An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters

Shared decision making with schizophrenic patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial with booster sessions (DECIDE Study)

BACKGROUND

The treatment of schizophrenia requires a prolonged, multidimensional intervention that includes antipsychotic drugs. Treatment adherence is essential to effectively control the disorder. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a strategy, supported by numerous practical and ethical arguments, that seeks to involve patients in the therapeutic process to improve treatment adherence and satisfaction. The use of this model in mental health has been limited for many intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. The results of clinical trials conducted to date have largely been disappointing, potential due to study design-related limitations.

AIM/QUESTION

To evaluate the efficacy, in terms of treatment adherence and improvement in clinical variables, such as severity of symptoms, days of hospitalization or insight, of a carefully timed SDM model initiated immediately prior to hospital discharge in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Single-blind, randomized clinical trial in an acute psychiatric care unit within the Andalusian Health Department to compare SDM (experimental group) to treatment as usual (TAU; control group) in a sample of patients hospitalized for an acute episode of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The study was performed between January 2014 and June 2017. The experimental group participated in SDM sessions prior to discharge with regular booster sessions over the one-year follow-up. The health care team responsible for SDM was predisposed to concordance (LatCon II scale) and received specific training in SDM. A hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the factors independently associated with adherence, controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, and admission-related variables. Variables were assessed at admission, discharge and at 3, 6 and 12 months after discharge during the one year follow up. BARS, DAI, WAI-S, COMRADE and PANSS were used to evaluate adherence, attitude to treatment, therapeutic alliance, satisfaction and confidence with decision and clinical status, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 227 schizophrenic patients hospitalized with acute decompensation were evaluated; of these, 102 met all inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Most patients (95%) had prior experience with antipsychotics and most (82%) had experienced related side effects. Despite randomization, psychopathologic severity was greater in the experimental group, with a mean (SD) PANSS score of 104.08 (80) vs. 93.45 (20.30) (p < 0.05). The final regression model to explain adherence was significant (adjusted R2 = 0.384; F [df= 6] = 4.386; p < 0.001), with a direct, significant and independent association with SDM mediated by the number of booster sessions.

DISCUSSION

Shared decision making with booster sessions appears to increase treatment adherence in patients with severe mental disorders.

IMPLICATION ON PRACTICE

Ethical, practical, and clinical reasons support the use of strategies designed promote the use of long-term, shared decision-making in psychiatric patients, especially in schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

Assessing the impact of patient-involvement healthcare strategies on patients, providers, and the healthcare system: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement has become an important and lively field of research, yet existing findings are fragmented and often contested. Without a synthesis of the research field, these findings are of limited use to scholars, healthcare providers, or policy-makers.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the body of knowledge on patient involvement to determine what is known, contested, and unknown about benefits, risks, and effective implementation strategies.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients were not involved.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of 99 journal articles using a conceptual model integrating three levels: health systems, health providers, and patients. We extracted individual research findings and organized them into the structure of our model to provide a holistic picture of patient involvement.

RESULTS

The review highlights overlaps and conflicts between various patient involvement approaches. Our results show benefits for individual patients and the health system as a whole. At the provider level, however, we identified clear barriers to patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement requires collaboration among health systems, healthcare providers, and patients. We showed that increasing patient responsibility and health literacy requires policy-maker interventions. This includes incentives for patient education by providers, adapting medical education curricula, and building a database of reliable health information and decision support for patients. Furthermore, policies supporting a common infrastructure for digital health data and managed patient data exchange will foster provider collaboration.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Our review shows how an approach integrating health systems, healthcare providers, and patients can make patient involvement more effective than isolated interventions. Such systematic patient involvement is likely to improve population health literacy and healthcare quality.

Exploring User Visions for Modeling mHealth Apps Toward Supporting Patient-Parent-Clinician Collaboration and Shared Decision-making When Treating Adolescent Knee Pain in General Practice: Workshop Study

BACKGROUND

Long-standing knee pain is one of the most common reasons for adolescents (aged 10-19 years) to consult general practice. Generally, 1 in 2 adolescents will continue to experience pain after 2 years, but exercises and self-management education can improve the prognosis. However, adherence to exercises and self-management education interventions remains poor. Mobile health (mHealth) apps have the potential for supporting adolescents' self-management, enhancing treatment adherence, and fostering patient-centered approaches. However, it remains unclear how mHealth apps should be designed to act as tools for supporting individual and collaborative management of adolescents' knee pain in a general practice setting.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to extract design principles for designing mHealth core features, which were both sufficiently robust to support adolescents' everyday management of their knee pain and sufficiently flexible to act as enablers for enhancing patient-parent collaboration and shared decision-making.

METHODS

Overall, 3 future workshops were conducted with young adults with chronic knee pain since adolescence, parents, and general practitioners (GPs). Each workshop followed similar procedures, using case vignettes and design cards to stimulate discussions, shared construction of knowledge and elicit visions for mHealth designs. Young adults and parents were recruited via social media posts targeting individuals in Northern Jutland. GPs were recruited via email and cold calling. Data were transcribed and analyzed thematically using NVivo (QSR International) coding software. Extracted themes were synthesized in a matrix to map tensions in the collaborative space and inform a conceptual model for designing mHealth core-features to support individual and collaborative management of knee pain.

RESULTS

Overall, 38% (9/24) young adults with chronic knee pain since adolescence, 25% (6/24) parents, and 38% (9/24) GPs participated in the workshops. Data analysis revealed how adolescents, parents, and clinicians took on different roles within the collaborative space, with different tasks, challenges, and information needs. In total, 5 themes were identified: adolescents as explorers of pain and social rules; parents as supporters, advocates and enforcers of boundaries; and GPs as guides, gatekeepers, and navigators or systemic constraints described participants' roles; collaborative barriers and tensions referred to the contextual elements; and visions for an mHealth app identified beneficial core features. The synthesis informed a conceptual model, outlining 3 principles for consolidating mHealth core features as enablers for supporting role negotiation, limiting collaborative tensions, and facilitating shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

An mHealth app for treating adolescents with knee pain should be designed to accommodate multiple users, enable them to shift between individual management decision-making, take charge, and engage in role negotiation to inform shared decision-making. We identified 3 silver-bullet principles for consolidating mHealth core features as enablers for negotiation by supporting patient-GP collaboration, supporting transitions, and cultivating the parent-GP alliance.

When attitudes and beliefs get in the way of shared decision-making: A mediation analysis of participation preference

INTRODUCTION

Certain sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., older age) have previously been identified as barriers to patients' participation preference in shared decision-making (SDM). We aim to demonstrate that this relationship is mediated by the perceived power imbalance that manifests itself in patients' negative attitudes and beliefs about their role in decision-making.

METHODS

We recruited a large sample (N = 434) of outpatients with a range of urological diagnoses (42.2% urooncological). Before the medical consultation at a university hospital, patients completed the Patients' Attitudes and Beliefs Scale and the Autonomy Preference Index. We evaluated attitudes as a mediator between sociodemographic factors and participation preference in a path model.

RESULTS

We replicated associations between relevant sociodemographic factors and participation preference. Importantly, attitudes and beliefs about one's own role as a patient mediated this relationship. The mediation path model explained a substantial proportion of the variance in participation preference (27.8%). Participation preferences and attitudes did not differ for oncological and nononcological patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients' attitudes and beliefs about their role determine whether they are willing to participate in medical decision-making. Thus, inviting patients to participate in SDM should encompass an assessment of their attitudes and beliefs. Importantly, negative attitudes may be accessible to change. Unlike stable sociodemographic characteristics, such values are promising targets for interventions to foster more active participation in SDM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was part of a larger project on implementing SDM in urological practice. Several stakeholders were involved in the design, planning and conduction of this study, for example, three authors are practising urologists, and three are psychologists with experience in patient care. In addition, the survey was piloted with patients, and their feedback was integrated into the questionnaire. The data presented in this study is based on patients' responses. Results may help to empower our patients.

