Re-thinking shared decision-making: context matters

Ill persons and capable workers: Constructing work ability in return-to-work negotiations after sickness absence

In return-to-work (RTW) negotiations after sickness absence, the work ability of an individual employee becomes a shared interest for the multiple stakeholders representing both the healthcare sector and working life. In practice, the employee, employer and occupational health professionals need to reach a shared understanding of the employee's work ability to enable shared decision-making concerning the plans for sustainable RTW. Drawing on 14 video-recorded RTW negotiations, we used conversation analysis-informed membership categorization analysis to examine how the participants of RTW negotiations discuss the work ability of an employee to pursue a shared understanding of the situation. Work ability was constructed in a very situational way, using illness categories to both explain the work ability of the employee and argue for or against their ability or inability to work. Our study contributes to research on RTW by introducing a new perspective to work ability. We show how work ability is realized during RTW negotiations through interaction, and how participants leverage their cultural understanding of illness and capability when negotiating work ability. We also demonstrate how membership categorization analysis can reveal the situational and consequential aspects of illness and work ability categories.

An "ethics of strangers"? On knowing the patient in clinical ethics

The shape and function of ethical imperatives may vary if the context is an interaction between strangers, or those who are well acquainted. This idea, taken up from Stephen Toulmin's distinction between an "ethics of strangers" and an "ethics of intimacy", can be applied to encounters in healthcare. There are situations where healthcare personnel (HCP) know their patients (corresponding to an "ethics of intimacy") and situations where HCP do not know their patients (corresponding to "an ethics of strangers"). Does it make a difference for normative imperatives that follow from central concepts and principles in medical ethics whether HCP know their patients or not? In our view, this question has not yet been answered satisfactorily. Once we have clarified what is meant by "knowing the patient", we will show that the distinction is particularly relevant with regard to some thorny questions of autonomy in healthcare (e.g., regarding advance directives or paternalism in the name of autonomy), whereas the differences with regard to imperatives following from the principles of justice and beneficence seem to be smaller. We provide a detailed argument for why knowing the patient is ethically valuable in encounters in healthcare. Consequently, healthcare systems should provide fertile ground for HCP to get to know their patients, and structures that foster therapeutic continuity. For this to succeed, a number of questions still need to be clarified, which is an important task for medical ethics.

Tensions in caring for chronic patients' medication adherence: A qualitative study in Cyprus

Medication adherence (MA) to recommended treatment is a multi-faceted problem and an ongoing challenge for healthcare providers (HCPs) to monitor. This qualitative study with 10 HCPs in Cyprus aims to explore HCPs' perceptions and strategies used on addressing medication non-adherence (MNA) in patients with chronic conditions. Two main themes emerged from the analysis reflecting the ways that HCPs described their reactions to MNA of their patients: (1) "Relying on information provision to improve MA" and (2) "Trying to understand patients' perspective." HCPs reported empathizing with patients and engaging in discussions to understand patients' perspective and reasons for MNA, so as to explore alternative solutions. Simultaneously, some HCPs reflected that the techniques used to improve MA are solely centered around information on medication and side-effects. HCPs experienced an internal conflict between providing patient-centered care versus using directive approaches to improve MA. Findings suggest how HCPs could thoroughly address patients' individual barriers.

To become part of the team-patient experiences of participating in decision-making for a new treatment (proton beam therapy)

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore patients' experience of participation in the treatment decision of proton beam therapy versus conventional radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND

Proton beam therapy (PBT) has become a treatment option for some cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. The decision to give PBT instead of conventional radiotherapy (CRT) needs to be carefully planned together with the patient to ensure that the degree of participation is based on individuals' preferences. There is a knowledge gap of successful approaches to support patients' participation in the decision-making process, which is particularly important when it comes to the situation of having to choose between two treatment options such as PBT and CRT, with similar expected outcomes.

METHOD

We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data collected from interviews with patients who received PBT for their brain tumor. Transcribed verbatims from interviews with 22 patients were analyzed regarding experiences of participation in the decision-making process leading to PBT.

FINDINGS

Participants experienced their participation in the decision-making process to a varying degree, and with individual preferences. Four themes emerged from data: to be a voice that matters, to get control over what will happen, being in the hand of doctors' choice, and feeling selected for treatment.

CONCLUSION

A decision for treatment with PBT can be experienced as a privilege but can also cause stress as it might entail practical issues affecting everyday life in a considerable way. For the patient to have confidence in the decision-making process, patients' preferences, expectations, and experiences must be included by the healthcare team. Including the patient in the healthcare team as an equal partner by confirming the person enables and facilitates for patients' voice to be heard and reckoned with. Person-centered care building on a partnership between patients and healthcare professionals should provide the right basis for the decision-making process.

Subjective Rationalities of Nonadherence to Treatment and Vaccination in Healthcare Decision-Making

Objective

In this short report contributing to the literature on treatment and vaccination adherence, nonadherence was examined from the perspective of decision-making (DM) practice in healthcare. The objective of this study was to survey the rationalities given for treatment nonadherence and their association with DM practice.

Methods

The Ottawa decision Support Framework was used as a theoretical background for the study. Multiple choice and open-text responses indicating nonadherence were drawn from vignette survey data. The results have been analyzed and reported as descriptive statistics and findings of data-driven content analysis. The number of observatory units was 1032 in the within-subject study design.

Results

DM practice was predominantly associated with nonadherence to vaccination, whereas nonadherence to treatment was consistently associated with attitudinal reasons independent of DM practice. Nonadherence to vaccination was most often rationalized by prior negative experiences in simple DM scenarios. After other DM practices, nonadherence was rationalized by uncertainty and criticism about the benefits of the recommended vaccine. Mistrust toward healthcare providers stood out, first in treatment nonadherence generally and, second, in vaccination nonadherence after simple DM where the final decision was left to the patient.

Conclusion

In medical DM, adherence to treatment and vaccination may be achieved through a recognition of patients' previous healthcare encounters and potential trust-related concerns, which could pose a risk for nonadherence. To be able to observe these risks, patient engagement and mutual trust should be priorities in decision support in healthcare.

Decision to self-isolate during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Testing for COVID-19 was a key component of the UK's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This strategy relied on positive individuals self-isolating to reduce transmission, making isolation the lynchpin in the public health approach. Therefore, we scoped evidence to systematically identify and categorise barriers and facilitators to compliance with self-isolation guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, to inform public health strategies in future pandemics.

