were found between the different generational groups. Younger generations were more in line with current pain neuroscience, understanding that pain is normal and part of the survival mechanism and less likely to believe that pain meant something wrong with one's tissues. Younger generations also reported more agreeance to the ability to cope without medication. However, significant variations existed in treatment choices that were most beneficial and least beneficial between respondents.

CONCLUSION

Generational differences do exist in some areas of pain attitudes and beliefs. Less variation was noted in treatment options between generations, but there were significant variations within all patient respondents.

Patients' experiences with an audio-visual intervention, the use of a tailored explanimation video in patients with bladder cancer

Objective

This qualitative study explored the experiences of patients with bladder cancer with a tailored 'explanimation' video (EV) as a supportive information tool used before and during treatment.

Methods

Using a qualitative approach, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 12 patients with bladder cancer and thematically analysed.

Results

Participants advised future use of the EV, noting it is user friendly and has a fitting difficulty level and clarifying animations. However, some mentioned practical information on 'life after treatment' was lacking, and some emphasized the importance of choosing the right moment of delivery. Patients' experiences were described in four major themes: taking own responsibility, providing opportunity for postponed information supply, easing decision-making processes and gaining a sense of calm.

Conclusion

Findings indicate the EV supported patients with bladder cancer in the process of being informed and in decision-making. Future use of the EV in the treatment of patients with bladder cancer is recommended.

Innovation

The use of audiovisual information in patient education is innovative. Tailored audiovisual information in shape of the EV is a step forward in streamlining information processes, meeting individual preferences and highlighting the most important general information for patients with bladder cancer.

Healthcare providers' and policymakers' experiences and perspectives on barriers and facilitators to chronic disease self-management for people living with hypertension and diabetes in Cameroon

BACKGROUND

Hypertension and diabetes are chronic noncommunicable diseases ranked among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in resource-limited settings. Interventions based on patient empowerment (PE) have been shown to be effective in the management of these diseases by improving a variety of important health outcomes. This study aims to examine from the healthcare providers' and policymakers' experiences and perspectives, the facilitators and barriers in the management of hypertension and diabetes for patient empowerment to achieve better health outcomes in the context of the healthcare system in Cameroon.

METHODS

We carried out a qualitative study involving three levels of embedded analysis in a public primary healthcare delivery system in Cameroon, through 22 semi-structural interviews with healthcare providers and policymakers and 36 observations of physicians' consultations. We combined thematic and lexicometric analyses to identify robust patterns of differences and similarities in the experiences and perspectives of healthcare providers and policymakers about direct and indirect factors associated with patients' self-management of disease.

RESULTS

We identified 89 barriers and 42 facilitators at the central, organizational, and individual levels; they were preponderant at the organizational level. Factors identified by healthcare providers mainly related to self-management of the disease at the organizational and individual levels, whereas policymakers reported factors chiefly at the central and organizational levels. Healthcare providers involved in the decision-making process for the delivery of healthcare tended to have a sense of ownership and responsibility over what they were doing to help patients develop self-management abilities to control their disease.

CONCLUSION

While interventions focused on improving patient-level factors are essential to PE, there is a need for interventions paying more attention to organizational and political barriers to PE than so far. Interventions targeting simultaneously these multilevel factors may be more effective than single-level interventions.

Patient views on asthma diagnosis and how a clinical decision support system could help: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Making a diagnosis of asthma can be challenging for clinicians and patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) for use in primary care including a patient-facing mode, could change how information is shared between patients and healthcare professionals and improve the diagnostic process.

METHODS

Participants diagnosed with asthma within the last 5 years were recruited from general practices across four UK regions. In-depth interviews were used to explore patient experiences relating to their asthma diagnosis and to understand how a CDSS could be used to improve the diagnostic process for patients. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants (12 female) undertook interviews, including 14 individuals and 3 parents of children with asthma. Being diagnosed with asthma was generally considered an uncertain process. Participants felt a lack of consultation time and poor communication affected their understanding of asthma and what to expect. Had the nature of asthma and the steps required to make a diagnosis been explained more clearly, patients felt their understanding and engagement in asthma self-management could have been improved. Participants considered that a CDSS could provide resources to support the diagnostic process, prompt dialogue, aid understanding and support shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Undergoing an asthma diagnosis was uncertain for patients if their ideas and concerns were not addressed by clinicians and were influenced by a lack of consultation time and limitations in communication. An asthma diagnosis CDSS could provide structure and an interface to prompt dialogue, provide visuals about asthma to aid understanding and encourage patient involvement.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Prespecified semistructured interview topic guides (young person and adult versions) were developed by the research team and piloted with members of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group. Findings were regularly discussed within the research group and with PPI colleagues to aid the interpretation of data.

Operationalisation of person-centred care in a real-world setting: a case study with six embedded units

Background

Although person-centred care (PCC) is growing globally in popularity it is often vague and lacks conceptual clarity and definition. The ambiguity stretches from PCC’s underlying philosophical principles and definitions of the concept to how it is operationalised and practised on the ground by health care professionals. We explore how the PCC model by the Gothenburg University Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC) was operationalised in a real-world setting by using a set of recommendations by Fixsen and others that define and structure the core components of innovations in four distinct but interrelated components: philosophical principles and values, contextual factors, structural elements and core practices. Thus, this study aimed to increase knowledge about core practices in PCC in six health care units in real-world circumstances.

Methods

A case study with six embedded health care units was conducted from 2016 to 2019. We collected data from three sources: interviews (n = 12) with change agents, activity logs and written documents. Data were triangulated, and core practices were identified and deductively coded to the PCC model’s structural elements: initiating, working and safeguarding the partnership with patients.

Results

We identified operationalisations of PCC in line with the three structural elements in the GPCC model at all included health care units. A range of both similarities and dissimilarities between units were identified, including the level of detail in describing PCC practices, when these practices were conducted and by whom at the workplace. The recommendations for describing the core components of PCC also helped us identify how some operationalisations of PCC seemed more driven by contextual factors, including a new regulation for planning and documenting care across health care specialities.

Conclusions

Our findings show how PCC is operationalised in different health care units in a real-world setting based on change agents’ understanding of the concept and their unique context. Increased knowledge of PCC and its philosophical principles and values, contextual factors, structural elements and core practices, is necessary to build a common understanding of the PCC-concept. Such knowledge is essential when PCC is operationalised as part of implementation efforts in health care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08516-y.