Primary care physician use of patient race and polygenic risk scores in medical decision-making

PURPOSE

The use of patient race in medicine is controversial for its potential either to exacerbate or address health disparities. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have emerged as a tool for risk stratification models used in preventive medicine. We examined whether PRS results affect primary care physician (PCP) medical decision-making and whether that effect varies by patient race.

METHODS

Using an online survey with a randomized experimental design among PCPs in a national database, we ascertained decision-making around atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention and prostate cancer screening for case scenario patients who were clinically identical except for randomized reported race.

RESULTS

Across 369 PCPs (email open rate = 10.8%, partial completion rate = 93.7%), recommendations varied with PRS results in expected directions (low-risk results, no available PRS results, and high-risk results). Still, physicians randomized to scenarios with Black patients were more likely to recommend statin therapy than those randomized to scenarios with White patients (odds ratio = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.16-2.59, P = .007) despite otherwise identical clinical profiles and independent of PRS results. Similarly, physicians were more likely to recommend prostate cancer screening for Black patients than for White patients (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.06-2.35, P = .025) despite otherwise identical clinical and genetic profiles.

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in precision risk stratification, physicians will likely continue to use patient race implicitly or explicitly in medical decision-making.

Supporting Gender-Related Medical Decision Making for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals: A Scoping Review

Purpose

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals and their families face numerous challenging decisions. To better understand their decision processes, we conducted a scoping review of the existing literature and of decision-support tools in use at pediatric gender-care clinics.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus CINAHL, PsychINFO, and EBM Reviews for studies that were original research focused on decisions, decision making, or decision support for TGD individuals and/or their families. All studies were reviewed for inclusion by at least two researchers. Additionally, we reviewed clinical tools used to support decision making by TGD youth and their families.

Results

We retrieved 3306 articles. Thirty-two met criteria for data extraction. Studies focused on three major decisions: gender-confirming surgery, fertility preservation, and gender-affirming hormone therapy. Several themes that cut across clinical topics emerged: decision-making processes, decision-making roles, and sources of decision support. Only three articles focused on decision-support interventions, two of which discussed development of support tools and one evaluated a class designed to help with surgical decision making. None of the clinical tools reviewed met criteria for a decision aid.

Conclusions

There is a dearth of studies related to decision support interventions, an absence validated by the resources currently in clinical use. This scoping review suggests an opportunity for the development of tools to aid in the decision-making processes for TGD youth and their families.

Teaching strategies for shared decision-making within the context of evidence-based healthcare practice: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the nature of teaching Shared Decision Making (SDM) within the context of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) to support development of contemporaneous EBP education programmes for healthcare learners.

METHODS

A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) used to guide reporting.

RESULTS

The narrative overview of 23 studies provides insight into the 'what' and 'how' of teaching SDM within the context of EBP education. A minority of studies explicitly and concurrently incorporated EBP and SDM in terms of how programme content was organised. Teaching strategies most often used regardless of learner cohort or setting included didactic, face-to-face lectures, together with role-play/modelling, small group workshops and video recordings. Programme evaluation outcomes predominantly focused on participant reactions to training and participant learning.

CONCLUSION

While a disconnect between EBP and SDM remains evident in healthcare programmes, increased recognition by educators to actively facilitate this interdependent relationship is emerging.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Intentionally structuring learning activities in a manner which demonstrates the relevance and interdependence of SDM and EBP may mitigate 'learning silos' and enhance learners' abilities to make connections required in practice.

Hip and Knee Total Joint Arthroplasty Online Resources for Patients and Health Care Professionals: A Canadian Environmental Scan

Purpose:

To appraise the quality of publicly available online Canadian resources for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis considering total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and health care professionals participating in TJA decision-making processes.

Method:

An environmental scan. Two independent authors appraised: a) patient resources against the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria and the Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool (PEMAT); and b) health care professional resources against six appropriateness criteria for TJA and eight elements of shared decision-making. Analysis was descriptive.

Results:

Of 84 included resources, 71 were for patients, 11 for health care professionals, and 2 for both. For patient resources, the median number of IPDAS defining criteria met was 2 of 7, median PEMAT understandability score was 83%, and median PEMAT actionability score was 60%. For health care professional resources, the median number of appropriateness criteria was 3 of 6, and the median number of shared decision-making elements was 3 of 8.

Conclusions:

Only four of 73 patient resources were structured to help patients consider their options and reach a decision based on their preferences. Health care professional resources were limited to traditional criteria for determining TJA appropriateness (evidence of osteoarthritis, use of conservative treatments) and poorly met key elements of shared decision-making.

Treatment decision making in psychiatry: Formulating patients’ perspectives in outpatient psychiatric consultations

Seeking and understanding patients’ values and preferences is one of the essential elements in shared decision making, which is associated with treatment adherence in psychiatry. However, negotiating treatment in psychiatric contexts can be challenging with patients whose ability to evaluate treatment recommendations rationally may be impaired. This article attempts to examine a conversational practice that psychiatrists use to deal with patients’ views and perspectives by formulating what the patients have said related to treatment. Taking the naturally occurring, face-to-face outpatient psychiatric consultations as the data, the present study uses conversation analysis (CA) as a method to demonstrate in a fine-grained detail what functions formulations of patients’ perspectives serve in psychiatric contexts. We found that by eliciting patients’ views and perspectives toward treatment, this type of formulation is not only used to achieve mutual understanding and establish the grounds for treatment decisions, but may also be used to challenge the legitimacy of patients’ position, steering treatment decision to the direction preferred by the psychiatrists. We argue that in the process of treatment decision making, psychiatrists do not simply impose their perspectives upon the patients, instead, they attempt to achieve consensus with patients by balancing their institutional authority and orientation to the patients’ perspectives. Data are in Chinese with English translation.

Access for Cancer Caregivers to Education and Support for Shared Decision Making (ACCESS) intervention: a cluster cross-over randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to test an intervention named ACCESS (Access for Cancer Caregivers to Education and Support for Shared Decision Making). The intervention uses private Facebook support groups to support and educate caregivers, preparing them to participate in shared decision-making during web-based hospice care plan meetings. The overall hypothesis behind the study was that family caregivers of hospice patients with cancer would experience lower anxiety and depression as a result of participating in an online Facebook support group and shared decision-making with hospice staff in a web-based care plan meeting.

METHODS

This is a cluster cross-over randomised three-arm clinical trial where one group participated in both the Facebook group and the care plan team meeting. A second group participated only in the Facebook group and the third group was a control group and received usual hospice care.

RESULTS

There were 489 family caregivers who participated in the trial. There were no statistically significant differences between the ACCESS intervention group and the Facebook only or the control group on any outcome. The participants in the Facebook only group, however, experienced a statistically significant decrease in depression compared with the enhanced usual care group.

CONCLUSIONS

While the ACCESS intervention group did not experience significant improvement in outcomes, caregivers assigned to the Facebook only group showed significant improvement in depression scores from baseline as compared with the enhanced usual care control group. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms of action leading to reduced depression.

Shared decision making on medication use between nurses and patients in an oncology setting: A qualitative descriptive study

PURPOSE

(i) To explore patients' and nurses' experiences with medication-related shared decision making (SDM) (i.e., familiarity with the concept, application of medication-related SDM, barriers and facilitators towards its application) and (ii) to explore their role perceptions, respectively.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in which seven interviews with oncological patients and a focus group interview with six nurses were performed. Prior to the interviews, observations of the application of shared decision making were conducted using the OPTION-12 scale. The observations were used exclusively to trigger the group discussion. Data were collected from November 2020 until March 2021.

RESULTS

According to participants, the application of SDM regarding medication by nurses in oncology is limited. Barriers mentioned were health status, medication-related knowledge, the therapeutic nurse-patient relationship, time pressures and workload. Patients valued nurses' contribution to SDM regarding medication and perceived them as key persons because of their advocating, informative, facilitating and supportive role. Individual and contextual factors determined patients' desire for involvement in medication-related decisions.

DISCUSSION

Participants solely concentrated on SDM concerning drug choice and management of therapeutic and adverse effects. The patients' and nurses' experiences and perceptions towards SDM in other domains of pharmaceutical care need further investigation.