DESIGN

A rapid scoping review was conducted.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Key terms were used to search literature databases (PubMed, Scopus and the WHO COVID-19 Research Database, on 7 November 2022), Google Scholar and stakeholder-identified manuscripts, ultimately including evidence published in English from UK-based studies conducted between 2020 and 2022.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted and synthesised into themes, organised broadly into capability, opportunity and motivation, and reviewed with key stakeholders from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

RESULTS

We included 105 sources, with 63 identified from UKHSA and used to inform their decision-making during the pandemic. Influences on the decision to comply with isolation guidance were categorised into six themes: perceived ability to isolate; information and guidance; logistics; social influences, including trust; perceived value; and perceived consequences. Individuals continuously assessed these factors in deciding whether or not to comply with guidance and self-isolate.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions to self-isolate after a positive test were influenced by multiple factors, including individuals' beliefs, concerns, priorities and personal circumstances. Future testing strategies must facilitate meaningful financial, practical and mental health support to allow individuals to overcome the perceived and actual negative consequences of isolating. Clear, consistent communication of the purpose and procedures of isolating will also be critical to support compliance with self-isolation guidance, and should leverage people's perceived value in protecting others. Building public trust is also essential, but requires investment before the next pandemic starts.

Exploring the medical decision-making patterns and influencing factors among the general Chinese public: a binary logistic regression analysis

OBJECTIVE

With the ongoing evolution of the healthcare system and shifts in cultural paradigms, there is a pressing need to delve into the medical decision-making behaviors of general Chinese public and understand their underlying motivations. This research seeks to elucidate the prevailing tendencies in these decision-making processes and to empirically validate the pivotal factors that shape their choices, offering valuable insights for healthcare policymakers and institutions.

METHOD

A comprehensive survey was administered to 2,696 Chinese residents to examine their medical decision-making patterns. These patterns were classified into two primary categories: Unilateral Decision-making (Doctor-dominant, Family-centric, and Patient-driven subtypes) and Collaborative Decision-making (Doctor-led, Doctor-Patient, Patient-Family, and Doctor-Patient-Family subtypes). Binary logistic regression analysis was employed to empirically pinpoint the significant factors influencing these decision-making frameworks.

RESULTS

The study's analysis reveals distinct preferences in medical decision-making among Chinese residents. In the Collaborative Decision-making category, chosen by 70.81% of participants, the subtypes are as follows: Doctor-led (29.90%), Doctor-Patient (13.54%), Patient-Family (2.93%), and Doctor-Patient-Family (24.44%). The Unilateral Decision-making, preferred by 29.19%, includes Doctor-dominant (23.22%), Family-centric (1.74%), and Patient-driven (4.23%) models. The preference for Collaborative Decision-making is associated with higher educational levels, specific marital statuses (particularly married but childless), and choices of rural residents' basic medical insurance or occupational basic medical insurance. In contrast, Unilateral Decision-making correlates with males, individuals with religious beliefs, certain occupational roles (like civil servants), and holders of commercial or publicly funded medical insurance.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidates the complex interplay of socio-cultural and individual determinants shaping medical decision-making in China. The findings reveal a marked inclination towards collaborative models, closely linked to educational level, marital status, and specific insurance types, reflecting an evolving trend towards participatory healthcare. Simultaneously, the persistence of unilateral models, influenced by gender, religious beliefs, and occupational roles, highlights the heterogeneity within Chinese healthcare preferences. These insights are crucial for policymakers and healthcare practitioners, underscoring the need for adaptable, culturally attuned healthcare frameworks that cater to this diversity, thereby enhancing patient engagement and healthcare efficacy.

Position statement of ANCP and SBGG on shared decision-making in palliative care

Health care for patients with serious illnesses usually implies the need to make a large number of decisions, ranging from how information is shared to which diagnostic or therapeutic procedures will be adopted. The method of such decision-making has important implications from an individual and collective point of view and may contribute to either relieving or aggravating suffering. In this consensus document, the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian National Academy of Palliative Care (ANCP) and the Permanent Committee on Palliative Care of the Brazilian Geriatrics and Gerontology Society (SBGG) adopt the principles of compassionate listening proposed by Saunders, of the nature of suffering proposed by Cassel, of dignity-preserving care proposed by Chochinov, and of cultural humility as a starting point for the construction of an official position of ANCP and SBGG on shared decision-making in palliative care. The position statement posits that, unlike paternalistic and consumerist models, the decision-making process in the sphere of palliative care must follow the mutualistic model of shared decision, where decisions are built based on dialogue between healthcare professionals and patients/family. The document sets forth the assumptions of this process, the limits of autonomy of patients/family and healthcare professionals and the distinction between futile and potentially inappropriate treatments, besides ratifying its incompatibility with any forms of coercion and conflict of interest foreign to the best interests of patients.

Identifying residents' educational needs to optimising postgraduate medical education about shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how to optimise resident engagement during workplace learning of shared decision-making (SDM) by understanding their educational needs.

METHODS

A qualitative multicentre study was conducted using video-stimulated interviews with 17 residents in General Practice. Video recordings of residents' recent clinical encounters were used to facilitate reflection on their educational needs.

RESULTS

Data analysis resulted in five themes regarding residents' educational needs for learning SDM: acquiring knowledge and skills needed to perform SDM; practising SDM; reflection and feedback; longitudinal and integrated training; and awareness and motivation for performing SDM.

CONCLUSION

Residents expressed a need for continuous attention to be paid to SDM during postgraduate medical education. That would help them engage in two parallel learning processes: acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to perform SDM, and practising SDM in the clinical workplace. Alignment between the educational curriculum, workplace learning and resident learning activities is essential to operationalise SDM attitude, knowledge and skills into clinical performance.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The identified educational needs provide ingredients for fostering the development of SDM proficiency. The findings suggest that residents and clinical supervisors need parallel training to bridge the gap between education and clinical practice when learning SDM.

Shared decision making, patient-centered communication and patient satisfaction - A cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

The integration of shared decision making (SDM) and patient-centered communication (PCC) is needed to actively involve patients in decision making. This study examined the relationship between shared decision making and patient-centered communication.