Supporting Shared Decision-Making and Home Dialysis in End-Stage Kidney Disease

It has been widely demonstrated that patient education and empowerment, especially involving shared treatment decisions, improve patient outcomes in chronic medical conditions, including chronic kidney disease requiring kidney replacement therapies. Accordingly, regulatory agencies in the US and worldwide recommend shared decision-making for finalizing one's choice of kidney replacement therapy. It is also recognized that the US needs to substantially increase home dialysis utilization to leverage its positive impacts on patient and healthcare cost-related outcomes. This perspective highlights how the routine clinical use of the recommended practice of shared decision-making can exist in synergy with the system's goal for increased home dialysis use. It introduces a pragmatic provider checklist, The Nephrologist's Shared Decision-Making Checklist, grounded in the relevant theories of shared decision-making, and, unlike some research assessments and extant tools, is easy to understand and implement in clinical practice. This qualitative Checklist can help providers ensure that they have co-constructed an SDM experience with the patient and involved caretakers, helping them benefit from the improved outcomes associated with SDM.

Patient perspectives on dry eye disease and chronic ocular surface pain: Insights from a virtual community-moderated dialogue

PURPOSE

To understand patients' perspectives on living with dry eye disease (DED), and on the unmet needs in DED and chronic ocular surface pain (COSP) management.

METHODS

A moderated, structured discussion with patients with ocular surface diseases and healthcare professionals (HCPs) was conducted using a virtual platform to capture patients' journey with DED, their opinion on unmet needs, and design and conduct of clinical trials in DED and COSP.

RESULTS

Nine participants, including four patient representatives from patient organisations, one ophthalmologist and one optometrist participated in the discussion. Patients had DED of varying severity and aetiology; three patients had Sjögren's. Over 4 weeks, 785 posts were entered on the platform. Prior to diagnosis, patients rarely associated their symptoms with DED. Convenience and symptomatic relief scored higher than treating the disease. Patients expressed the need for plain language information and dialogue with knowledgeable and sensitive HCPs. Online forums and social media were suggested as key recruitment resources, whereas convenience and safety concerns were highlighted as main barriers to enrolment. The need for the inclusion of outcome measures that have a real impact on patients' experience of their condition was highlighted. Both target product profiles were received positively by participants, highlighting the twice-daily dosing regimen and convenience of the products. Participants acknowledged the value of digital tools and suggested the need to feel valued post-trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This moderated dialogue provided actionable insights on the unmet needs in DED and useful inputs for consideration when designing future clinical trials for DED and COSP.

Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future

In the pre-PSA-detection era, a large proportion of men were diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer and died of the disease; after the introduction of the serum PSA test, randomized controlled prostate cancer screening trials in the USA and Europe were conducted to assess the effect of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality. Contradictory outcomes of the trials and the accompanying overdiagnosis resulted in recommendations against prostate cancer screening by organizations such as the United States Preventive Services Task Force. These recommendations were followed by a decline in PSA testing and a rise in late-stage diagnosis and prostate cancer mortality. Re-evaluation of the randomized trials, which accounted for contamination, showed that PSA-based screening does indeed reduce prostate cancer mortality; however, the debate about whether to screen or not to screen continues because of the considerable overdiagnosis that occurs using PSA-based screening. Meanwhile, awareness among the population of prostate cancer as a potentially lethal disease stimulates opportunistic screening practices that further increase overdiagnosis without the benefit of mortality reduction. However, in the past decade, new screening tools have been developed that make the classic PSA-only-based screening an outdated strategy. With improved use of PSA, in combination with age, prostate volume and with the application of prostate cancer risk calculators, a risk-adapted strategy enables improved stratification of men with prostate cancer and avoidance of unnecessary diagnostic procedures. This combination used with advanced detection techniques (such as MRI and targeted biopsy), can reduce overdiagnosis. Moreover, new biomarkers are becoming available and will enable further improvements in risk stratification.

Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Theoretical Perspectives for Why It Works and For Whom

Applying both theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, we address 2 key questions regarding shared decision making (SDM): 1) When should SDM be more patient driven, and when should it be more provider driven? and 2) Should health care providers match their SDM style/strategy to patient needs and preferences? Self-determination theory, for example, posits a distinction between autonomy and independence. A patient may autonomously seek their health care provider's input and guidance, perhaps due to low perceived competence, low coping resources, or high emotional arousal. Given their need state, they may autonomously require nonindependence. In this case, it may be more patient centered and need supportive to provide more provider-driven care. We discuss how other patient characteristics such as personality attributes, motivational state, and the course of illness and other parameters such as time available for an encounter may inform optimal provider decision-making style and strategy. We conclude that for some types of patients and clinical circumstances, a more provider-driven approach to decision making may be more practical, ethical, and efficacious. Thus, while all decision making should be patient centered (i.e., it should consider patient needs and preferences), it does not always have to be patient driven. We propose a flexible model of SDM whereby practitioners are encouraged to tailor their decision making behaviors to patient needs, preferences, and other attributes. Studies are needed to test whether matching decision-making behavior based on patient states and traits (i.e., achieving concordance) is more effective than simply providing all patients with the same type of decision making, which could be tested using matching/mismatching designs.

Twelve Tips for teaching shared decision making

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which preference-sensitive decisions are discussed with patients in a collaborative and accessible format so that patients can select an option that integrates their values and preferences into the context of evidence-based medicine. While SDM has been shown to improve some metrics of quality of care and is now included in many competencies developed by accreditation bodies, it can be challenging to successfully incorporate competencies in SDM into clinical teaching. Multiple interventions and curricula that build competency in SDM have been published, but here we aim to suggest ways to integrate teaching competencies in SDM into all forms of clinical teaching. These twelve tips provide strategies to foster trainee development of the relational and risk-benefit communication competencies that are required for successful shared decision making.