Decision Support Needs for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth and Families: A Patient-Centered Needs Assessment

PURPOSE

Due to the intertwining of medical and social decision-making, new approaches to shared decision-making are likely needed for supporting decisions related to the care of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) adolescents. Prior to developing decision support interventions for TGD youth, a decision support needs assessment must be completed.

METHODS

Self-identified TGD youth, family members of TGD youth, clinicians caring for this population, and community advocates participated in one of six group level assessments (GLAs). GLA is a structured, participatory qualitative method that engages diverse groups of stakeholders in generating and evaluating ideas on the topic of interest. Upon completion of all GLAs, a survey was developed and distributed to GLA participants inviting them to rank ideas generated during the GLAs.

RESULTS

Six major themes emerged from the GLAs regarding decision support needs, including: improving healthcare provider skills and education, increasing access to support outside the healthcare system, strengthening community and societal support, developing special information resources, supporting youth in leading decision-making about transition, and modifying the healthcare system. In the follow-up survey, improving healthcare provider skills and education was the most commonly chosen top priority.

DISCUSSION

Participants identified decision support needs for TGD youth and their families that were mostly distinct from traditional decision support approaches. Participants' focus on the need to improve healthcare provider skills and education provides an opportunity to couple gender-focused education with shared decision-making skills, an approach that may be more sustainable than tools for specific decisions.

Effect of communication skills training on documentation of shared decision-making for patients with life-limiting illness: An observational study in an intensive care unit

Objectives

This article aims to examine the association between a shared decision-making (SDM) clinical communication training program and documentation of SDM for patients with life-limiting illness (LLI) admitted to intensive care.

Methods

This article used a prospective, longitudinal observational study in a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU). Outcomes included the proportion of patients with SDM documented on an institutional Goals of Care Form during hospital admission, as well as characteristics, outcomes, and factors associated with an SDM admission.

Intervention

Clinical communication skills training (iValidate) and clinical support program are the intervention for this study.

Results

A total of 325 patients with LLI were admitted to the ICU and included in the study. Overall, 184 (57%) had an SDM admission, with 79% of Goals of Care Form completed by an iValidate-trained doctor. Exposure to an iValidate-trained doctor was the strongest predictor of an ICU patient with LLI having an SDM admission (odds ratio: 22.72, 95% confidence interval: 11.91-43.54, p < 0.0001). A higher proportion of patients with an SDM admission selected high-dependency unit-level care (29% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and ward-based care (36% vs. 5%, p < 0.0001), with no difference in the proportion of patients choosing intensive care or palliative care. The proportion of patients with no deterioration plan was higher in the non-SDM admission cohort (59% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Clinical communication training that explicitly teaches identification of patient values is associated with improved documentation of SDM for critically ill patients with LLI. Understanding the relationship between improved SDM and patient, family, and clinical outcomes requires appropriately designed high-quality trials randomised at the patient or cluster level.

A Shared Decision-Making Process Utilizing a Decision Coach in Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery

BACKGROUND & RATIONALE

The process to evaluate candidacy for epilepsy surgery is lengthy and stressful for caregivers, therefore the decision can be challenging. There is not a lot of information in regard to how families of a child living with epilepsy navigate the stressful decision during surgical candidacy evaluation. With difficult decisions comes the possibility of increased decisional conflict in both the child and the family.

METHODS

A project designed to provide greater knowledge to the family was conducted utilizing the shared decision-making (SDM) process to assist families in the decision-making during surgical candidacy evaluation; this was done using a decision coach, who is an unbiased health care professional, providing families with evidence-based information and support tools while supporting them in making decisions based on their values.

RESULTS

Results reveal that 90% (45 of 50) of families offered a consult with the decision coach agreed to participate. For these families, 78% (35 of 45) felt they were ready to move forward with surgery after the consult and 22% (10 of 45) felt they needed more information and testing. There was a significant improvement in the level of decisional conflict, uncertainty, and perception of preparation for decision making for the caregivers between the first and second consult, although 60% of families did not complete the postconflict survey.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM process assists families in their need for more knowledge regarding risks, benefits, and options for treatment before making a surgical choice. SDM utilizing an impartial decision coach outside the direct circle of care and individualized epilepsy surgery education aids improves parental decision conflict and satisfaction.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' perceived facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making for frail and elderly patients in perioperative care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) in perioperative care, is an organizational approach to instituting sharing of information and decision-making around surgery. It aims at enabling patient autonomy and patient-centered care. Frail and elderly patients suffering from multiple health conditions and increased surgical vulnerability might particularly benefit from SDM. However, little is known about the facilitators and barriers to implementing SDM in perioperative care for the specific needs of frail and elderly patients. Our objective is twofold: First, we aim at collecting, analyzing, categorizing, and communicating facilitators and barriers. Second, we aim at collecting and mapping conceptual approaches and methods employed in determining and analyzing these facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed studies. We employed a taxonomy which is based on the SPIDER framework and added the items general article information, stakeholder, barriers/facilitators, category, subcategory, and setting/contextual information. This taxonomy is based on preceding reviews. The scoping review is reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Based on the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, we screened 984 articles, identified, and reviewed 13 original studies.

RESULTS

Within this review, two primary facilitators concerning patients' willingness to participate in SDM emerged: Patients want to be informed on their medical condition and procedures. Patients prefer sharing decisions with healthcare professionals, compared to decision-making solely by patients or decision-making solely by healthcare professionals. Communication issues and asymmetric power relationships between patients and clinical healthcare professionals are barriers to SDM. Regarding the methodological approaches, the evaluation of the conceptual approaches demonstrates that the selected articles lack employing a distinct theoretical framework. Second, the selected studies mainly used surveys and interviews, observational studies, like ethnographic or video-based studies are absent.

CONCLUSION

Diverging findings perceived by patients or clinical healthcare professionals were identified. These imply that SDM research related to elderly and frail patients should become more encompassing by employing research that incorporates theory-based qualitative analysis, and observational studies of SDM consultations for understanding practices by patients and clinical healthcare professionals. Observational studies are particularly relevant as these were not conducted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/8fjnb/.

Shared-Decision-Making Experiences in Breast Cancer Care with and without Patient Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences: A Mixed-Methods-Study

Purpose

This study aimed (1) to analyze patients' perceived shared decision-making (SDM) experiences over 4 weeks between patients participating or not in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) and (2) to analyze the association of patients' active participation in and organizational variables of MTCs with patients' perceived SDM experience directly after MTC.

Patients and Methods

From the N=317 patients, this observational study included patient surveys, observations, and audio transcripts from MTCs with (N=82) and without (N=145) patient participation in six breast and gynecologic cancer centers. We performed t tests for within- and between-group comparisons and linear regression with "patients' perceived SDM experiences in MTC" as the dependent variable.

Results

Patients' perceived SDM experiences increased at 4 weeks after MTC (p<0.001) with lower perceived SDM experiences for participating versus nonparticipating patients (p<0.001). Linear regression showed that the organizational variable "round table seating arrangement" was significantly associated with higher perceived SDM experiences compared with a theater or U-shape arrangement (beta=-0.38, p=0.043; beta=-0.69, p=0.010) directly after MTC.

Conclusion

Results provide first insights into patients' perceived SDM experiences in MTCs. SDM in MTCs is associated with organizational variables of MTCs. A round table seating arrangement in MTCs with patient participation seems important for patients' perceived SDM experiences. The relatively low perceived SDM experiences of participating patients directly after MTC indicates room for improvement, eg concerning patient-centered communication.

Informed or misinformed consent and use of modified texture diets in dysphagia

BACKGROUND

Use of modified texture diets-thickening of liquids and modifying the texture of foods-in the hope of preventing aspiration, pneumonia and choking, has become central to the current management of dysphagia. The effectiveness of this intervention has been questioned. We examine requirements for a valid informed consent process for this approach and whether the need for informed consent for this treatment is always understood or applied by practitioners.