METHODS

In 82 videotaped hospital outpatient consultations by 41 medical specialists from 18 disciplines, we assessed the extent of shared decision making by the OPTION⁵ score and patient-centered communication by the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), and analyzed the occurrence of a high versus low degree (above or below median) of SDM and/or PCC, and its relation to patient satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

In comparison to earlier studies, we observed comparable 4HCS scores and relatively low OPTION⁵ scores. The correlation between the two was weak (r = 0.29, p = 0.009). In 38% of consultations, we observed a combination of high SDM and low PCC scores or vice versa. The combination of a high SDM and high PCC, which was observed in 23% of consultations, was associated with significantly higher patient satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision making and patient-centered communication are not synonymous and do not always co-exist.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The value of integrated training of shared decision making and patient-centered communication should be further explored.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Clinical reasoning as midwifery: A Socratic model for shared decision making in person-centred care

Shared decision making has become the standard of care, yet there remains no consensus about how it should be conducted. Most accounts are concerned with threats to patient autonomy, and they address the dangers of a power imbalance by foregrounding the patient as a person whose complex preferences it is the practitioner's task to support. Other corrective models fear that this level of mutuality risks abdicating the practitioner's responsibilities as an expert, and they address that concern by recovering a nuanced but genuinely directive clinical role. Cribb and Entwistle helpfully categorize models of shared decision making as 'narrower' and 'broader' and praise the latter's 'open-ended and fully dialogical ways of relating'. However, they stop short of providing a philosophical account of how that dialogue works. In this paper, a nurse-midwife and a philosopher collaborate to argue that the Socratic model of dialogue offers a solution to the practitioner-patient dilemma. In the Theaetetus, Socrates compares dialogical reasoning to 'midwifery with all its standard features'. By means of a three-way analogy, elements of midwifery practice are used to illuminate features of Socrates' claim that his dialogue is like midwifery; those features are then translated into an approach to shared decision making as the 'midwifery of good thinking' which both midwives and physicians would do well to adopt. A key concept that emerges is the need for practitioners to make a risk-confidence assessment of the particular content of any decision to appropriately modulate their role in the practice of shared decision making.

Developing country-specific questions about end-of-life care for nursing home residents with advanced dementia using the nominal group technique with family caregivers

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop question prompt lists (QPLs) for family caregivers of nursing home residents with advanced dementia in the context of a study involving Canada, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and to explore cross-national differences. QPLs can encourage family caregivers to ask questions about their relative's end-of-life care.

METHODS

We used nominal group methods to create country-specific QPLs. Family caregivers read an information booklet about end-of-life care for people with dementia, and generated questions to ask healthcare professionals. They also selected questions from a shortlist. We analyzed and compared the QPLs using content analysis.

RESULTS

Four to 20 family caregivers per country were involved. QPLs ranged from 15 to 24 questions. A quarter (24%) of the questions appeared in more than one country's QPL. One question was included in all QPLs: "Can you tell me more about palliative care in dementia?".

CONCLUSION

Family caregivers have many questions about dementia palliative care, but the local context may influence which questions specifically. Local end-user input is thus important to customize QPLs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Prompts for family caregivers should attend to the unique information preferences among different countries. Further research is needed to evaluate the QPLs' use.

Position statement of ANCP and SBGG on shared decision-making in palliative care

Health care for patients with serious illnesses usually implies the need to make a large number of decisions, ranging from how information is shared to which diagnostic or therapeutic procedures will be adopted. The method of such decision-making has important implications from an individual and collective point of view and may contribute to either relieving or aggravating suffering. In this consensus document, the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian National Academy of Palliative Care (ANCP) and the Permanent Committee on Palliative Care of the Brazilian Geriatrics and Gerontology Society (SBGG) adopt the principles of compassionate listening proposed by Saunders, of the nature of suffering proposed by Cassel, of dignity-preserving care proposed by Chochinov, and of cultural humility as a starting point for the construction of an official position of ANCP and SBGG on shared decision-making in palliative care. The position statement posits that, unlike paternalistic and consumerist models, the decision-making process in the sphere of palliative care must follow the mutualistic model of shared decision, where decisions are built based on dialogue between healthcare professionals and patients/family. The document sets forth the assumptions of this process, the limits of autonomy of patients/family and healthcare professionals and the distinction between futile and potentially inappropriate treatments, besides ratifying its incompatibility with any forms of coercion and conflict of interest foreign to the best interests of patients.

Knowledge sharing to support long-term condition self-management-Patient and health-care professional perspectives

Background

Increased self‐management is a suggested solution to the burden on health‐care services of long‐term conditions (LTCs). This requires effective sharing of knowledge between health‐care professionals and patients, and is an underexplored area.

Objective

To understand how patients and health‐care professionals (HCPs) share and utilize knowledge in the social context of health‐care interactions within long‐term condition management.

Methods

Thematic analysis of 93 hours of observations of health‐care interactions and 33 semi‐structured interviews involving patients, carers and HCPs.

Results

3 themes were identified: normative social roles, differing professional roles and the value of knowledge. Knowledge sharing was a complex process heavily influenced by social and cultural norms within the health‐care context. Not all knowledge was easily shared within routine health‐care interactions.

Discussion

The social context in which health‐care is practised influences what knowledge is shared and how this is achieved. It favours sharing of clinical knowledge from HCPs to patients and disadvantages patients in their ability to share their unique knowledge based on lived experience of illness. The opportunities for patients to be supported in their knowledge, skills and confidence within routine health‐care interactions are limited.

Conclusion

Both patients and HCPs need support to recognize the characteristics of the social context of health care and their understandings of their roles within this in order for them to move beyond accepted behaviours to develop more effective partnership working.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients were involved in initial design of the study, particularly ethics of ethnographic observation.