Difficult Decisions for Older Canadians Receiving Home Care, and Why They Are So Difficult: A Web-Based Decisional Needs Assessment

Background. Older adults receiving home care services often face decisions related to aging, illness, and loss of autonomy. To inform tailored shared decision making interventions, we assessed their decisional needs by asking about the most common difficult decisions, measured associated decisional conflict, and identified factors associated with it. Methods. In March 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey with a pan-Canadian Web-based panel of older adults (≥65 y) receiving home care services. For a difficult decision they had faced in the past year, we evaluated clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC) using the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (score 0–100) with a >37.5 cutoff. To identify factors associated with CSDC, we performed descriptive, bivariable, and multivariable analyses using the stepwise selection method with an assumed entry and exit significance level of 0.15 and 0.20, respectively. Final model selection was based on the Bayesian information criterion. Results. Among 460 participants with an average age of 72.5 y, difficult decisions were, in order of frequency, about housing and safety (57.2%), managing health conditions (21.8%), and end-of-life care (8.3%). CSDC was experienced by 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5%, 18.1%) of respondents on all decision points. Factors associated with CSDC included household size = 1 (OR [95% CI]: 1.81 [0.99, 3.33]; P = 0.27), household size = 3 (2.66 [0.78, 8.98]; P = 0.83), and household size = 4 (6.91 [2.23, 21.39]; P = 0.014); preferred option not matching the decision made (4.05 [2.05, 7.97]; P < 0.001); passive role in decision making (5.13 [1.78, 14.77]; P = 0.002); and lower quality of life (0.70 [0.57, 0.87]; P<0.001). Discussion. Some older adults receiving home care services in Canada experience CSDC when facing difficult decisions. Shared decision-making interventions could mitigate associated factors.

Shared decision-making in Argentina in 2022

Argentina is an upper-middle income country located in South America with an estimated population of 46.2 million inhabitants. There is no unified research agenda or government initiatives encouraging the implementation and research of Shared Decision-Making (SDM). Our working group at the Family and Community Medicine Division of the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires is the leading centre for research and implementation of SDM in the country. The implementation strategy is articulated in undergraduate, postgraduate and continuous medical education. However, it is challenged by the professionals' perception that they are already doing it or lack time during consultations. We have advanced research to understand how to adapt tools to measure and implement SDM in our settings. Still, we face additional challenges related to funding, accessing diverse populations beyond the reach of our institution and incorporating patients in the co-production of research. While most of our efforts arise from the voluntary work of our healthcare professionals, we believe this is a strength since SDM research and implementation are then directly linked to patient care.

Impact of Informed Consent and Education on Care Engagement After Opioid Initiation in the Veterans Health Administration

Objective

To ensure all patients receiving long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) understand the risks, benefits and treatment alternatives, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) released a national policy in 2014 to standardize a signature informed consent (SIC) process. We evaluated the impact of this policy on medical follow-up after LTOT initiation, a guideline recommended practice.

Methods

Using VHA administrative data, we identified patients initiating LTOT between May 2013 and May 2016. We used an interrupted time series design to compare the monthly rates of medical follow-up within 30 days and primary care visits within 3 months after LTOT initiation across three periods: 12 months before the policy (Year 1); 12 months after policy release (Year 2); and 12-24 months after policy release, when the SIC process was mandatory (Year 3).

Results

Among the 409,895 patients who experienced 758,416 LTOT initiations, medical follow-up within 30 days and primary care engagement within 3 months increased by 4% between Year 1 and Year 3. Compared to Year 1, patients in Year 3 were 1.12 times more likely to have any medical follow-up (95% CI: 1.10, 1.13) and 1.13 times more likely to have a primary care visit (95% CI: 1.12, 1.15). Facilities with a greater proportion of patients receiving SIC had increased medical follow-up (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.07) and primary care engagement (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.10).

Conclusion

The VHA's SIC policy is associated with increased medical follow-up among patients initiating LTOT, which may result in improved patient safety and has implications for other healthcare settings.

Living with presbyopia: experiences from a virtual roundtable dialogue among impacted individuals and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Presbyopia is a common progressive vision disorder characterised by an inability to focus on near objects. The emergence of newer treatment options in addition to spectacles or contact lenses highlights the importance of assessing patient/user preferences.

METHODS

People with presbyopia and healthcare professionals (HCPs) took part in a moderated, structured discussion of specific questions on a virtual advisory-board platform. The objective was to better understand unmet needs and the experience of living with the condition. Closed and open questions were included.

RESULTS

Nine individuals (age 40 to 70 years) with presbyopia participated, from Australia, China, France, Italy, Ireland, Japan and the US. One ophthalmologist and one optometrist represented the perspective of HCPs. Over two weeks, 621 posts were entered on the platform. There was widespread agreement that the often stated association between age and presbyopia was unfortunate. Some participants had developed presbyopia at 30-45 years of age. What is more, the association with age was seen as implying a natural process, reducing the incentive to treat. Instead there was a call for an action-oriented view of presbyopia as a condition which may be effectively treated in the future. All participants experienced dealing with presbyopia as burdensome, affecting quality of life to varying degrees. When considering new treatments, convenience was the most important factor. The option to administer drops when needed was considered favourable, but short-acting treatments may not reduce inconvenience compared with spectacles. Participants viewed a therapy that targets the underlying cause of the condition favourably compared with symptomatic treatment. Side effects would severely reduce the appeal of drops. For clinical trials in presbyopia, patient-reported outcomes should be mandatory and need adequately to capture quality of life. Studies in presbyopia must be designed to minimise the inconvenience to participants in order to counter the risk of high drop-out rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The interactive format provided insights into living with presbyopia, particularly the negative impact on quality of life, subjects' openness to new therapies, and the need to move away from considering the condition an unavoidable and intractable consequence of ageing.

Exploring patient centredness, communication and shared decision-making under a new model of care: Community rehabilitation in canada

Patient-centred care and patient engagement in healthcare and health research are widely mandated by funders, health systems and institutions. Increasingly, shared decision-making (SDM) is recognised as promoting patient-centred care. We explore this relationship by studying SDM in the context of integrating novel patient-centred policies in community rehabilitation. There is little research on SDM in rehabilitation, and less so in the critical community context. Patient co-investigators led study co-design. We aimed to describe how patients and providers experience SDM at community rehabilitation sites that adopted a novel, patient-centred Rehabilitation Model of Care (RMoC). Guided by focused ethnography, we conducted focus groups and interviews. Patient and professional participants were recruited from 10 RMoC early-adopter community rehabilitation sites. Sites varied in geography, patient population and provider disciplines. Patient and community engagement researchers used a set-collect-reflect method to document patient perspectives. Researchers captured provider perspectives using a semi-structured question guide. We completed 11 focus groups and 18 interviews (n = 45 providers, n = 17 patients). We found that most early-adopter providers spoke in a shared, patient-first language that focused on patient readiness, barriers and active listening. Congruent patient perceptions reflected inclusion in decision-making, goal setting and positive relationships. Many patients queried how care would become and remain accessible before and after community rehabilitation care respectively. Remaining connected while in the community was described as important to patients. Providers identified barriers like time, team dynamics and lack of clarity on the RMoC aims, which challenged the initiative's long-term sustainability. Policy innovations can promote SDM and communication through multiple strategies and training to facilitate candid, encouraging conversations. Sustainability of SDM gains is paramount. Most providers moved beyond tokenistic engagement, but competing responsibilities and team member resistance could thwart continuity. Further research is needed to empirically assess respectful and compassionate communication and SDM in community rehabilitation long term.

