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

A New Process Model for Relationship-Centred Shared Decision-Making in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Settings

INTRODUCTION

We present a relationship-centred shared-decision-making (RCSDM) process model to explicate factors that shape decision-making processes during physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) encounters among patients, their care partners and practitioners. Existing shared decision-making (SDM) models fall short in addressing the everyday decisions routinely made regarding persons with chronic disabilities who require high levels of support, their care partners and rehabilitation practitioners. In PMR, these everyday decisions are small scale, immediate and in service to a larger therapeutic goal. They can be thought of as micro-decisions and involve multiple practitioners, care partners and patients. How micro-decisions are made in this context is contingent on multiple roles and relationships among these relevant parties. Our model centres on micro-decisions among patients, their care partners and practitioners based on our disorders of consciousness (DoC) research.

METHODS

To develop our model, we examined peer-reviewed literature in SDM in PMR, chronic disability and person-centeredness; formed collaborations and co-created our constructs with rehabilitation practitioners and with care partners who have lived experience of caring for persons with DoC; analysed emerging empirical data and vetted early versions with expert scientific and clinical audiences. Our model builds from the core tenets of relational autonomy, and scholarship and activism of disability advocates.

FINDINGS

Our model conceptualizes four non-hierarchical levels of analysis to understand the process of micro-decision-making in chronic disability and medical rehabilitation: social forces (historical and sociological); roles and relationships (multiple and intersecting); relational dimensions (interactional and contextual) and micro-decision moments (initiation, response and closure).

DISCUSSION

Relationships among patients, their care partners and practitioners are the intersubjective milieu within which decisions are made. Our conceptual model explicates the process of micro-decision-making in PMR.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Care partners (or caregivers) and rehabilitation practitioners are active members of our team. We work together to develop research projects, collect, analyse and disseminate data. The conceptual model we present in this manuscript was co-created-input from care partners and practitioners on previously collected data became the impetus to develop the RCSDM process model and share co-authorship in this manuscript.

What value structure underlies shared decision making? A qualitative synthesis of models of shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

To construct the underlying value structure of shared decision making (SDM) models.

METHOD

We included previously identified SDM models (n = 40) and 15 additional ones. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the data using Schwartz's value theory to define values in SDM and to investigate value relations.

RESULTS

We identified and defined eight values and developed three themes based on their relations: shared control, a safe and supportive environment, and decisions tailored to patients. We constructed a value structure based on the value relations and themes: the interplay of healthcare professionals' (HCPs) and patients' skills [Achievement], support for a patient [Benevolence], and a good relationship between HCP and patient [Security] all facilitate patients' autonomy [Self-Direction]. These values enable a more balanced relationship between HCP and patient and tailored decision making [Universalism].

CONCLUSION

SDM can be realized by an interplay of values. The values Benevolence and Security deserve more explicit attention, and may especially increase vulnerable patients' Self-Direction.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This value structure enables a comparison of values underlying SDM with those of specific populations, facilitating the incorporation of patients' values into treatment decision making. It may also inform the development of SDM measures, interventions, education programs, and HCPs when practicing.

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.