Shared Decision Making in Primary Care Based Depression Treatment: Communication and Decision-Making Preferences Among an Underserved Patient Population

Objectives: Although depression is a significant public health issue, many individuals experiencing depressive symptoms are not effectively linked to treatment by their primary care provider, with underserved populations have disproportionately lower rates of engagement in depression care. Shared decision making (SDM) is an evidence-based health communication framework that can improve collaboration and optimize treatment for patients, but there is much unknown about how to translate SDM into primary care depression treatment among underserved communities. This study seeks to explore patients' experiences of SDM, and articulate communication and decision-making preferences among an underserved patient population receiving depression treatment in an urban, safety net primary care clinic. Methods: Twenty-seven patients with a depressive disorder completed a brief, quantitative survey and an in-depth semi-structured interview. Surveys measured patient demographics and their subjective experience of SDM. Qualitative interview probed for patients' communication preferences, including ideal decision-making processes around depression care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Univariate statistics report quantitative findings. Results: Overall qualitative and quantitative findings indicate high levels of SDM. Stigma related to depression negatively affected patients' initial attitude toward seeking treatment, and underscored the importance of patient-provider rapport. In terms of communication and decision-making preferences, patients preferred collaboration with doctors during the information sharing process, but desired control over the final, decisional outcome. Trust between patients and providers emerged as a critical precondition to effective SDM. Respondents highlighted several provider behaviors that helped facilitated such an optimal environment for SDM to occur. Conclusion: Underserved patients with depression preferred taking an active role in their depression care, but looked for providers as partner in this process. Due to the stigma of depression, effective SDM first requires primary care providers to ensure that they have created a safe and trusting environment where patients are able to discuss their depression openly.

The delicate balance of communicational interests: A Bakhtinian view of social media in health care

Purpose

This paper aims to use the writings of Mikhail Bakhtin to reveal new insights into the role and impact of social media in health-care settings.

Design/methodology/approach

With the help of Bakhtin’s constructs of dialogism, polyphony, heteroglossia and carnival, the power and influences of the social media phenomenon in health-care settings, are explored.

Findings

It is apparent from the in-depth analysis conducted that there is a delicate balance between the need to increase dialogue and the need to safeguard public health, in the use of social media for health-related communication. Bakhtin‘s constructs elucidate this delicate balance and highlight the need for health-care providers that use social media to find the right balance between these competing communicational priorities.

Originality/value

This paper advances a nascent theoretical approach to social media research. By applying Bakhtinian ideas to consumer health informatics, this paper has the potential to open a new approach to theorizing the role of social software in health-care settings. Stakeholders in digital health will find this paper useful, as it opens up dialogue to further discuss the role of social media in health care.

Managing Chronic Pain in an Opioid Crisis: What Is the Role of Shared Decision-Making?

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a widely-advocated practice that has been linked to improved patient adherence, satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. SDM is a process in which patients and providers share information, express opinions, and build consensus toward a treatment decision. Chronic pain and its treatment present unique challenges for SDM, especially in the current environment in which opioids are viewed as harmful and a national opioid crisis has been declared. The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand treatment decision-making with patients taking opioids for chronic pain. Ninety-five clinic visits and 31 interviews with patients and primary care providers (PCPs) were analyzed using the constant comparison method. Results revealed that 1) PCPs desire patient participation in treatment decisions, but with caveats where opioids are concerned; 2) Disagreements about opioids, including perceptions of lack of listening, presented challenges to SDM; and 3) PCPs described engaging in persuasion or negotiation to convince patients to try alternatives to opioids, or appeasing patients requesting opioids with very small amounts in an effort to maintain the patient-provider relationship. Results are discussed through the lens of Charles, Gafni, and Whelan's SDM model, and implications of the role of the patient-provider relationship in SDM and chronic pain treatment are discussed.

"Along for the Ride": A Qualitative Study Exploring Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of Decision Making in Cancer Care

Background. Shared decision making is a cornerstone of an informed consent process for cancer treatment, yet there are often many physician and patient-related barriers to participation in the process. Decisions in cancer care are often perceived as relating to a discrete, treatment decision event, yet there is evidence that decisions are longitudinal in nature and reflect a multifactorial experience. Objective. To explore patient and caregiver perceptions of the choices and decision-making opportunities within cancer care. Design. Qualitative in-depth interviews with 37 cancer patients and 7 caregivers carried out as part of an evaluation of a cancer center’s effort to improve patient experience. Results. Participants described decision making related to four distinct phases in complex cancer care, with physicians leading, and often limiting, decisions related to disease assessment and treatment options and access, and patients leading decisions related to physician selection. Though physicians led many decisions, patients had a moderating influence on treatment, such that if patients did not like options presented, they would reconsider their options and sometimes switch physicians. Patients had various strategies for dealing with uncertainty when faced with decisions, such as seeking additional information to make an informed choice or making a conscious choice to defer decision making to the physician. Limitations. Patients were sampled from one academic cancer center that serves a predominantly Caucasian, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino population and received complex treatment. Conclusion. Because of the complexity of cancer treatment, many patients felt as though they were a “passenger” in decision making about care and did not lead many of the decisions, though many patients trusted their doctors to make the best decisions and were comforted by their expertise.

Education makes people take their medication: myth or maxim?

Education on its own doesn't make people take their treatment as intended. However, when it follows shared decision making, in which patient and doctor together agree on the best course of therapeutic action, education helps patients take their treatment. http://bit.ly/2G2XswD.

Opportunity or Burden? A Behavioral Framework for Patient Engagement

BACKGROUND

Engaging patients as partners in their care is clinically appealing, yet challenging to implement, and we lack a measurement framework that is applicable to vulnerable populations. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study to refine a conceptual framework that reflects an individual's propensity to engage with care.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to refine the framework's domains of engagement behavior; identify key behaviors within each domain that describe engagement with providers, health systems or settings; and illustrate examples for each behavior where higher self-efficacy describes an opportunity to enhance engagement, and lower self-efficacy describes difficulties with engagement that risk burden.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND SAMPLE

We elicited patient perspectives by conducting individual semistructured interviews with veterans receiving care for mental health and/or chronic conditions from the Veterans Health Administration. Data were analyzed using the framework method.

RESULTS

The resulting engagement framework encompassed 4 interrelated domains: Self-Management, Health Information Use, Collaborative Communication, and Healthcare Navigation. The propensity to engage with care was conceptualized as the cumulative self-efficacy to engage in behaviors across these domains. Results emphasize the collaborative nature of engagement behaviors and the impact of veteran cultural influences via perceptions of collective efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This framework can be applied to judgments regarding a patient's propensity to engage in care. Because self-efficacy is an individual's context-specific judgment of their capabilities, this framework may inform health care and social service interventions that aim to engage patients. This maybe especially useful for public sector settings and populations with social risks.