Asking the right questions: towards a person-centered conception of shared decision-making regarding treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease in older patients

An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient’s values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient’s perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient’s relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD.

Experience of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity: a multicentre mixed-methods study embedded in the OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial

BACKGROUND

A patient-centred approach to medicines optimisation is considered essential. The OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial evaluated the effectiveness of medication review with shared decision-making (SDM) in older people with multimorbidity. Beyond evaluating the clinical effectiveness, exploring the patient experience facilitates a better understanding of contextual factors and mechanisms affecting medication review effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To explore experiences of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre mixed-methods study, embedded in the OPERAM trial, combining semi-structured interviews and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) with a purposive sample of 48 patients (70-94 years) from four European countries. Interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. Trial implementation data on SDM were collected and the 9-item SDM questionnaire was conducted with 17 clinicians.

RESULTS

Patients generally displayed positive attitudes towards medication review, yet emphasised the importance of long-term, trusting relationships such as with their general practitioners for medication review. Many patients reported a lack of information and communication about medication changes and predominantly experienced paternalistic decision-making. Patients' beliefs that 'doctors know best', 'blind trust', having limited opportunities for questions, use of jargon terms by clinicians, 'feeling too ill', dismissive clinicians, etc highlight the powerlessness some patients felt during hospitalisation, all representing barriers to SDM. Conversely, involvement of companions, health literacy, empathetic and trusting patient-doctor relationships, facilitated SDM. Paradoxical to patients' experiential accounts, clinicians reported high levels of SDM. The BMQ showed that most patients had high necessity and low concern beliefs about medicines. Beliefs about medicines, experiencing benefits or harms from medication changes, illness perception, trust and balancing advice between different healthcare professionals all affected acceptance of medication changes.

CONCLUSION

To meet patients' needs, future medicines optimisation interventions should enhance information exchange, better prepare patients and clinicians for partnership in care and foster collaborative medication reviews across care settings.

Shared Decision Making in the Psychiatric Inpatient Setting: An Ethnographic Study about Interprofessional Psychiatric Consultations

Shared decision making is increasingly receiving attention in health care and might improve both the quality of care and patient outcomes. Nevertheless, due to its complexity, implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice seems challenging. This ethnographic study aimed to gain a better understanding of how psychiatric inpatients and the interprofessional care team interact during regular interprofessional psychiatric consultations. Data were collected through participant observation on two different psychiatric wards in a large psychiatric hospital in Switzerland. The observation focused on the contextual aspects of interprofessional patient consultations, the communication and interaction as well as the extent to which patients were involved in decision making. Participants included patients, psychiatrists, junior physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers and therapists. We observed 71 interprofessional psychiatric consultations and they differed substantially in both wards in terms of context (place and form) and culture (way of interacting). On the contrary, results showed that the level of patient involvement in decision making was comparable and depended on individual factors, such as the health care professionals’ communication style as well as the patients’ personal initiative to be engaged. The main topics discussed with the patients related to pharmacotherapy and patient reported symptoms. Health care professionals in both wards used a rather unidirectional communication style. Therefore, in order to promote patient involvement in the psychiatric inpatient setting, rather than to focus on contextual factors, consultations should follow a specific agenda and promoting a bidirectional communication style for all parties involved is strongly recommended.

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods

We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results

Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions

Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

Shared decision-making between older people with multimorbidity and GPs: focus group study

Background

Shared decision making (SDM), utilising the expertise of both patient and clinician, is a key feature of good-quality patient care. Multimorbidity can complicate SDM, yet few studies have explored this dynamic for older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.

Aim

To explore factors influencing SDM from the perspectives of older patients with multimorbidity and GPs, to inform improvements in personalised care.

Design and setting

Qualitative study. General practices (rural and urban) in Devon, England.

Method

Four focus groups: two with patients (aged ≥65 years with multimorbidity) and two with GPs. Data were coded inductively by applying thematic analysis.

Results

Patient acknowledgement of clinician medicolegal vulnerability in the context of multimorbidity, and their recognition of this as a barrier to SDM, is a new finding. Medicolegal vulnerability was a unifying theme for other reported barriers to SDM. These included expectations for GPs to follow clinical guidelines, challenges encountered in applying guidelines and in communicating clinical uncertainty, and limited clinician self-efficacy for SDM. Increasing consultation duration and improving continuity were viewed as facilitators.

Conclusion

Clinician perceptions of medicolegal vulnerability are recognised by both patients and GPs as a barrier to SDM and should be addressed to optimise delivery of personalised care. Greater awareness of multimorbidity guidelines is needed. Educating clinicians in the communication of uncertainty should be a core component of SDM training. The incorrect perception that most clinicians already effectively facilitate SDM should be addressed to improve the uptake of personalised care interventions.

Barriers and facilitators for shared decision-making in oncology inpatient practice: an explorative study of the healthcare providers' perspective

BACKGROUND

In cancer care, shared decision-making (SDM) is especially relevant as different treatment options have a different impact on prognosis and patients' quality of life. However, evidence suggests that SDM is not routinely practiced. Furthermore, literature is mostly focussed on the outpatient setting. This study explored healthcare providers' perspectives on SDM for oncology inpatients and identified barriers and facilitators.

METHOD

In this qualitative study, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were held with five nurses, eleven residents, four oncologists, and two healthcare managers caring for oncology inpatients of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden hospital.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals do not always clearly state when a decision is required. On a patient level, comprehension barriers, language barrier, and distraction by emotions or sickness are recognized as barriers for adequate patient's communication. On a healthcare professional level, having awareness to inform about choices, being able to transfer this information, connecting to the patient, having substantial experience, and a good patient-physician relationship were facilitators. On an organizational, level, time, private rooms, continuity in care, and suboptimal use of the electronic health record were barriers.

CONCLUSION

While SDM is recognized and valued, its implementation is inconsistent. Addressing the several barriers found and optimizing the facilitators is imperative. A start could be by raising awareness for SDM in the inpatient setting, adding SDM as part of the care pathway, stating to patients when a decision is required, reporting on the SDM process in the electronic health record, and describing the nurses' role in SDM.