MAIN TEXT

Valid informed consent requires provision of accurate and balanced information, and that agreement is given freely by someone who knows they have a choice. Current evidence, including surveys of practitioners and patients in different settings, suggests that practice in this area is often inadequate. This may be due to patients' communication difficulties but also poor communication-and no real attempt to obtain consent-by practitioners before people are 'put on' modified texture diets. Even where discussion occurs, recommendations may be influenced by professional misconceptions about the efficacy of this treatment, which in turn may poison the well for the informed consent process. Patients cannot make appropriate decisions for themselves if the information provided is flawed and unbalanced. The voluntariness of patients' decisions is also questionable if they are told 'you must', when 'you might consider' is more appropriate. Where the decision-making capacity of patients is in question, inappropriate judgements and recommendations may be made by substitute decision makers and courts unless based on accurate information.

CONCLUSION

Research is required to examine the informed consent processes in different settings, but there is ample reason to suggest that current practice in this area is suboptimal. Staff need to reflect on their current practice regarding use of modified texture diets with an awareness of the current evidence and through the 'lens' of informed consent. Education is required for staff to clarify the importance of, and requirements for, valid informed consent and for decision making that reflects people's preferences and values.

Improving shared decision-making for prosthetic care: A qualitative needs assessment of prosthetists and new lower-limb prosthesis users

BACKGROUND

Prosthesis design is complex and multiple appropriate options exist for any individual with lower-limb amputation. However, there is insufficient evidence for guiding decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) offers an opportunity to incorporate patient-specific values and preferences where evidence is lacking for prosthesis design decisions. To develop resources to facilitate SDM, and consistent with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, it is necessary to identify the decisional needs of prosthetists and prosthesis users for prosthesis design decisions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the needs of prosthetists and new prosthesis users for SDM about the first prosthesis design.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative descriptive design.

METHODS

Six focus groups were conducted with 38 prosthetists. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 new prosthesis users. Transcripts were analyzed using directed content analysis, with codes defined a priori using existing frameworks for SDM: the Three Talk Model for SDM and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified among prosthetists and prosthesis users: acknowledging complexity in communication, clarifying values, recognizing the role of experience to inform preferences , and understanding the prosthetic journey .

CONCLUSIONS

Resources that support SDM for the first prosthesis design should consider methods for identifying individual communication needs, support with clarifying values, and resources such as experience for achieving informed preferences, within the context of the overall course of rehabilitation and recovery following lower-limb amputation. The themes identified in this work can inform SDM to promote collaborative discussion between prosthetists and new prosthesis users when making prosthesis design decisions.

Examining the knowledge work of person-centred care: Towards epistemic reciprocity

OBJECTIVE

It is increasingly recognised that when healthcare staff fails to give adequate credence to patients' illness-related knowledge work, this epistemic injustice undermines person-centred care. Therefore, we set out to examine the experiences of people with long-term conditions with knowledge work in healthcare settings to identify changes needed to strengthen person-centred primary care.

METHODS

We designed a qualitative study and recruited people with long-term conditions in the UK. We conducted individual interviews (analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis) and focus groups (analysed using thematic analysis), then integrated findings from both methods through an approach focused on their complementarity.

RESULTS

Participants described how successful person-centred consultations were characterised by a negotiation between patient and doctor and moments of broad exploration, reflexive listening, and reciprocal enquiry, which allowed for epistemic reciprocity.

CONCLUSIONS

Epistemic reciprocity is a core component of person-centred clinical consultations, fostering the co-creation of new knowledge of patient experience and need through the interactive knowledge work of patient and doctor.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Medical education could benefit from initiatives that develop knowledge use and integration skills across primary care professionals. Accommodating for patient's and doctor's knowledge work during clinical practice requires redesigning the consultation process, including timing, headspace, pre-consultation, and post-consultation work.

Dupuytren contracture: using qualitative data to inform a conceptual framework for shared decision-making

Multiple treatment options are available to patients with Dupuytren contracture, making shared decision-making complex. Our rigorous qualitative analysis sought to understand patient perceptions of shared decision-making in Dupuytren contracture treatment and create a conceptual framework to optimize patient-physician communication. We interviewed 30 patients with Dupuytren contracture to learn about their experience with treatment selection. The following themes were integral to shared decision-making for Dupuytren contracture treatment: discussing disease progression and treatment initiation, presenting all available treatment options, assessing patients' pre-existing biases towards treatment, patient values and preferences for treatment trade-offs, treatment risks and benefits, physician recommendation and active patient participation. This model can optimize communication about treatment options and expectations for relevant outcomes including, recovery time, contracture recurrence, complications, and treatment-related expenses.Level of evidence: V.

The Impact of Patient-Centered Care on Cancer Patients' QOC, Self-Efficacy, and Trust Towards Doctors: Analysis of a National Survey

Patient-centered approaches impact cancer patients' perceptions and outcomes in different ways. This study explores the impact of patient-centered care practices on cancer patients' quality-of-care (QOC), self-efficacy, and trust in their doctors. We utilized cross-sectional national survey data from the National Cancer Institute collected between 2017 and 2020. All estimates were weighted using the jackknife method. We used multivariable logistic regression to test our hypotheses adjusted for the demographics of the 1932 cancer patients that responded to the survey. Findings indicate that patient-centered communication resulted in better QOC, self-efficacy, and trust in doctors. In addition, engagement in their care improved patients' trust in cancer-related information received from doctors. QOC and patients' trust in doctors were significantly improved with the patients' understanding of the next steps, addressing feelings, clear explanation of the problems, spending enough time with the clinicians, addressing uncertainty, and involvement in decisions. Patients who were given a chance to ask questions were significantly more likely to trust their doctors. Technology use did not impact any of these interactions. Patient-centered strategies should consider the needs of the patients in the cancer settings to improve overall outcomes. Organizations should also build strategies that are goal-oriented and centered around the patients' needs, as standard strategies cannot induce the wanted results.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Remote Stepped Care Mental Health Programme for Adolescents during the COVID-19 Pandemic in India

Remote mental health services were rapidly deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet there is relatively little contemporaneous evidence on their feasibility and acceptability. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a stepped care mental health programme delivered remotely by lay counsellors to adolescents in New Delhi, India, during a period of 'lockdown'. The programme consisted of a brief problem-solving intervention ("Step 1") followed by a tailored behavioural module ("Step 2") for non-responders. We enrolled 34 participants (M age = 16.4 years) with a self-identified need for psychological support. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed through quantitative process indicators and qualitative interviews (n = 17 adolescents; n = 5 counsellors). Thirty-one (91%) adolescents started Step 1 and 16 (52%) completed the planned Step 1 protocol. Twelve (75%) of the Step 1 completers were non-responsive. Eight (67%) non-responsive cases started Step 2, all of whom met response criteria when reassessed at 12 weeks post-enrolment. Adolescents favoured voice-only sessions over video-calls due to privacy concerns and difficulties accessing suitable devices. Counsellors noted challenges of completing remote sessions within the allotted time while recognising the importance of supervision for developing competence in new ways of working. Both adolescents and counsellors discussed the importance of working collaboratively and flexibly to fit around individual preferences and circumstances. Disentangling pandemic-specific barriers from more routine challenges to remote delivery should be a focus of future research.

Adaptation of a Personalized Electronic Care Planning Tool for Cancer Follow-up Care: Formative Study

BACKGROUND

Most patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer will survive for at least 5 years; thus, engaging patients to optimize their health will likely improve outcomes. Clinical guidelines recommend patients receive a comprehensive care plan (CP) when transitioning from active treatment to survivorship, which includes support for ongoing symptoms and recommended healthy behaviors. Yet, cancer care providers find this guideline difficult to implement. Future directions for survivorship care planning include enhancing information technology support for developing personalized CPs, using CPs to facilitate self-management, and assessing CPs in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop an electronic tool for colorectal cancer follow-up care (CFC) planning.

METHODS

Incorporating inputs from health care professionals and patient stakeholders is fundamental to the successful integration of any tool into the clinical workflow. Thus, we followed the Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share (IDEAS) framework to adapt an existing application for stroke care planning (COMPASS-CP) to meet the needs of colorectal cancer survivors (COMPASS-CP CFC). Constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided our approach. We completed this work in 3 phases: (1) gathering qualitative feedback from stakeholders about the follow-up CP generation design and workflow; (2) adapting algorithms and resource data sources needed to generate a follow-up CP; and (3) optimizing the usability of the adapted prototype of COMPASS-CP CFC. We also quantitatively measured usability (target average score ≥70; range 0-100), acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.