Patient-Clinician Communication About Pain: A Conceptual Model and Narrative Review

Objective

Productive patient-clinician communication is an important component of effective pain management, but we know little about how patients and clinicians actually talk about pain in clinical settings and how it might be improved to produce better patient outcomes. The objective of this review was to create a conceptual model of patient-clinician communication about noncancer pain, review and synthesize empirical research in this area, and identify priorities for future research.

Methods

A conceptual model was developed that drew on existing pain and health communication research. CINAHL, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting empirical data on patient-clinician communication about noncancer pain; results were supplemented with manual searches. Studies were categorized and analyzed to identify crosscutting themes and inform model development.

Results

The conceptual model comprised the following components: contextual factors, clinical interaction, attitudes and beliefs, and outcomes. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria and were analyzed based on model components. Studies varied widely in quality, methodology, and sample size. Two provisional conclusions were identified: contrary to what is often reported in the literature, discussions about analgesics are most frequently characterized by patient-clinician agreement, and self-presentation during patient-clinician interactions plays an important role in communication about pain and opioids.

Conclusions

Published studies on patient-clinician communication about noncancer pain are few and diverse. The conceptual model presented here can help to identify knowledge gaps and guide future research on communication about pain. Investigating the links between communication and pain-related outcomes is an important priority for future research.

How clients solicit medication changes in psychiatry

In psychiatry, practitioners are encouraged to adopt a patient-centred approach that emphasises shared decision-making. In this article, we investigate how clients with severe mental illnesses (e.g. schizophrenia) advocate for their treatment preferences in psychiatric consultations. The study uses Conversation Analysis to examine audio-recorded medication check appointments in a comprehensive treatment programme known as assertive community treatment (ACT). The analysis shows that clients solicit medication changes at activity boundaries and design them in one of the following ways: reporting a physical problem; reporting a medication problem; explicitly requesting a medication change; and demanding a change. These formats put pressure on the psychiatrist to respond by either offering a solution to the client's problem or by accepting or rejecting the client's request. Through a detailed analysis of clients' communicative behaviours, we show that, in soliciting a medication change, clients ordinarily respect boundaries of medical authority and present themselves as 'good' patients who are reliable witnesses of their own experiences. Overall, the paper advances our understanding of patient advocacy in psychiatry and mental health interactions more generally.

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

OBJECTIVE

To identify determinants of older patients' perceptions of involvement in decision-making on colorectal (CRC) or pancreatic cancer (PC) treatment, and to compare these with determinants of observers' perceptions.

METHODS

Patients' perceptions of involvement were constructed by the 9-item SDM questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and a Visual Analogue Scale for Involvement (VAS-I). Observers' perceptions were constructed by the OPTION5, OPTION12, and MAPPIN'SDM. Convergent validities were calculated between the patient-sided and observer instruments using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Linear regression was used to identify determinants per criterion.

RESULTS

58 CRC and 22 PC patients were included (mean age: 71.8 ± 5.2 years, 45.0% female). No significant correlations were found between the patient-sided and observer instruments. Patients' impression of involvement was influenced by patient characteristics such as quality of life and satisfaction, while observers' perceptions mainly referred to encounter characteristics such as the mean duration of consultations and general communication skills.

CONCLUSION

Due to evident differences in determinants, older CRC/PC patients' and observers' perceptions of involvement should both be collected in evaluating the quality of medical decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

General communication skills should be integrated in SDM training interventions. New SDM measurement tools for patients are needed to sufficiently discriminate between the constructs of involvement and satisfaction.

Involvement of people with schizophrenia in decision-making in rural Ethiopia: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The involvement of people with psychosocial disabilities in decision-making is a fundamental component of a person-centred and recovery-oriented model of care, but there has been little investigation of this approach in low- and middle-income countries. The aim of this study was to explore the involvement of people with schizophrenia in decision-making relating to their care in rural Ethiopia.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in rural Ethiopia as part of the Rehabilitation Intervention for people with Schizophrenia in Ethiopia (RISE) project, involving two focus group discussions (n = 10) with community-based rehabilitation workers, and 18 in-depth interviews with people with schizophrenia, caregivers, health officers, supervisors and a community-based rehabilitation worker. Thematic analysis was used to examine major themes related to involvement in decision-making in this specific setting.

RESULTS

Involvement of people with schizophrenia in decision-making in this rural Ethiopian setting was limited and coercive practices were evident. People with schizophrenia tended to be consulted about their care only when they were considered clinically 'recovered'. Caregivers typically had a prominent role in decision-making, but they also acquiesced to the views of health care professionals. People with schizophrenia and caregivers were often unable to execute their desired choice due to inaccessible and unaffordable treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Community-based rehabilitation, as a model of care, may give opportunities for involvement of people with schizophrenia in decision-making. In order to increase involvement of people with schizophrenia in rural Ethiopia there needs to be greater empowerment of service users, wider availability of treatment choices and a facilitating policy environment. Further studies are needed to explore concepts of person-centred care and recovery across cultural settings.

Reducing Opioid Use for Patients With Chronic Pain: An Evidence-Based Perspective

The implementation of recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to move away from opioids and toward nonpharmacological therapies for the treatment of chronic pain could involve a difficult transition period for patients and practitioners. The focus of treatment should shift from eliminating pain completely to minimizing the impact of pain on quality of life. Many patients with chronic pain take opioids either because opioids were previously prescribed as a first-line treatment for chronic pain, on the basis of old standards of care, or because opioids were initially prescribed for acute pain. Patients currently taking opioids will need a tapering period during which they transition their pain management to interdisciplinary care and nonpharmacological treatments. To provide useful treatment options, physical therapists need to have a good understanding of the neuroscientific mechanisms of chronic pain, biopsychosocial components of chronic pain management, issues related to opioid use, and pain management strategies used by other health care professionals. Armed with knowledge and good communication skills, physical therapists can work within an interdisciplinary team to adapt care to each patient's needs and abilities. This perspective article provides guidance for physical therapists to effectively treat patients with chronic pain during the opioid tapering process. A framework has been created to help health care providers structure their reasoning as they collaborate to develop a unique approach for each patient.