Do consultants do what they say they do? Observational study of the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style to their actual observed decision-making behaviour in video-recorded encounters.

SETTING

Large secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURE

With the Control Preference Scale, the self-reported usual decision-making style was assessed (paternalistic, informative or shared decision making). Two independent raters assessed decision-making behaviour for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)5 instrument ranging from 0 (no shared decision making (SDM)) to 100 (optimal SDM).

RESULTS

Consultants reported their usual decision-making style as informative (n=11), shared (n=16) and paternalistic (n=14). Overall, patient involvement was low, with mean (SD) OPTION5 scores of 16.8 (17.1). In an unadjusted multilevel analysis, the reported usual decision-making style was not related to the OPTION5 score (p>0.156). After adjusting for patient, consultant and consultation characteristics, higher OPTION5 scores were only significantly related to the category of decisions (treatment vs the other categories) and to longer consultation duration (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited patient involvement that we observed was not associated with the consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style. Consultants appear to be unconsciously incompetent in shared decision making. This can hinder the transfer of this crucial communication skill to students and junior doctors.

Shared Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study Assessing Patients Awareness and Preferences in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Shared decision-making (SDM) has become broadly accepted during the consultation, especially when there are many options of treatment. This study aims to assess patients' levels of awareness and preferences of SDM in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study targeting patients in Saudi Arabia. Two validated questionnaires were used, the first validated questionnaire focuses on measuring knowledge, attitude and experiences of shared-decision making. The second questionnaire is the the Autonomy-Preference-Index focusing on patients' preferences for being involved in SDM. Relevant items to the study aim were chosen and translated into Arabic. Psychometric testing was conducted for Arabic and English versions and tested for content and face validity. The questionnaire administered online via social media channels, between February 2021 and May 2021. A total of 411 respondents completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

The findings showed a positive association between awareness and preferences of SDM among patients in Saudi Arabia. In the awareness of the SDM domain, females reported higher scores than male participants (t = -4.504, P < 0.001). Saudis reported higher scores in their awareness of SDM than non-Saudis (t = 2.569, P = 0.011). Participants without health insurance reported higher scores in their awareness of SDM than those insured (t = -2.130, P = 0.034). Participants with degree have higher knowledge levels than participants with no degree (f = 10.034, P < 0.001). Females reported higher scores in their preferences of SDM than the male (t = -2.099, P = 0.036). Participants who visited private health-care settings in their last clinical encounter reported higher preferences of SDM than participants who received care in other settings (f = 2.653, P = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that the more aware a patient is, the more likely they prefer SDM practice. This finding can support health-care policymakers in developing SDM policies that enhance patient-centered care.

A Brief Shared Decision-Making Intervention for Acute Respiratory Infections on Antibiotic Dispensing Rates in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether acute respiratory infection (ARI) decision aids and a general practitioner (GP) training package reduces antibiotic dispensing rate and improves GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence.

METHODS

A cluster randomized trial of 27 Australian general practices (13 intervention, 14 control) involving 122 GPs. Intervention group GPs were given brief decision aids for 3 ARIs (acute otitis media, acute sore throat, acute bronchitis) and video-delivered training. Primary outcome was dispensing rate of target antibiotic classes (routinely used for ARIs), extracted for 12 months before, and following, randomization. Secondary outcomes were GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence; prescribing influences; acceptability, usefulness, and self-reported resource use; and dispensing rate of all antibiotics.

RESULTS

The baseline mean dispensing rate of ARI-related antibiotics was 3.5% (intervention GPs) and 3.2% (control GPs) of consultations. After 12 months, mean rates decreased (to 2.9% intervention; 2.6% control): an 18% relative reduction from baseline but similar in both groups (rate ratio 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.15). Greater increases in knowledge were seen in the intervention group than control; a significant increase (average 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-4.7, P <.001) in the number of correct responses to the 22 knowledge questions. There were no between-group differences for other secondary outcomes. The intervention was well received, perceived as useful, and reported as used by about two-thirds of intervention GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

A brief shared decision-making intervention provided to GPs did not reduce antibiotic dispensing more than usual care, although GPs' knowledge of relevant benefit-harm evidence increased significantly.

The challenge of involving old patients with polypharmacy in their medication during hospitalization in a medical emergency department: An ethnographic study

Background

More than 70% of patients admitted to emergency departments (EDs) in Denmark are older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy vulnerable to adverse events and poor outcomes. Research suggests that patient involvement and shared decision-making (SDM) could optimize the treatment of older patients with polypharmacy. The patients become more aware of potential outcomes and, therefore, often tend to choose less medication. However, implementing SDM in clinical practice is challenging if it does not fit into existing workflows and healthcare systems.

Aim

The aim was to explore the determinants of patient involvement in decisions made in the ED about the patient’s medication.

Methods

The design was a qualitative ethnographic study. We observed forty-eight multidisciplinary healthcare professionals in two medical EDs focusing on medication processes and patient involvement in medication. Based on field notes, we developed a semi-structured interview guide. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals to elaborate on the findings. Data were analyzed with thematic analyses.

Findings

We found five themes (determinants) which affected patient involvement in decisions about medicine in the ED: 1) blurred roles among multidisciplinary healthcare professionals, 2) older patients with polypharmacy increase complexity, 3) time pressure, 4) faulty IT- systems, and 5) the medicine list as a missed enabler of patient involvement.

Conclusion

There are several barriers to patient involvement in decisions about medicine in the ED and some facilitators. A tailored medication conversation guide based on the SDM methodology combined with the patient’s printed medicine list and well-functioning IT- systems can function as a boundary object, ensuring the treatment is optimized and aligned with the patient’s preferences and goals.

Effectiveness of individual feedback and coaching on shared decision-making consultations in oncology care: Study protocol for a randomized clinical trial (Preprint)

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is particularly important in oncology as many treatments involve serious side effects, and treatment decisions involve a trade-off between benefits and risks. However, the implementation of SDM in oncology care is challenging, and clinicians state that it is difficult to apply SDM in their actual workplace. Training clinicians is known to be an effective means of improving SDM but is considered time consuming.

Objective

This study aims to address the effectiveness of an individual SDM training program using the concept of deliberate practice.