RESULTS

In the first phase, health care professionals (n=7), and patients and caregivers (n=7) provided qualitative feedback on COMPASS-CP CFC that informed design elements such as selection, interpretation, and clinical usefulness of patient-reported measures. In phase 2, we built a minimal viable product of COMPASS-CP CFC. This tool generated CPs based on the needs identified by patient-completed measures (including validated patient-reported outcomes) and electronic health record data, which were then matched with resources by zip code and preference to support patients' self-management. Elements of the CFIR assessed revealed that most health care professionals believed the tool would serve patients' needs and had advantages. In phase 3, the average System Usability Scale score was above our target score for health care professionals (n=5; mean 71.0, SD 15.2) and patients (n=5; mean 95.5, SD 2.1). Participants also reported high levels of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Additional CFIR-informed feedback, such as desired format for training, will inform future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The data collected in this study support the initial usability of COMPASS-CP CFC and will inform the next steps for implementation in clinical care. COMPASS-CP CFC has the potential to streamline the implementation of personalized CFC planning to enable systematic access to resources that will support self-management. Future research is needed to test the impact of COMPASS-CP CFC on patient health outcomes.

HOW PRO'S CAN CONTRIBUTE TO WHAT MATTERS MOST TO PATIENTS WITH OROFACIAL CLEFTS

An orofacial cleft (OC) is a congenital cleft that may affect the lip, alveolus, hard and soft palate. An OC impacts the individuals' appearance, psychosocial well-being and causes functional problems including feeding, dentition, growth of jaws, hearing and speech. The treatment of an orofacial cleft usually reaches from birth until 22 years of age or later. To understand and listen in an objective manner, OC specific Patient reported Outcome (PRO) and experience (PRE) measures are imperative. In patients with OCs many shared decision making moments exist from birth until adulthood. The aim is to understand what knowledge exists on PROs and PREs in patients with OCs, to formulate challenges to improve care to OC patients and how research on OCs needs to adapt. PROs and PREs need to be tailored to the individual with an OC. A framework with specific OC key domains including appearance, facial function and Health related Quality of Life exists. The current framework does not include the social network around the OC patients yet. However attention should be put on including family and community support into the framework. Also at an individual level more attention should be paid to enhancing experiences compared to impeding experiences. To create a better understanding traditional indicators and outcomes are combined with PROMs in a structured way. Challenges were identified that seek to improve our complete set of (PRO and PRE) instruments to provide better care to the individual with an OC and provide a voice so that good shared decision making is enabled. Thereby the individual with an OC is further empowered.

For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate? - A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify decision characteristics for which SDM authors deem SDM appropriate or not, and what arguments are used.

METHODS

We applied two search strategies: we included SDM models from an earlier review (strategy 1) and conducted a new search in eight databases to include papers other than describing an SDM model, such as original research, opinion papers and reviews (strategy 2).

RESULTS

From the 92 included papers, we identified 18 decision characteristics for which authors deemed SDM appropriate, including preference-sensitive, equipoise and decisions where patient commitment is needed in implementing the decision. SDM authors indicated limits to SDM, especially when there are immediate life-saving measures needed. We identified four decision characteristics on which authors of different papers disagreed on whether or not SDM is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review show the broad range of decision characteristics for which authors deem SDM appropriate, the ambiguity of some, and potential limits of SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The findings can stimulate clinicians to (re)consider pursuing SDM in situations in which they did not before. Additionally, it can inform SDM campaigns and educational programs as it shows for which decision situations SDM might be more or less challenging to practice.

Sharing decision-making between the older person and the nurse: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Sharing decision-making is globally recognised as an important concept in healthcare research, policy, education and practice which enhances person-centred care. However, it is becoming increasingly evident shared decision-making has not been successfully translated into everyday healthcare practice. Sharing decision-making has strong links with person-centred practice. Core to person-centredness and shared decision making, is the need to recognise that as we age, greater reliance is placed on emotion and life experience to inform decision making processes. With the world's ageing population, older persons facing more complex decisions and transitions of care, it is more important than ever it is understood how shared decision-making occurs.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping literature review aims to find out how sharing decision making between nurses and older persons in healthcare settings is understood and presented in published literature.

METHODS

This scoping review utilised the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, advanced by Levac et al. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched, returning 362 records which were examined against defined inclusion criteria. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

Twenty-two records met inclusion criteria for the review. Results indicate while shared decision-making is included in research, education and policy literature, it has not been effectively translated to inform practice and the relationship between a nurse and an older person. The records lack definitions of shared decision-making and theoretical or philosophical underpinnings. There is also no consideration of emotion and life experience in decision-making and how nurses 'do' shared decision-making with older persons.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate sharing decision-making between nurses and older persons is not well understood in the literature, and therefore is not translated into nursing practice. Further research is needed.

Exploration of shared decision making in oncology within the United States: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) among the oncology population is highly important due to complex screening and treatment decisions. SDM among patients with cancer, caregivers, and clinicians has gained more attention and importance, yet few articles have systematically examined SDM, specifically in the adult oncology population. This review aims to explore SDM within the oncology literature and help identify major gaps and concerns, with the goal to provide guidance in the development of clear SDM definitions and interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley approach along with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in four databases that included publications since 2016.

RESULTS

Of the 364 initial articles, eleven publications met the inclusion criteria. We included articles that were original research, cancer related, and focused on shared decision making. Most studies were limited in defining SDM and operationalizing a model of SDM. There were several concerns revealed related to SDM: (1) racial inequality, (2) quality and preference of the patient, caregiver, and clinician communication is important, and (3) the use of a decision-making aid or tool provides value to the patient experience.

CONCLUSION

Inconsistencies regarding the meaning and operationalization of SDM and inequality of the SDM process among patients from different racial/ethnic backgrounds impact the health and quality of care patients receive. Future studies should clearly and consistently define the meaning of SDM and develop decision aids that incorporate bidirectional, interactive communication between patients, caregivers, and clinicians that account for the diversity of racial, ethnic, and sociocultural backgrounds and preferences.

Shared Decision-Making as a Tool for Navigating Multi-Stakeholder Discrepancies in Youth Psychotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Discrepancies among the key stakeholders in youth psychotherapy (e.g., caregivers, youths) commonly present an obstacle to treatment planning, forcing clinicians to align with one perspective over another and increasing the likelihood of a treatment plan that is not fully responsive to divergent opinions. At the same time, multi-stakeholder discrepancies can also offer opportunities to build an inclusive, effective treatment plan, guided by the integration of numerous sources of domain-specific knowledge related to the concerns for which families seek clinical care.

METHOD

We aim to: 1) investigate the degree to which multi-stakeholder discrepancies are observed when youths and caregivers are invited to report their treatment priorities, rather than the presence and severity of youth symptoms, 2) describe the rationale for, as well as the promise and challenges of, shared decision-making (SDM)-an approach designed to facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration during treatment planning, 3) provide a case example illustrating how a clinician, youth, and caregiver could use SDM to navigate discrepancies and identify therapy targets, and 4) propose future directions for exploring the potential value of SDM in youth psychotherapy.

RESULTS

Different levels of multi-stakeholder agreement were observed when caregivers and youths were asked to identify their treatment priorities, compared to youth symptom presence and severity, revealing nuances in multi-stakeholder agreement in youth psychotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-stakeholder discrepancies can inform treatment planning processes, and SDM may be an effective approach for navigating them and building a treatment plan that integrates the perspective of all stakeholders in youth psychotherapy.