What Works and Does Not Work in a Self-Management Intervention for People With Chronic Pain? Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Self-management interventions fostering self-efficacy improve the well-being of people with chronic pain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to synthesize the enablers (what works) and barriers (what does not) of incorporating self-management strategies for people in everyday life after completion of a pain self-management intervention.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases (MEDLINE, AMED, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar) were searched from inception to July 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Study selection included qualitative and mixed-method studies that explored the perceptions of individuals with chronic pain after completion of a self-management intervention.

DATA EXTRACTION

A thematic analysis approach was used to synthesize the review findings, and a Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) Approach was used to assess the level of confidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-three studies with 512 participants were included. Enablers to self-management included self-discovery-the ability to distinguish self (ie, body, thoughts, and feelings) from pain; feeling empowered by incorporating self-management strategies into practice; and supportive ambience via collaborative relationships with clinicians and support from family and friends. Barriers to self-management included difficulty with sustaining motivation for pain self-management; distress experienced from ongoing pain, anxiety, and depression; and unsupportive relationships with clinicians, family, and friends.

LIMITATIONS

This review only included interventions that involved at least 4 self-management skills; thus, informative studies may have been missed. The follow-up period varied from immediately after the intervention to 72 months following the intervention; therefore, it is uncertain which of the key enablers and barriers were most influential long term. Only articles published in the English language were included; studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries could not be located.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustained effort to self-manage chronic pain could be exhausting, and motivation could wane over time following intervention. Providing intermittent support in the form of booster sessions and peer support groups may be important. Person-centered care via shared decision making and guided problem solving is essential to facilitating ongoing self-management.

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

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

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

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

Shared Decision-Making for Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice.

OBJECTIVE

To understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Fifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.

Evaluating Treatment Decision for Multiple Sclerosis: Real Life and Patient Experiences

There are different decision-making models in medicine for treatment decisions. Shared decision-making model is the most appropriate and widely used model for chronic diseases like Multiple Sclerosis (MS). In this model, the decision making process like treatment options is being discussed step by step between patients and physicians. However, increasing treatment options and medication side effects make the decision-making process more difficult for physicians and reveal the need to share wider knowledge with the patient. In this article we evaluate treatment decision making in patients with MS involving real life experiences.

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

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

Connecting with healthcare providers at diagnosis: adolescent/young adult cancer survivors' perspectives

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are a vulnerable and underserved population. AYAs' cancer survivorship is complicated by physical and psychosocial late effects which requires long-term follow-up. Connectedness with healthcare providers (HCPs) is a protective factor that may improve long-term follow-up behaviours of AYAs. However, little is known about AYAs' experiences connecting with HCPs. The purpose of this study was to describe AYA cancer survivors' experiences connecting with HCPs. This empirical phenomenological study interviewed nine AYA cancer survivors diagnosed during adolescence. Individual interviews were conducted and analysed using an adapted Colaizzi approach. The essential structure reveals that AYAs begin their experience of connectedness with a sense of disconnectedness prior to treatment. The diagnosis is a period of confusion and emotional turmoil that interfere with the AYAs' ability to connect. When AYAs come to accept their illness and gain familiarity with the environment, they then put forth an effort to connect with HCPs. Although it takes time for AYAs to reciprocate efforts to connect, HCPs should be aware that AYAs carefully assess and make judgments about whether or not HCPs can be trusted. Findings raise awareness of the actions and behaviours of HCPs that hinder connectedness, and targeted in future research.

Can we trust what parents tell us? A systematic review

Taking a history is a key diagnostic instrument in paediatric consultations. Numerous issues potentially reduce the history's reliability. Therefore, paediatricians have always expressed ambivalence regarding history taking from parents, both valuing and distrusting it. In this review, we describe how parents build and present a description of their child's health issues in the conceptual framework of self-regulation theory. We performed a systematic review on the literature on the reliability of history taking. No studies examined the reliability of history taking from parents, but there is a considerable body of evidence on the issue of mutual trust in relationships between health care professionals and patients. Because trust is a dynamic relational phenomenon, taking a patient centred approach in consultations is likely to increase the patients' and parents' trust in the health care professional, and their willingness to follow the health care professional's treatment proposals. We provide evidence based recommendations on how to build and maintain trust in paediatric consultations by taking a patient centred approach in such consultations.

Parental decision making involvement and decisional conflict: a descriptive study

Background

Decisional conflict is a state of uncertainty about the best treatment option among competing alternatives and is common among adult patients who are inadequately involved in the health decision making process. In pediatrics, research shows that many parents are insufficiently involved in decisions about their child’s health. However, little is known about parents’ experience of decisional conflict. We explored parents’ perceived decision making involvement and its association with parents’ decisional conflict.

Method

We conducted a descriptive survey study in a pediatric tertiary care hospital. Our survey was guided by validated decisional conflict screening items (i.e., the SURE test). We administered the survey to eligible parents after an ambulatory care or emergency department consultation for their child.

Results

Four hundred twenty-nine respondents were included in the analysis. Forty-eight percent of parents reported not being offered treatment options and 23% screened positive for decisional conflict. Parents who reported being offered options experienced less decisional conflict than parents who reported not being offered options (5% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Further, parents with options were more likely to: feel sure about the decision (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.15); understand the information (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.63–2.28); be clear about the risks and benefits (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05–1.20); and, have sufficient support and advice to make a choice (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03–1.11).

Conclusion

Many parents in our sample experienced decisional conflict after their clinical consultation. Involving parents in the decision making process might reduce their risk of decisional conflict. Evidence based interventions that support parent decision making involvement, such as shared decision making, should be evaluated and implemented in pediatrics as a strategy to reduce parents’ decisional conflict.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12887-017-0899-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A patient in the clinic; a person in the world. Why shared decision making needs to center on the person rather than the medical encounter

Interest in shared decision making (SDM) has increased and become widely promoted. However, from both practical and measurement perspectives, SDM's origin as an outgrowth of patient autonomy has resulted in narrowly conceptualizing and operationalizing decision making. The narrow focus on individual patient autonomy fails in four main ways: 1) excluding several facets of the roles, actions, and influences of decision partners in decision making; 2) focusing solely on the medical encounter; 3) ignoring the informational environment to which patients have access; and 4) treating each encounter as independent of all others. In addition to creating a research agenda that could answer important outstanding questions about how decisions are made and the consequences thereof, reconceiving SDM as centered on the person rather than the medical encounter has the potential to transform how illness is experienced by patients and families and how clinicians find meaning in their work.