Methods

This multicenter, single-blinded randomized clinical trial will be performed at 12 Dutch hospitals. Clinicians involved in decisions with oncology patients will be invited to participate in the study and allocated to the control or intervention group. All clinicians will record 3 decision-making processes with 3 different oncology patients. Clinicians in the intervention group will receive the following SDM intervention: completing e-learning, reflecting on feedback reports, performing a self-assessment and defining 1 to 3 personal learning questions, and participating in face-to-face coaching. Clinicians in the control group will not receive the SDM intervention until the end of the study. The primary outcome will be the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process, as scored using the Observing Patient Involvement–5 instrument. As secondary outcomes, patients will rate their perceived involvement in decision-making, and the duration of the consultations will be registered. All participating clinicians and their patients will receive information about the study and complete an informed consent form beforehand.

Results

This trial was retrospectively registered on August 03, 2021. Approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board (medical research ethics committee Delft and Leiden, the Netherlands [N20.170]). Recruitment and data collection procedures are ongoing and are expected to be completed by July 2022; we plan to complete data analyses by December 2022. As of February 2022, a total of 12 hospitals have been recruited to participate in the study, and 30 clinicians have started the SDM training program.

Conclusions

This theory-based and blended approach will increase our knowledge of effective and feasible training methods for clinicians in the field of SDM. The intervention will be tailored to the context of individual clinicians and will target the knowledge, attitude, and skills of clinicians. The patients will also be involved in the design and implementation of the study.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Registry NL9647; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9647

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/35543

Practitioners' views on shared decision-making implementation: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) refers to the collaboration between patients and their healthcare providers to make clinical decisions based on evidence and patient preferences, often supported by patient decision aids (PDAs). This study explored practitioner experiences of SDM in a context where SDM has been successfully implemented. Specifically, we focused on practitioners' perceptions of SDM as a paradigm, factors influencing implementation success, and outcomes.

METHODS

We used a qualitative approach to examine the experiences and perceptions of 10 Danish practitioners at a cancer hospital experienced in SDM implementation. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data was analyzed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Prior to SDM implementation, participants had a range of attitudes from skeptical to receptive. Those with more direct long-term contact with patients (such as nurses) were more positive about the need for SDM. We identified four main factors that influenced SDM implementation success: raising awareness of SDM behaviors among clinicians through concrete measurements, supporting the formation of new habits through reinforcement mechanisms, increasing the flexibility of PDA delivery, and strong leadership. According to our participants, these factors were instrumental in overcoming initial skepticism and solidifying new SDM behaviors. Improvements to the clinical process were reported. Sustaining and transferring the knowledge gained to other contexts will require adapting measurement tools.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying SDM in clinical practice represents a major shift in mindset for clinicians. Designing SDM initiatives with an understanding of the underlying behavioral mechanisms may increase the probability of successful and sustained implementation.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Assessing dentist and dental student knowledge of and attitudes towards shared decision-making in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a partnership between healthcare professionals and patients when choosing care.

AIM

To measure knowledge of, and attitudes to, SDM amongst undergraduate dental students and dentists in the UK.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional online questionnaire for 4th and 5th year dental students and dentists in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The questionnaire included attitudinal questions, knowledge of SDM relative to the evidence base and preferred approach to decision-making. The questionnaire identified perceived learning needs and preferred method for SDM teaching for dentists and dental students. Respondents were invited to participate via social media, mailing lists and CPD courses.

RESULTS

Respondents included 266 undergraduates and 130 dentists. SDM was defined by the people involved, components of the discussion, approach to decision-making and expected outcome. Attitudes to SDM were generally positive although concerns were expressed about patients wanting professionals to make the decision, straying from the professionals' preferred option and compatibility with clinical guidelines. Respondents reported a preference for decision-making to involve patients, but this tended to be an informative rather than deliberative approach. Respondents were least sure of the evidence about the impact of SDM on adherence, choices and health outcomes, and the best approach to risk communication. Respondents from both groups reported an interest in learning more about SDM and its integration into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of, and attitude to, SDM in UK dentists and dental undergraduates is generally positive; however, a demand for further SDM training was identified.

Shared-decision-making Behavior in Hospitalized Patients: Investigating the Impact of Patient's Trust in Physicians, Emotional Support, Informational Support, and Tendency to Excuse Using a Structural Equation Modeling Approach

Patient participation in care decisions is facilitated by shared-decision-making (SDM). This study, therefore, aims to explore the impact of patient's trust in physicians, emotional support, informational support, and tendency to excuse on SDM. A cross-sectional study was conducted at the medical-surgical wards of 6 similar-sized public hospitals in Tabriz, northwest Iran, using a self-administered questionnaire, with 321 cases collected from October to December 2019. The structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was used to test the hypothetical model. Using the SEM approach, the findings fully confirmed the study hypothesis, and patients' trust in physician (Beta = -0.44), emotional support (Beta = 0.29), tendency to excuse (Beta = 0.18), and informational support (Beta = 0.58) predicted the inpatient's SDM behavior (R 2 = 0.65, goodness-of-fit index = 0.902). To improve patient outcomes, physicians might advise incorporating techniques such as improving patient trust, informational and emotional supports to improve SDM. Improving the psychosocial skills of physicians also seems to be essential to help patients express their concerns.

Adaptation of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Decisions with Indigenous Patients

Background

Patient decision aids (PtDAs) enable shared decision-making between patients and healthcare providers. Adaptations to PtDAs for use with populations facing inequities in healthcare can improve the relevancy of information presented, incorporate appropriate cultural context, and address health literacy concerns. Our objective was to adapt the Early RA (rheumatoid arthritis) PtDA for use with Canadian Indigenous patients.

Methods

The Early RA PtDA was modified through an iterative process using data obtained from semi-structured interviews of two sequential cohorts of Indigenous patients with RA. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Seven participants provided initial feedback on the existing PtDA. The modifications they suggested were made and shared with another nine participants to confirm acceptability and provide further feedback. The first cohort suggested revisions to clarify medical and cost coverage information, include Indigenous traditional healing practice options, simplify text, and include Indigenous images and colors aligned with Canadian Indigenous community representation. Additional revisions were suggested by the second cohort to increase the legibility of the text, insert more Indigenous imagery, address formulary coverage for non-status First Nations patients, and include information about lifestyle factors in managing RA.

Conclusion

Incorporating Indigenous-specific adaptations in the design of PtDAs may increase use and relevancy to support engagement in treatment decisions, thereby supporting health-equity oriented health service interventions. Indigenous patient-specific evidence and translation of key words into the end-users’ Indigenous languages should be included for implementation of the PtDA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00546-8.