Global online interest in finasteride sexual side effects

Prior literature has suggested that finasteride may negatively impact men's sexual health. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided a warning on finasteride drug labels to incorporate sexual side effects such as reduced libido and erectile dysfunction. We aimed to evaluate global online interest in finasteride sexual side effects, their penetrance and variation, and how they compared overtime. We also aimed to evaluate the influence of the FDA label warnings on web-based searches for finasteride side effects. We utilized Google search engine from January 2004 to December 2020 to include separate trends from web searches of "Propecia," "Propecia side effects," "finasteride", "finasteride side effects", and "post-finasteride syndrome" compared amongst the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. We performed join-point regression analysis. We compared the annual relative search volume (ARSV) and annual percentage change (APC) to evaluate for loss or gain of interest in the respective key terms. We determined that the average ARSV for "finasteride" was 14.8% in 2004 and increased significantly to 57.3% in 2020 (APC: +9.25%, 95% CI 8 to 10.5, p < 0.001). Likewise, there was significant increased interest in "finasteride side effects" (APC: +20.7, p < 0.001) and "post-finasteride syndrome" (APC: +29.2; p < 0.001) in the United States overtime. Finally, when we compared trends before and after the FDA warnings, the average ASRV of "finasteride", "finasteride side effects", and "post-finasteride syndrome" all increased significantly (p = 0.001, p = 0.014, p < 0.001), respectively. Thus, it is evident that there is a global web-based interest in finasteride and its sexual health side effects, particularly after the FDA warning in 2011. There is boosted public awareness, and thus providers should have more detailed and careful conversations with patients prior to starting a 5α-reductase inhibitor such as finasteride.

Interaction between telenurses and callers - A deductive analysis of content and timing in telephone nursing calls

OBJECTIVES

To explore the content and timing of verbal interaction between telephone nurses and callers, and to suggest areas for improvement.

METHODS

Transcribed telephone conversations (n = 30) to a national nurse-led advisory service were analyzed using deductive content analysis. Categorization of data was based on components of interaction in the Interaction Model of Client Heath Behavior (IMCHB): health information, affective support, decisional control, and professional-technical competencies. The content was described both quantitatively, based on word count, and qualitatively, using descriptions and exemplars. Transcripts were also coded according to five phases in the conversation process: opening, listening, analyzing, motivating, and ending. The distribution of interaction components among phases was explored.

RESULTS

Interaction primarily focused on health information, particularly during the listening and analyzing phases. Telenurses based their advice on medical facts and guided callers through the conversation process. Callers' emotions and reflections on advice were rarely discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Health information dominate conversations. Interaction can be further developed, particularly with respect to acknowledging callers' emotional responses, their reactions to advice, and ensuring clarity in exchange of health information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings offer valuable guidance for future development of interaction in telenursing.

Tinkering with symptoms, causes and solutions: Tracing the enactments of multiple chronic illnesses in specialised outpatient check-ups

People living with multiple chronic illnesses and an increasing need for acute care is a global health challenge, which questions the conventional ways of managing illness. A central issue is how medical practices can become more patient-centred and aligned with the everyday life of patients. Communicative strategies for eliciting the patient's goals and preferences are often proposed. In this article, we draw on ethnographic data from fieldwork conducted during 2019-2020 in health-care settings and among people living with multiple chronic illness(es) and repeated acute admissions in Denmark. Inspired by science and technology studies of chronic illness and care, we trace the enactments of illness and illness work in a patient trajectory marked by persistent symptoms and medical complexity. We analyse three medical encounters, and we show how 'tinkering' with clinical signs and utterances in each encounter constantly enacts new versions, shaping how the patient could and should live with his illness. We argue that specialised outpatient check-ups for these patients must provide space for continuous tinkering with the concrete effects of illness in everyday life.

Medical Care as Flea Market Bargaining? An International Interdisciplinary Study of Varieties of Shared Decision Making in Physician-Patient Interactions

Phenomenon: Shared decision making (SDM) is a core ideal in the interaction between healthcare providers and patients, but the implementation of the SDM ideal in clinical routines has been a relatively slow process. Approach: In a sociological study, 71 interactions between physicians and simulated patients enacting chronic heart failure were video-recorded in China, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey as part of a quasi-experimental research design. Participating physicians varied in specialty and level of experience. The secondary analysis presented in this article used content analysis to study core components of SDM in all of the 71 interactions and a grounded theory approach to observe how physicians responded actively to patients even though they did not actively employ the SDM ideal. Findings: Full realization of the SDM ideal remains an exception, but various aspects of SDM in physician-patient interaction were observed in all four locations. Analyses of longer interactions show dynamic processes of interaction that sometimes surprised both patient and physician. We observed varieties of SDM that differ from the SDM ideal but arguably achieve what the SDM ideal is intended to achieve. Our analysis suggests a need to revisit the SDM ideal-to consider whether varieties of SDM may be acceptable, even valuable, in their own right. Insights: The gap between the SDM ideal and SDM as implemented in clinical practice may in part be explained by the tendency of medicine to define and teach SDM through a narrow lens of checklist evaluations. The authors support the argument that SDM defies a checklist approach. SDM is not uniform, but nuanced, dependent on circumstances and setting. As SDM is co-produced by patients and physicians in a dynamic process of interaction, medical researchers should consider and medical learners should be exposed to varieties of SDM-related practice rather than a single idealized model. Observing and discussing worked examples contributes to the physician's development of realistic expectations and personal professional growth.

Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

OBJECTIVE

To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.

MAIN MEASURES

In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.

RESULTS

We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.

HIGHLIGHTS

Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

Fostering relational autonomy in end-of-life care: a procedural approach and three-dimensional decision-making model

Respect for patient autonomy is paramount in resolving ethical tensions in end-of-life care. The concept of relational autonomy has contributed to this debate; however, scholars often use this concept in a fragmented manner. This leads to partial answers on ascertaining patients' true wishes, meaningfully engaging patients' significant others, balancing interests among patients and significant others, and determining clinicians' obligations to change patients' unconventional convictions to enhance patient autonomy. A satisfactory solution based on relational autonomy must incorporate patients' competence (apart from decisional capacity), authenticity (their true desires or beliefs) and the involvement level of their significant others. To that end, we argue that John Christman's procedural approach to relational autonomy provides critical insights, such as the diachronic or socio-historical personhood, sustained critical reflection and his recent explication of the nature of asymmetrical relationships and helpful interlocutors. This study reviews Christman's account, proposes minor modifications and advocates for an integrated three-dimensional model for medical decision-making. Clarifying the relationship among the three elements promotes an ethical framework with a coherent understanding of relational autonomy. This model not only provides a descriptive and normative framework for end-of-life care practice but also reconsiders the nature of the clinician-patient relationship and its normative implications. We further present a case study to illustrate the merits of our proposed model. Altogether, our proposal will help navigate complex medical decision-making, foster trust and negotiate shared values between patients and their significant others, particularly in end-of-life care.

"The challenge is the complexity" - A qualitative study about decision-making in advanced lung cancer treatment

INTRODUCTION

The value of shared decision-making and decision aids (DA) has been well documented yet remain difficult to integrate into clinical practice. We wanted to investigate needs and challenges regarding decision-making about advanced lung cancer treatment after first-line therapy, focusing on DA applicability.

METHODS

Qualitative data from separate, semi-structured focus groups with patients/relatives and healthcare professionals were analysed using systematic text condensation. 12 patients with incurable lung cancer, seven relatives, 12 nurses and 18 doctors were recruited from four different hospitals in Norway.

RESULTS

The participants described the following needs and challenges affecting treatment decisions: 1) Continuity of clinician-patient-relationships as a basic framework for decision-making; 2) barriers to information exchange; 3) negotiation of autonomy; and 4) assessment of uncertainty and how to deal with it. Some clinicians feared DA would steal valuable time and disrupt consultations, arguing that such tools could not incorporate the complexity and uncertainty of decision-making. Patients and relatives reported a need for more information and the possibility both to decline or continue burdensome therapy. Participants welcomed interventions supporting information exchange, like communicative techniques and organizational changes ensuring continuity and more time for dialogue. Doctors called for tools decreasing uncertainty about treatment tolerance and futile therapy.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests it is difficult to develop an applicable DA for advanced lung cancer after first-line therapy that meets the composite requirements of stakeholders. Comprehensive decision support interventions are needed to address organizational structures, communication training including scientific and existential uncertainty, and assessment of frailty and treatment toxicity.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

Epistemic justice is the basis of shared decision making

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence that share decision-making (SDM) is being successfully implemented, with a significant gap between theory and clinical practice. In this article we look at SDM explicitly acknowledging its social and cultural situatedness and examine it as a set of practices (e.g. actions, such as communicating, referring, or prescribing, and decisions relating to them). We study clinicians' communicative performance as anchored in the context of professional and institutional practice and within the expected behavioural norms of actors situated in clinical encounters.