A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in child and youth mental health: synthesising the use of theory, intervention functions, and behaviour change techniques

Reviews around interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) for child and youth mental health have produced inconclusive findings on what approaches increase participation. Importantly, the previous reviews did not explore the use of theory, as well as mechanisms of change (intervention functions) and active units of change (behaviour change techniques). The aim of this review was to explore these factors and ascertain how, if at all, these contribute to SDM. Five databases were searched up until April 2020. Studies met inclusion criteria if they were: (a) an intervention to facilitate SDM; (b) aimed at children, adolescence, or young people aged up to 25, with a mental health difficulty, or their parents/guardians; and (c) included a control group. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, study design, intervention, theoretical background, intervention functions, behaviour change techniques, and SDM. Quality assessment of the studies was undertaken using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool. Eight different interventions met inclusion criteria. The role of theory to increase SDM remains unclear. Specific intervention functions, such as 'education' on SDM and treatment options and 'environmental restructuring' using decision aids, are being used in SDM interventions, as well as 'training' for clinicians. Similarly, behaviour change techniques linked to these, such as 'adding objects to the environment', 'discussing pros/cons', and clinicians engaging in 'behavioural practice/rehearsal'. However, as most studies scored low on the quality assessment criteria, as well as a small number of studies included and a low number of behaviour change techniques utilised, links between behaviour change techniques, intervention functions and increased participation remain tentative. Intervention developers and clinicians may wish to consider specific intervention functions and behaviour change techniques to facilitate SDM.

Mode of delivery in the context of periviable birth: informed deference and shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To qualitatively evaluate women's perspectives on shared decision-making for periviable (22-25 weeks' gestational age) mode of delivery (MOD).

STUDY DESIGN

Interviews were conducted at two Midwestern academic hospitals with 30 women hospitalized for threatened periviable delivery between September 2016 and January 2018. Prior to delivery (T1) and at 3-months postpartum (T2), MOD-related decision-making was explored using prompts. Interviews were coded and analyzed using NVivo 12.

RESULT

The majority of women perceived the MOD options as cesarean section or vaginal delivery. Most ultimately preferred "whatever's best for baby." Understanding of MOD risks was limited, and physicians recommended each option equally. Sixteen participants perceived themselves as decision-makers at T1, while at T2, only nine participants identified themselves as such.

CONCLUSION

Informed deference is introduced as a novel concept in the setting of periviable MOD decision-making, whereby the mother defers decisional authority to the provider, the baby, a higher power, or the circumstance itself.

"We Absolutely Had the Impression That It Was Our Decision"-A Qualitative Study with Parents of Critically Ill Infants Who Participated in End-of-Life Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) between neonatologists and parents when a decision has to be made about the continuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST). In a previous study, we found that neonatologists and parents at a German Level-III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit performed SDM to a variable but overall small extent. However, we do not know whether parents in Germany prefer an extent of more or sharing.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative interview study with parents who participated in our first study. We analyzed the semi-structured interviews with qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz.

RESULTS

The participation in medical decision making (MDM) varied across cases. Overall, neonatologists and parents conducted SDM in most cases only to a small extent. All parents appreciated their experience independent of how much they were involved in MDM. The parents who experienced a small extent of sharing were glad that they were protected by neonatologists from having to decide, shielding them from a conflict of interest. The parents who experienced a large extent of sharing especially valued that they were able to fulfil their parental duties even if that meant partaking in a decision to forgo LST.

DISCUSSION

Other studies have also found a variety of possibilities for parents to partake in end-of-life decision making (EOL-DM). Our results suggest that parents do not have a uniform preference for one specific decision-making approach, but rather different parents appreciate their individual experience regardless of the model for DM.

CONCLUSION

SDM is apparently not a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, neonatologists and parents have to adapt the decision-making process to the parents' individual needs and preferences for autonomy and protection. Therefore, SDM should not be prescribed as a uniform standard in medico-ethical guidelines, but rather as a flexible guidance for DM for critically ill patients in neonatology.

Shared Decision-Making: Some cautionary observations in the context of elite sport

The concept of shared decision-making (SDM) has emerged as a key component in the return to play interface as a hallmark of good practice that is athlete focused and allows greater engagement from the athlete. SDM is an appealing, well-intentioned framework that would seemingly lend itself to effectively being implemented. However, in this editorial, we have identified concerns surrounding the social complexities of elite sports and the difficulties of truly applying this concept in practice. In what follows, we explain the dynamics associated, discuss the importance of context when considering the efficacy of this practice and lastly offer what we see as certain key issues that might impede effective SDM.

Patients' Perspectives on Shared Decision-Making About Medications in Psoriatic Arthritis: An Interview Study

OBJECTIVE

Decision-making regarding medications to manage psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is complex because of multiple disease manifestations and comorbidities. Fear of side effects from systemic medications and misalignment in priorities between patients with PsA and rheumatologists makes shared decision-making challenging. We aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with PsA on shared decision-making regarding medication taking.

METHODS

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 adult patients with PsA in Australia. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: lacking agency in decision-making (denied choice, knowledge asymmetry, desperation and necessity, restricted by unfair eligibility criteria, automated approach); overwhelmed by potential harms (daunted by aggressive therapy, anticipating lifestyle disruption from side effects, jeopardizing fertility and pregnancy, avoiding relapse); gaining confidence (discernible benefit in function and mental health, sharpening knowledge over time, expertise of family and peers, empowered by information); opting for alternatives (pursuing normality, suspicion of over-medicalization, seeking comprehensive solutions); and developing trust and fortifying collaboration (assurance through a personable approach, seeking consistency, supported in decisional power, resolution through respectful negotiation).

CONCLUSION

Patients with PsA lack agency in making treatment decisions and are overwhelmed by the potential harms of systemic medication. Improving knowledge and trust with medical teams in a supportive and collaborative environment, and strategies for managing risks and side effects may improve decision-making about pharmacologic management of PsA.

Show me the roads and give me a road map: Development of a patient conversation tool to improve lung cancer treatment decision-making

Objective

Evidence-based decision support resources do not exist for persons with lung cancer. We sought to develop and refine a treatment decision support, or conversation tool, to improve shared decision-making (SDM).

Methods

We conducted a multi-site study among patients with stage I-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed or had ongoing lung cancer treatment using semi-structured, cognitive qualitative interviews to assess participant understanding of content. We used an integrated approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC participated. Participants with prior cancer experiences or those with family members with prior cancer experiences reported better preparedness for cancer treatment decision-making. All participants agreed the conversation tool would be helpful to clarify their thinking about values, comparisons, and goals of treatment, and to help patients communicate more effectively with their clinicians.

Conclusion

Participants reported that the tool may empower them with confidence and agency to actively participate in cancer treatment SDM. The conversation tool was acceptable, comprehensible, and usable. Next steps will test effectiveness on patient-centered and decisional outcomes.

Innovation

A personalized conversation tool using consequence tables and core SDM components is novel in that it can encourage a tailored, conversational dynamic and includes patient-centered values along with traditional decisional outcomes.

Prudence in end-of-life decision making: A virtue-based analysis of physician communication with patients and surrogates

Despite significant improvements in end-of-life care over several decades, belated hospice referrals and hospital staffing patterns make challenging end-of-life conversations between strangers unsurprising, especially when the interaction is time-sensitive. Understanding how physicians perform under these circumstances is relevant to patient quality and medical education. This study is a secondary analysis of transcripts from a simulation that placed 88 intensivists, hospitalists, and ED physicians in the setting of responding to a nurse's call to evaluate a floor patient for impending respiratory collapse. A philosophical account of prudence guided the analytical approach and was operationalized through behavior-based and exemplar-based qualitative coding strategies. Exemplary performances and specific behaviors were then compared with preferred outcomes. Results indicate that exemplary performance correlated with a cluster of 3 behaviors that predicted the desired outcomes, but did not determine them: (1) directly affirming the likelihood that the patient will die in the near term; (2) explicitly soliciting the patient's preferences for care; and (3) asking what other family and friends should be involved. The current study implies that educational initiatives aimed at improving end-of-life conversations should expose clinicians both to technical competencies and to the virtues required to employ these competencies well.