Communication between patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome and healthcare personnel during the initial visit to a continuous positive airway pressure clinic

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To describe facilitators and barriers from a patient perspective in communications between patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome and healthcare personnel during the first meeting when continuous positive airway pressure is initiated.

BACKGROUND

Adherence to continuous positive airway pressure treatment tends to be poor, especially at the initial phase of treatment. Communication between the patient and healthcare personnel has not been studied from the patient perspective, as either a barrier or facilitator for adherence.

METHODS

A descriptive design using qualitative content analysis was used. Interviews with 25 patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome took place after their initial visit at four continuous positive airway pressure clinics. A deductive analysis based on The 4 Habits Model (i.e. emphasise the importance of investing in the beginning of the consultation, elicit the patient's perspective, demonstrate empathy and invest in the end of the consultation) was conducted.

RESULTS

Building confidence (i.e. structure building, information transfer, commitment) or hindering confidence (i.e. organisational insufficiency, stress behaviour, interaction deficit) was associated with investing in the beginning. Motivating (i.e. situational insight, knowledge transfer, practical training) or demotivating (i.e. expectations, dominance and power asymmetry, barriers) was associated with eliciting the patient's perspective. Building hope (i.e. awareness, sensitivity, demonstration of understanding) or hindering hope (i.e. unprepared, uncommitted, incomprehension) was associated with showing empathy. Agreement (i.e. confirmation, responsibilities, comprehensive information) or disagreement (i.e. structural obscurity, irresponsibility, absent-mindedness) was associated with investing in the end.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of facilitators and barriers, as described by patients, can be used to improve contextual conditions and communication skills among healthcare personnel.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

A patient-centred communication technique should be used in relation to all stages of The 4 Habits Model to facilitate shared decision-making and improve adherence to continuous positive airway pressure treatment.

Shared decision-making in the care of individuals with diabetes

People with diabetes often live with other chronic conditions and lead complicated lives. Determining what is the best management decision for a patient requires consideration of each individual's personal, social and biomedical context, what he or she values, the reasons he or she has to value the available options, and the relative contribution of each option in terms of benefits, harms, costs and inconveniences. Empathic conversations between patients and clinicians to diagnose the patient situation that necessitates action and the range of evidence-based actions that best address the situation, so-called shared decision-making, are essential to the personalized care of people with diabetes. The aim of the present review was to present key elements of shared decision-making and propose three different approaches for its application. The first approach focuses on transferring information to patients so that they can make decisions. The second approach, choice, focuses on cultivating the individual's ability to give voice to which choice is best for them. The third approach, conversation, establishes an empathic conversational environment through which the individual with diabetes and their clinician think and talk through how to address the problems of living with diabetes and related illnesses. These approaches are manifest in the design of evidence-based decision aids created to support shared decision-making. In randomized trials, decision aids can efficiently improve patient's knowledge, satisfaction, risk awareness, decisional conflict and involvement. Further research, however, is needed to better understand when and how to promote the empathic conversations, patient, clinician and service and policy contexts necessary to routinely implement shared decision-making in different at scale healthcare systems. In the interim, sufficient evidence and tools exist for persons with diabetes and their clinicians to gain expertise in making decisions together.

Agenda-setting revisited: When and how do primary-care physicians solicit patients' additional concerns?

OBJECTIVE

Soliciting patients' complete agendas of concerns (aka. 'agenda setting') can improve patients' health outcomes and satisfaction, and physicians' time management. We assess the distribution, content, and effectiveness of physicians' post-chief-complaint, agenda-setting questions.

METHODS

We coded videotapes/transcripts of 407 primary-, acute-care visits between adults and 85 general-practice physicians operating in 46 community-based clinics in two states representing urban and rural care. Measures are the incidence of physicians' questions, their linguistic format, position within visits, likelihood of being responded to, and the nature of such responses.

RESULTS

Physicians' questions designed to solicit concerns additional to chief concerns occurred in only 32% of visits (p<.001). Compared to questions whose communication format explicitly solicited 'questions' (e.g., "Do you have any questions?"), those that were formatted so as to allow for 'concerns' (e.g., "Any other concerns?") were significantly more likely to generate some type of agenda item (Chi(2) (1, N=131)=11.96, p=.001), and to do so more frequently when positioned 'early' vs. 'late' during visits (Chi(2) (1, N=73)=4.99, p=.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Agenda setting is comparatively infrequent. The communication format and position of physicians' questions affects patients' provision of additional concerns/questions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians should increase use of optimized forms of agenda setting.

Parents' Perspectives on Supporting Their Decision Making in Genome-Wide Sequencing

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore parents' perceptions of their decisional needs when considering genome-wide sequencing (GWS) for their child. This is a partial report and focuses on how parents prefer to receive education and information to support their decision making about GWS.

DESIGN

This study adopted an interpretive description qualitative methodological approach and used the concept of shared decision making and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework.

METHODS

Participants were parents who had already consented to GWS, and had children with undiagnosed conditions that were suspected to be genetic in origin. Fifteen parents participated in a focus group or individual interview. Transcriptions were analyzed concurrently with data collection, iteratively, and constantly compared to one another. Repeat interviews were conducted with five of the parents to confirm, challenge, or expand on the developing concepts.

FINDINGS

Participants felt that their decision to proceed with GWS for their child was an easy one. However, they expressed some unresolved decisional needs, including a lack of knowledge about certain topics that became relevant and important to them later and a need for more support and resources. Participants also had ongoing informational and psychosocial needs after the single clinical encounter where their decision making occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants expressed unmet decisional needs, which may have influenced the quality of their decisions. The strategies that participants suggested may help create parent-tailored education, counseling, decision support, and informed consent processes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Health care professionals who offer GWS for children should assess parents' values, priorities, and informational needs and tailor information accordingly. There are opportunities for nurses to become involved in supporting families who are considering GWS for their child.