How Shared Is Shared Decision Making? Reaching the Full Potential of Patient-Clinician Collaboration in Mental Health

Shared decision making in mental health is a priority for stakeholders, but faces significant implementation barriers, particularly in settings intended to serve people with serious mental illnesses (SMI). As a result, current levels of shared decision making are low. We highlight these barriers and propose that a novel paradigm, collaborative decision making, will offer conceptual and practical solutions at the systemic and patient/clinician level. Collaborative decision making is tailored for populations like people with SMI and other groups who experience chronic and complex symptoms, along with power imbalances within health systems. Advancing from shared decision making to collaborative decision making clarifies the mission of the model: to facilitate an empowering and recovery-oriented decision-making process that assigns equal power and responsibility to patients and clinicians; to improve alignment of treatment decisions with patient values and priorities; to increase patient trust and confidence in clinicians and the treatment process; and, in the end, to improve treatment engagement, satisfaction, and outcomes. The primary purpose of collaborative decision making is to increase values-aligned care, therefore prioritizing inclusion of patient values, including cultural values and quality of life-related outcomes. Given the broad and constantly changing context of treatment and care for many people with SMI (and also other groups), this model is dynamic and continuously evolving, ready for use across diverse contexts. Implementation of collaborative decision making includes increasing patient knowledge but also patient power, comfort, and confidence. It is one tool to reshape patient-clinician and patient-system relationships and to increase access to value-aligned care for people with SMI and other groups.

Shared decision-making among non-physician healthcare professionals: Enhancing patient involvement in women's reproductive health in community healthcare settings

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important approach to patient-centered care in women's reproductive healthcare. This study explored SDM experiences and perceptions among non-physician healthcare professionals.

METHODS

We completed 20 key-informant interviews with non-physician healthcare professionals (i.e., NP, RN, CNM, doula, pharmacist, chiropractor) living in Indiana (September 2019-May 2020) who provided community-based women's reproductive healthcare. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an expanded grounded theory framework. Constant comparative analysis identified emergent themes.

RESULTS

Professionals noted community-based healthcare required contextualized decision-making approaches. Results identified listening, decisional ownership, and engagement strategies that enhanced SDM involvement. Findings suggested outcome-oriented SDM concepts, including decisional ownership and investigative listening to enhance SDM. Providers redefined 'challenging' patients as engaged in their healthcare and discussed ways SDM improved healthcare experience beyond one visit.

CONCLUSION

Findings offered insight into actionable and practical strategies for enhancing SDM in community-based women's reproductive healthcare. The findings offer strategies to improve SDM by addressing barriers and facilitators among professionals. This extends SDM beyond the patient-physician dyad and supports broader application of SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Incorporating professionals' experiences into SDM concepts can enhance SDM in community-based women's healthcare practice, offering opportunities to support a culture of SDM across settings.

Which Trauma Treatment Suits me? Identification of Patients' Treatment Preferences for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Several psychotherapy treatments exist for posttraumatic stress disorder. This study examines the treatment preferences of treatment-seeking traumatized adults in Germany and investigates the reasons for their treatment choices. Preferences for prolonged exposure, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), psychodynamic psychotherapy and stabilization were assessed via an online survey. Reasons for preferences were analyzed by means of thematic coding by two independent rates. 104 traumatized adults completed the survey. Prolonged exposure and CBT were each preferred by nearly 30%, and EMDR and psychodynamic psychotherapy were preferred by nearly 20%. Stabilization was significantly less preferred than all other options, by only 4%. Significantly higher proportions of patients were disinclined to choose EMDR and stabilization. Patients who preferred psychodynamic psychotherapy were significantly older than those who preferred CBT. Reasons underlying preferences included the perceived treatment mechanisms and treatment efficacy. Traumatized patients vary in their treatment preferences. Preference assessments may help clinicians comprehensively address patients' individual needs and thus improve therapy outcomes.

Concordance and Patient-Centered Care in Medicaid Enrollees' Care Experience With Providers

Patient-centered care is at the nexus of several overlapping institutional reforms to improve health care system performance. However, we know little regarding Medicaid patients' experience with their doctors along several key dimensions of patient-centered care, and how their experience compares with Medicare and privately insured patients. We studied 4 outcomes using the 2017 National Health Interview Survey: patient-provider concordance on racial/sexual/cultural identity, respectful provider attitude, solicitation of patient opinion/beliefs during the care encounter, and patient-centered communication (PCC). The primary independent variable was Medicaid enrollee status. We dichotomized responses and ran multivariate logistic regressions for each type of care experience outcome, controlling for sociodemographic factors, health care access, and health care utilization of respondents. Compared to Medicare and privately insured enrollees, Medicaid enrollees reported much lower odds of seeing providers who treated them with respect (OR = 1.91, P < .001; OR = 1.62, P < .01) and who offered PCC (OR = 1.35, P < .05; OR = 1.35, P < .01), but similar odds of seeing concordant providers (OR = 0.78, P = .96; OR = 0.96, P = .72). Importantly, Medicaid enrollees reported higher odds of seeing providers who solicited their opinion/beliefs/preferences than their Medicare or privately insured counterparts (OR = 0.82, P < .05; OR = 0.87 P < .10). Medicaid enrollees report less patient-centered experiences in some important facets of their provider interaction than their Medicare or privately insured counterparts. Federal, state, and local policies and practices directed at improving these facets of patient-provider interaction are needed and should be aimed squarely at Medicaid providers, especially those working in geographic areas and settings with a disproportionate number of racial, gender, cultural, and linguistic minorities.

Shared decision-making in atrial fibrillation: patient-reported involvement in treatment decisions

AIMS

To determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP's recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75-3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50-3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively].

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions.

The impact of shared decision making on time consumption and clinical decisions. A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Concerns of increased time consumption and of the impact on clinical decisions may restrain doctors from shared decision making (SDM). This paper evaluates consultation length and decisions made when using an in-consult patient decision aid (PtDA).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study compared an unexposed cohort with a cohort exposed to SDM and a PtDA in two preference-sensitive decision situations: invasive lung cancer diagnostics and adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer. Outcome measures were consultation length and decisions made.

RESULTS

The study included 261 consultations, 115 were in the SDM-exposed cohort. Consultations were inconsiderably longer in the SDM cohort; 2 min, 11 s (p = 0.2217) for lung cancer diagnostics and 3 min, 57 s (p = 0.1128) for adjuvant breast cancer treatment. In lung cancer diagnostics, consultation length became more uniform and decisions tended to become conservative after introduction of SDM. For adjuvant breast cancer, slightly more patients in the SDM cohort chose to decline treatment.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision making did not take significantly longer time and led to slightly more conservative decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

SDM may be implemented without considerable impact on consultation length. The impact on clinical decisions depends mainly on the clinical situation.