Validation of the Novel Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Team Building in Patient-Centered Care

To support patients in making complex and difficult decisions, it is necessary to form a team that comprises different specialists, the patient, and family members who have detailed information about the latter. Shared decision-making (SDM) is the foundation of patient-centered care; however, its structure in the context of multidisciplinary teams remains unclear. This cross-sectional study aimed to validate the novel interprofessional SDM measure ("Group's SDM measure"). We used data of 175 participants who attended SDM Workshops for Advance Care Planning. The Group's SDM measure included 10 Japanese items that could be used by small groups of multidisciplinary professionals, and the responses were rated using a 6-point Likert scale. The index exhibited a single-factor structure and high goodness of fit with residual correlation via factor analysis. We calculated Cronbach's α (α = 0.948) and McDonald's ω (ω = 0.948) and verified high internal consistency. The Group's SDM measure can be used when evaluating the SDM process where multidisciplinary professionals are involved. We hope that in the future, it will lead to the promotion of interprofessional SDM through training with the use of this measure.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Pediatric Shared Decision-Making for Simple and Complex Decisions: Findings From a Delphi Panel

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations for pediatric shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi method study from 2020 to 2021 with an international panel (n = 21) of clinicians, researchers, and parents with expertise in pediatric SDM. We conducted semistructured interviews to identify the key processes of pediatric SDM. We coded the interviews using content analysis and developed a questionnaire on the potential processes of pediatric SDM. Using a Likert scale, panelists evaluated each process twice, once for simple decisions and once for complex decisions. Panelists were provided with a summary of the results and evaluated each process again. The processes that were agreed on for simple and complex decisions were reported as "fundamental processes." The processes that were agreed on for complex decisions were reported as "additional processes."

RESULTS

A total of 79 recommendations were developed, including 29 fundamental processes and 14 additional processes for complex decisions. A recurring theme was the importance of personalizing the decision-making process. For example, the panel recommended that physicians should assess the family and child's desired roles in the decision-making process, assess their desired level of directiveness, and elicit and clarify their values, preferences, and goals. The panel also disagreed on several subprocesses, such as how to determine the child's role and the appropriate level of directiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

An international expert panel developed recommendations for pediatric SDM for both simple and complex decisions. The recommendations highlight the importance of personalizing the decision-making process.

Shared Decision Making Among Older Adults With Advanced CKD

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) face difficult decisions about dialysis initiation. Although shared decision making (SDM) can help align patient preferences and values with treatment options, the extent to which older patients with CKD experience SDM remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis of patient surveys examining decisional readiness, treatment options education, care partner support, and SDM.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 70 years or older from Boston, Chicago, San Diego, or Portland (Maine) with nondialysis advanced CKD.

PREDICTORS

Decisional readiness factors, treatment options education, and care partner support.

OUTCOMES

Primary: SDM measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) instrument, with higher scores reflecting greater SDM. Exploratory: Factors associated with SDM.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We used multivariable linear regression models to examine the associations between SDM and predictors, controlling for demographic and health factors.

RESULTS

Among 350 participants, mean age was 78 ± 6 years, 58% were male, 13% identified as Black, and 48% had diabetes. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 52 ± 28. SDM item agreement ranged from 41% of participants agreeing that "my doctor and I selected a treatment option together" to 73% agreeing that "my doctor told me that there are different options for treating my medical condition." In multivariable analysis adjusted for demographic characteristics, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and diabetes, being "well informed" and "very well informed" about kidney treatment options, having higher decisional certainty, and attendance at a kidney treatment options class were independently associated with higher SDM-Q-9 scores.

LIMITATIONS

The cross-sectional study design limits the ability to make temporal associations between SDM and the predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Many older patients with CKD do not experience SDM when making dialysis decisions, emphasizing the need for greater access to and delivery of education for individuals with advanced CKD.

Midwives' empathy and shared decision making from women's perspective - sensitivity of an assessment to compare quality of care in prenatal and obstetric care

Background

For quality-oriented evaluation of prenatal and obstetric care, it is important to systematically consider the perspective of the women receiving care in order to comprehensively assess and optimize quality in a woman-centered manner. Empathy and Shared Decision Making (SDM) are essential components of woman-centered midwifery care. The aim of the study was to analyze measurement invariance of the items of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) and Shared Decision Making-Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) scales depending on the prenatal versus obstetric care setting.

Methods

One hundred fifty women retrospectively assessed aspects of woman-centered midwifery care in both prenatal and obstetric care setting. The birth of the child was a maximum of 12 months ago. A structural equation modelling approach was adopted to separate true effects from response shift (RS) effects depending on care setting. The latter were analyzed in terms of recalibration (changing women’s internal measurement standards), Reprioritization (changing associations of items and construct) as well as Reconceptualization (redefining the target construct).

Results

A response shift model was identified for both assessments (pregnancy/birth: CFI = .96/.96; SRMR = .046/.051). At birth, both scales indicated lower quality of care compared with prenatal care (SDM-Q-9-M/CARE-8-M:|d| = 0.190/0.392). Although no reconceptualization is required for the items of both scales, RS effects are evident for individual items. Due to recalibration and reprioritization effects, the true differences in the items are partly underestimated (SDM-Q-9-M/CARE-8-M: 3/2 items) or overestimated (4/2 items).

Conclusion

The structure of the constructs SDM and Empathy, indicating woman-centered midwifery care, are moderated by the care settings. To validly assess midwives’ empathy and shared decision making from women’s perspective, setting-dependent response shift effects have to be considered. The proven item-specific response effects contribute to a better understanding of construct characteristics in woman-centered care by midwives during pregnancy and childbirth.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-022-05041-y.

User Experience of a Computer-Based Decision Aid for Prenatal Trisomy Screening: Mixed Methods Explanatory Study

BACKGROUND

Mobile health tools can support shared decision-making. We developed a computer-based decision aid (DA) to help pregnant women and their partners make informed, value-congruent decisions regarding prenatal screening for trisomy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the usability and usefulness of computer-based DA among pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers.

METHODS

For this mixed methods sequential explanatory study, we planned to recruit a convenience sample of 45 pregnant women, 45 clinicians from 3 clinical sites, and 15 policy makers. Eligible women were aged >18 years and >16 weeks pregnant or had recently given birth. Eligible clinicians and policy makers were involved in prenatal care. We asked the participants to navigate a computer-based DA. We asked the women about the usefulness of the DA and their self-confidence in decision-making. We asked all participants about usability, quality, acceptability, satisfaction with the content of the DA, and collected sociodemographic data. We explored participants' reactions to the computer-based DA and solicited suggestions. Our interview guide was based on the Mobile App Rating Scale. We performed descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and thematic deductive and inductive analyses of the qualitative data for each participant category.

RESULTS

A total of 45 pregnant women, 14 clinicians, and 8 policy makers participated. Most pregnant women were aged between 25 and 34 years (34/45, 75%) and White (42/45, 94%). Most clinicians were aged between 35 and 44 years (5/14, 36%) and women (11/14, 79%), and all were White (14/14, 100%); the largest proportion of policy makers was aged between 45 and 54 years (4/8, 50%), women (5/8, 62%), and White (8/8, 100%). The mean usefulness score for preparing for decision-making for women was 80/100 (SD 13), and the mean self-efficacy score was 88/100 (SD 11). The mean usability score was 84/100 (SD 14) for pregnant women, 77/100 (SD 14) for clinicians, and 79/100 (SD 23) for policy makers. The mean global score for quality was 80/100 (SD 9) for pregnant women, 72/100 (SD 12) for clinicians, and 80/100 (SD 9) for policy makers. Regarding acceptability, participants found the amount of information just right (52/66, 79%), balanced (58/66, 88%), useful (38/66, 58%), and sufficient (50/66, 76%). The mean satisfaction score with the content was 84/100 (SD 13) for pregnant women, 73/100 (SD 16) for clinicians, and 73/100 (SD 20) for policy makers. Participants thought the DA could be more engaging (eg, more customizable) and suggested strategies for implementation, such as incorporating it into clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women, clinicians, and policy makers found the DA usable and useful. The next steps are to incorporate user suggestions for improving engagement and implementing the computer-based DA in clinical practice.