Advice, authority and autonomy in shared decision-making in antenatal screening: the importance of context

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been widely advocated across many branches of healthcare, yet there is considerable debate over both its practical application and how it should be examined or assessed. More recent discussions of SDM have highlighted the important of context, both internal and external to the consultation, with a recognition that decisions cannot be understood in isolation. This paper uses conversation analysis (CA) to examine how decision-making is enacted in the context of antenatal screening consultations in Hong Kong. Building on previous CA work (Collins et al. , Toerien et al. 2013), we show that, whilst previously identified formats are used here to present the need for a decision, the overriding basis professionals suggest for actually making a decision in this context is the level of worry or concern a pregnant woman holds about potential foetal abnormality. Professionals take an unknowing 'epistemic stance' (Heritage ) towards this worry, and hence step back from involvement in decision-making. We argue that this is linked to the non-directive ethos that prevails in antenatal screening services, and suggest that more research is needed to understand how the enactment of SDM is affected by wider professional contexts and parameters.

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

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

Justifying medication decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists' accounts for treatment recommendations

Psychiatric practitioners are currently encouraged to adopt a patient centered approach that emphasizes the sharing of decisions with their clients, yet recent research suggests that fully collaborative decision making is rarely actualized in practice. This paper uses the methodology of Conversation Analysis to examine how psychiatrists justify their psychiatric treatment recommendations to clients. The analysis is based on audio-recordings of interactions between clients with severe mental illnesses (such as, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc.) in a long-term, outpatient intensive community treatment program and their psychiatrist. Our focus is on how practitioners design their accounts (or rationales) for recommending for or against changes in medication type and dosage and the interactional deployment of these accounts. We find that psychiatrists use two different types of accounts: they tailor their recommendations to the clients' concerns and needs (client-attentive accounts) and ground their recommendations in their professional expertise (authority-based accounts). Even though psychiatrists have the institutional mandate to prescribe medications, we show how the use of accounts displays psychiatrists' orientation to building consensus with clients in achieving medical decisions by balancing medical authority with the sensitivity to the treatment relationship.

Patients or Volunteers? The Impact of Motivation for Trial Participation on the Efficacy of Patient Decision Aids: A Secondary Analysis of a Cochrane Systematic Review

Background. Efficacy of patient decision aids (PtDAs) may be influenced by trial participants’ identity either as patients seeking to benefit personally from involvement or as volunteers supporting the research effort. Aim. To determine if study characteristics indicative of participants’ trial identity might influence PtDA efficacy. Methods. We undertook exploratory subgroup meta-analysis of the 2011 Cochrane review of PtDAs, including trials that compared PtDA with usual care for treatment decisions. We extracted data on whether participants initiated the care pathway, setting, practitioner interactions, and 6 outcome variables (knowledge, risk perception, decisional conflict, feeling informed, feeling clear about values, and participation). The main subgroup analysis categorized trials as “volunteerism” or “patienthood” on the basis of whether participants initiated the care pathway. A supplementary subgroup analysis categorized trials on the basis of whether any volunteerism factors were present (participants had not initiated the care pathway, had attended a research setting, or had a face-to-face interaction with a researcher). Results. Twenty-nine trials were included. Compared with volunteerism trials, pooled effect sizes were higher in patienthood trials (where participants initiated the care pathway) for knowledge, decisional conflict, feeling informed, feeling clear, and participation. The subgroup difference was statistically significant for knowledge only ( P = 0.03). When trials were compared on the basis of whether volunteerism factors were present, knowledge was significantly greater in patienthood trials ( P < 0.001), but there was otherwise no consistent pattern of differences in effects across outcomes. Conclusions. There is a tendency toward greater PtDA efficacy in trials in which participants initiate the pathway of care. Knowledge acquisition appears to be greater in trials where participants are predominantly patients rather than volunteers.

Patients' understanding of shared decision making in a mental health setting

Shared decision making is a fundamental component of patient-centered care and has been linked to positive health outcomes. Increasingly, researchers are turning their attention to shared decision making in mental health; however, few studies have explored decision making in these settings from patients' perspectives. We examined patients' accounts and understanding of shared decision making. We analyzed interviews from 54 veterans receiving outpatient mental health care at a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the United States. Although patients' understanding of shared decision making was consistent with accounts published in the literature, participants reported that shared decision making goes well beyond these components. They identified the patient-provider relationship as the bedrock of shared decision making and highlighted several factors that interfere with shared decision making. Our findings highlight the importance of the patient-provider relationship as a fundamental element of shared decision making and point to areas for potential improvement.

Operationalizing a shared decision making model for work rehabilitation programs: a consensus process

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to design and operationalize shared decision making (SDM) rehabilitation model for worker rehabilitation programs. SDM has previously been shown to improve decision outcomes in patient-health care professional relationships. To date, SDM has not yet been adapted to work rehabilitation, although it could be a valuable approach to better understand and agree on return-to-work decisions.

METHODS

We designed a preliminary model for return-to-work decisions for workers suffering from pain due to musculoskeletal injuries. We submitted the preliminary model and a questionnaire to expert health care professionals. Using the Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts method, a group consensus process was used to discuss and refine the experts' responses to operationalize a model adapted for rehabilitation.

RESULTS

Eleven occupational therapists (three were clinical coordinators) and four psychologists participated in three group consensus sessions. The final version of the model included one general longitudinal objective (the maintenance of a working alliance and assuring mutual comprehension among all stakeholders), and 11 specific objectives: establishing a working alliance, seven in the deliberation phase of the SDM process, and three in the implementation of the decision. Participants also reached consensus on between 1 and 8 indicators per objective.

CONCLUSION

We developed and operationalized an SDM rehabilitation model intended for a return-to-work implementation plan. The next step will be to document its feasibility among the main stakeholders (employer, union, insurer and worker) taking part in decisions about return to work.

Remaining in the nursing home versus transfer to acute care: resident, family, and staff preferences

Resident and family insistence on transfer is a major factor in the occurrence of potentially avoidable transfers from nursing homes (NHs) to acute care. The purpose of this study was to explore resident, family, and staff preferences regarding transfer to acute care. A sample of 271 NH residents, family members, staff, and medical providers were interviewed. Seventy-seven percent of residents reported that they had not given any thought to the question of whether they would want to be transferred to acute care. Family members wanted more information than residents, but more residents (39%) thought they should be fully involved in the transfer decision than their family members (12%) or staff (12%). Staff preferred keeping residents in the NH. Families were divided between transferring residents and having them remain in the NH. More residents indicated that their desire to transfer would depend on the severity of their condition and their prognosis. Ethnic group differences were noted. Results suggest that discussion of this issue should occur soon after admission and that differences in perspectives may be expected from those involved.