Shared decision making: What is the work?

Cooperation has emerged as a fundamental characteristic of human society, and many argue that this ability is the basis for the phenomenal development in our capability as a species. When we focus our attention to the interactions that occur in healthcare, we inevitably notice power asymmetry due to unequal knowledge, experience, and status. However, as many have argued since the 1970s, there is an ethical imperative to respect the agency of individuals, offer information, collaborate, and support deliberation when difficult decisions arise. This process is particularly important when reasonable alternative courses of action exist and where the priorities and preferences of individuals would be expected to sway such decisions. This position article argues that this process, commonly described as shared decision making, involves work that is cognitive, emotional, and relational, and, particularly if people are ill, should have the underpinning goal of restoring autonomy. It covers the origin of the term and describes the core components; it describes how to do the cognitive, emotional, and relational work that is required, and offers a model to guide the process.

Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a key component of evidence-based and patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to systematically review the quality of SDM proposals in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) concerning breast cancer (BC) screening.

METHODS

Guidances were identified, without language restrictions, using a prospectively planned systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and guideline websites) from January 2010 to August 2020. Duplicate data extraction used a 31-item SDM quality assessment tool; reviewer agreement was 98%.

RESULTS

SDM appeared only in 38 (49.4%) (33/68 CPGs, 4/9 CSs) documents (overall compliance with the quality tool: mean 5.74, IQR 3-8). CPGs and CSs specifically mentioning the term SDM (n = 12) had higher quality (mean 6.8, IQR 4-9 vs. mean 2.1, IQR 0-3; P = 0.001). No differences were found in mean quality comparing CPGs with CSs (3 vs. 1.6; P = 0.634), use of systematic review (4.2 vs. 2.9; P = 0.929) and publication in a journal (4 vs. 1.9; P = 0.094). Guidances with SDM were more recently reported than those without it (mean 41 vs. 57 months; P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

More than half of all the guidelines did not meet SDM quality criteria. Those that explored it were more recently reported. There is an urgent need for promoting SDM in guidances concerning BC screening issued by institutions, professional associations and medical journals.

Translation and psychometric evaluation of the German version of the IcanSDM measure - a cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a key component of patient-centred care. To implement SDM in clinical practice and to evaluate its effects, it is helpful to know about HCPs’ perception of SDM barriers. The measure IcanSDM was developed in Canada and assesses the perception of SDM barriers. To our knowledge, no equivalent measure exists in German. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and adapt the IcanSDM measure to be used by a German speaking population and evaluate its psychometric properties.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional psychometric study based on a secondary analysis of baseline data from a SDM implementation study. The original 8-item IcanSDM was translated into German using a team translation protocol. We assessed comprehensibility via cognitive interviews with n = 11 HCPs. Based on results of cognitive interviews, the translated IcanSDM version was revised. Two hundred forty-two HCPs filled out the measure. Psychometric analysis included acceptance (completion rate), item characteristics (response distribution, skewness, item difficulties, corrected item-total correlations, inter-item correlations), factorial structure (confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), model fit), and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α).

Results

We translated and adapted the German IcanSDM successfully except for item 8, which had to be revised after the cognitive interviews. Completion rate was 98%. Skewness of the items ranged between −.797 and 1.25, item difficulties ranged between 21.63 and 70.85, corrected item-total-correlations ranged between .200 and .475, inter-item correlations ranged between .005 and .412. Different models based on CFA results did not provide a valid factorial structure. Cronbach’s α ranged between .563 and .651 for different factor models.

Conclusion

We provide the first German measure for assessing perception of SDM barriers by HCPs. The German IcanSDM is a brief measure with good acceptance. However, we found unsatisfying psychometric properties, which were comparable to results of the original scale. In a next step, the IcanSDM should be further developed and modified and predictive validity should be evaluated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06430-3.

Perceived involvement in health care decisions among US adults: Sociodemographic and medical condition correlates

OBJECTIVE

To explore factors associated with how often US adults perceived that they were "always" involved in decisions about health care to the degree that they desired.

METHODS

We examined cross-sectional, nationally representative data from the 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey. There were 3504 responses in the full HINTS dataset; 2499 remained after eliminating respondents with missing data for any factor of interest. Sociodemographic factors included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education. Medical conditions included diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, lung disease, arthritis, cancer, and depression. Participants were asked to think about communication with health professionals during the last 12 months and how often health professionals involved them in decisions about health care.

RESULTS

In univariate analyses, Asian and Hispanic race were associated with lower odds of always being involved in decisions about health care; whereas higher education and a history of cancer were associated with higher odds of "always" being involved in decisions about health care, p < 0.05. In multivariate analyses, race and education both remained significant; however, history of cancer did not.

CONCLUSION

Differences by race/ethnicity and educational attainment exist regarding perceived involvement in decisions about health care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings may inform future shared decision making interventions.

What does it take to facilitate the integration of clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain into practice? Part 1: A synthesis of recommendation

BACKGROUND

Despite the emergence of multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of low back pain (LBP) over the last decade, self-reported levels of disability in this population have not improved. This may be explained by the numerous implementation barriers, such as the complexity of information and sheer volumes of CPGs.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to summarize the evidence and recommendations from the most recent and high-quality CPGs on the rehabilitation management of LBP by developing an infographic summarizing the recommendations to facilitate dissemination into clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of high-quality CPGs with an emphasis on rehabilitation approaches. We searched major health-related research databases (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL, and PEDro). We performed quality assessment via the AGREE-II instrument. Contents of the CPGs were synthesized by extracting recommendations, which were then compared to one another to identify consistencies based on an iterative evaluation process.

RESULTS

We identified and assessed 5 recent high-quality CPGs. We synthesized 13 recommendations on the rehabilitation management of LBP (2 for screening procedures, 3 for assessment procedures, and 8 involving treatment approaches) and 2 underlying principles were highlighted. These results were then synthetized and illustrated in a concise infographic that serves as a conceptual roadmap that identifies the specific behavior changes (i.e., adoption of CPGs' recommendations) rehabilitation professionals should adopt in order to integrate an evidenced-based approach for the management of LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

We systematically reviewed the literature for CPGs' recommendations for the physical rehabilitation management of LBP and synthesized the information through an infographic.