Effectiveness of question prompt lists in patients with breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of a question prompt list (QPL) in decision self-efficacy, decision-making participation, patient-physician communication, decisional conflict or regret, and health status in patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients with breast cancer were randomly assigned to a QPL group or control group (n = 120 each). The intervention and control groups received an additional educational QPL booklet and routine care, respectively.

RESULTS

The intervention group exhibited significant improvements in decision self-efficacy, perceived patient-physician interactions, and patient-physician communication compared with the control group. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed significant group-time interaction effects on decision self-efficacy (β = 9.99, P < 0.01), perceived patient-physician interactions (β = 8.10, P < 0.01), patient-physician communication (β = 5.02, P < 0.01), and anxiety status (β = -3.78, P < 0.05). The QPL intervention exerted more favorable effects than routine care, with repeated measurements of the same patients and the data of patients under the care of the same surgeons accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

The QPL intervention exerted multidimensional effects on decision-making outcomes among patients with breast cancer.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians can integrate a QPL into routine care for patients with breast cancer.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

Definition of a tool to assess shared decision-making (SDM) on women with breast cancer: A value-based approach

Background and Aims

In oncology, there is increasing talk of personalized treatment and shared decision-making (SDM), especially when multiple treatment options are available with different outcomes depending on patient preference. The present study aimed to define the set of main dimensions and relative tools to assess the Value brought to patients from a Breast Cancer's Clinical pathway structured according to a dynamic SDM framework.

Methods

Starting from our previous systematic review of the literature, a deep search of the main evidence-based and already validated questionnaires was carried out. In the second phase, to corroborate this grid, a Delphi survey was conducted to assess each questionnaire identified for each dimension, against the following seven value-based criteria: Clinical Benefit, Safety, Care Team Well Being, Patient Reported Outcomes Measures, Green Oncology, Impact on Health Budget, and Genomic Profile.

Results

The resulting 7-dimension questionnaire is composed of 72 questions. Of these, some quantitatively and objectively assess the evolution of the patient's disease state, whereas others aim to ask patients about their active involvement in decisions affecting them and to investigate whether they were free to explore their preferences. Furthermore, to frame the analyzed phenomenon at the right time, for each questionnaire section, the specific, evidence-based timing of administration is indicated.

Conclusion

The resulting questionnaire is validated in its entirety and it is composed of a set of questions and relative time point for data collections to assess the Value brought to patients undertaking a Breast Cancer's Clinical pathway, structured according to a dynamic SDM framework. It constitutes a quantitative instrument to integrate patient centeredness with a personalized perspective in the care management of women with breast cancer.

Applying shared decision-making to screening for trauma and adversity in youth

Youth who have experienced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) or trauma are at risk for negative outcomes that may be lessened by adversity screening and prevention efforts. However, experts and consumers do not universally embrace adversity screening efforts. Despite significant support for widespread adversity screening, and many guidelines on how to conduct such screening, successful implementation has lagged behind enthusiasm. This paper outlines the challenges of adversity screening and then proposes applying the shared decision-making (SDM) model to improve adversity screening by increasing youths' 1) engagement in adversity screening if doing so is appropriate for them, and 2) disclosure of honest information during screens. Using an SDM approach honors youth preferences and perspectives, which simultaneously accomplishes a third overarching goal: aligning adversity screening with the principles of trauma-informed care.

Utilising quality of life outcome trajectories to aid patient decision making in pelvic exenteration

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making in pelvic exenteration is a complex and detailed process, which must balance clinical, oncological and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), whilst addressing and valuing the patient priorities. Communicating patient-centred information on quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes is an essential component of this. The aim of this systematic review was to understand the impact of pelvic exenteration on QoL PROs over a longitudinal period and to develop QoL trajectories to support decision-making in this context.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched between 1^st January 2000 and 20^th December 2021 Studies reporting on PROs, including QoL, in adults undergoing pelvic exenteration were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Data from studies reporting QoL using the same outcome measure at the same candidate timepoint were extracted and synthesised to develop a longitudinal QoL trajectory.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies consisting of 1370 patients were included in this review. QoL trajectories were constructed in the domains of physical function, psychological function, role function, sexual function, body image and general and specific symptoms. Decision-making was only assessed by one study, with satisfaction with decision-making reported to be high. There is an initial decline in QoL scores in the domains of physical function, role function, sexual function, body image and general health and symptoms deteriorating during the first 3-6 months post-operatively. Psychological function is the only QoL domain that remains stable throughout the post-operative period.

CONCLUSION

Mapping QoL trajectories provides a visual representation of post-operative progress, highlighting the enduring impact of pelvic exenteration on patients and can be used to inform pre-operative shared decision-making.

Speech recognition can help evaluate shared decision making and predict medication adherence in primary care setting

OBJECTIVE

Asthma is a common chronic illness affecting 19 million US adults. Inhaled corticosteroids are a safe and effective treatment for asthma, yet, medication adherence among patients remains poor. Shared decision-making, a patient activation strategy, can improve patient adherence to inhaled corticosteroids. This study aimed to explore whether audio-recorded patient-primary care provider encounters can be used to: 1. Evaluate the level of patient-perceived shared decision-making during the encounter, and 2. Predict levels of patient's inhaled corticosteroid adherence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Shared decision-making and inhaled corticosteroid adherence were assessed using the SDM Questionnaire-9 and the Medication Adherence Report Scale for Asthma (MARS-A). Speech-to-text algorithms were used to automatically transcribe 80 audio-recorded encounters between primary care providers and asthmatic patients. Machine learning algorithms (Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machines, Decision Tree) were applied to achieve the study's predictive goals.

RESULTS

The accuracy of automated speech-to-text transcription was relatively high (ROUGE F-score = .9). Machine learning algorithms achieved good predictive performance for shared decision-making (the highest F-score = .88 for the Naive Bayes) and inhaled corticosteroid adherence (the highest F-score = .87 for the Support Vector Machines).

DISCUSSION

This was the first study that trained machine learning algorithms on a dataset of audio-recorded patient-primary care provider encounters to successfully evaluate the quality of SDM and predict patient inhaled corticosteroid adherence.

CONCLUSION

Machine learning approaches can help primary care providers identify patients at risk for poor medication adherence and evaluate the quality of care by measuring levels of shared decision-making. Further work should explore the replicability of our results in larger samples and additional health domains.

Associations between health literacy and information-evaluation and decision-making skills in Japanese adults

Background

Health literacy among Japanese is often low, making it difficult for them to evaluate health information and make informed decisions. However, the health literacy scales applied measure the perceived difficulty of health-related tasks; they do not directly assess the specific skills needed to perform the tasks: the skills to judge the reliability of diverse information using evaluation criteria and implement rational decision-making. Therefore, the study objectives were to investigate the following issues using a nationwide survey in Japan. (1) When obtaining information, to what extent do people apply criteria for evaluating information to confirm its reliability; when making decisions, to what extent do they seek out available options and compare pros and cons based on their own values? (2) How strongly are such skills associated with health literacy and demographic characteristics? (3) What opportunities are available to learn these skills?

Methods

We conducted an online questionnaire survey using a Japanese Internet research company; 3,914 valid responses were received. The measures comprised health literacy (European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire), five items on information evaluation, four items on decision-making, and items on the availability and location of learning opportunities. We calculated Pearson correlations to explore the association of health literacy with information-evaluation and decision-making skills. Multivariate analyses were also conducted using these factors as dependent variables.

Results

Fewer than half (30%–50%) of respondents reported always or often evaluating information and engaging in decision-making. Health literacy was significantly and positively correlated with the specific skills of information evaluation and decision-making (r = .26 and .30, respectively) as were multivariate analyses (beta = .15 and .22, respectively).

Over 40% of respondents had never learned those skills. The most common resources for learning the skills were the Internet and television; less-used resources were schools and workplaces.

Conclusions

Both information-evaluation and decision-making skills were associated with health literacy. However, these skills are not sufficiently widespread in Japan because there are few opportunities to acquire them. More research is needed to raise awareness of the importance of such skills for improving health literacy and providing learning opportunities.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13892-5.

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.