DISCUSSION

We propose to see conditions for shared decision-making in terms of epistemic justice, an explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of the legitimacy of healthcare users and their accounts and knowledges. We propose that shared decision-making is primarily a communicative encounter which requires both participants to have equal communicative rights. It is a process that is started by the clinician's decision and requires the suspension of their inherent interactional advantage.

CONCLUSION

The epistemic-justice perspective we adopt leads to at least three implications for clinical practices. First, clinical training must go beyond the development of communication skills and focus more on an understanding of healthcare as a set of social practices. Second, we suggest medicine develop a stronger relationship with humanities and the social sciences. Third, we advocate that shared decision-making has issues of justice, equity, and agency at its core.

What does shared decision making ask from doctors? Uncovering suppressed qualities that could improve person-centered care

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is infrequently seen in clinical practice despite four decades of efforts. We propose a need to explore what SDM asks from doctors in terms of enabling competencies and necessary, underlying qualities, and how these can be nurtured or suppressed in medical training.

DISCUSSION

Key SDM tasks call for doctors to understand communication and decision mechanisms to carry them out well, including reflecting on what they know and do not know, considering what to say and how, and listening unprejudiced to patients. Different doctor qualities can support accomplishing these tasks; humility, flexibility, honesty, fairness, self-regulation, curiosity, compassion, judgment, creativity, and courage, all relevant to deliberation and decision making. Patient deference to doctors, lack of supervised training opportunities with professional feedback, and high demands in the work environment may all inflate the risk of only superficially involving patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified ten professional qualities and related competencies required for SDM, with each to be selected based on the specific situation. The competencies and qualities need to be preserved and nurtured during doctor identity building, to bridge the gap between knowledge, technical skills, and authentic efforts to achieve SDM.

Shared Decision-Making Experiences of Couples with Inherited Cancer Risk Regarding Family Building

Patients with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes have a high likelihood of passing germline mutations to future offspring. Patients at risk for inherited cancer may not have started and/or completed building their families; thus, they must decide about having children and consider the possibility of passing on their germline mutation. Utilizing the Shared Decision Making (SDM) Model, this study explores family building decision-making communication processes in opposite-sex couples with inherited cancer risk (ICR). Fifteen couples completed two recorded, analogue discussions and dyadic interviews at two time points. Participants were recruited through social media and snowball sampling. The constant comparison method was utilized to thematically analyze the data. When couples discussed family building options (FBOs), several themes were identified: FBO risks, FBO considerations, genetic-related FBO logistics, and life FBOs logistics. When deliberating family building decisions, couples shared easy conversational topics (e.g. FBO options and potential child's cancer risk due to a genetic variant) and difficult/conflict-inducing topics (e.g. preparing for possibilities, parenting, emotions, finances, and timing). Last, couples self-reported primary and secondary FBOs. The findings of this study capture couples' decision-making communication process while considering their experiences. Clinicians and practitioners can utilize these findings to support couples' family building decisions considering their ICR.

Person-centred communication with cancer survivors: Exploring the meaning of follow-up coaching conversations

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the meaning of a coaching intervention for cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors often experience existential concerns and worries after adjuvant treatment. A number of "care transition interventions" have been developed to improve person-centred care by empowering patients. Several of these interventions include a "care transition coach". A coaching approach to communication used in health care communication have among others shown to assists in establishing confidential relationships between health professionals, increase the patient's well-being and support the patient's experience of being met and viewed as a whole person.

DESIGN

This is a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to explore the meaning of a coaching intervention. In analyzing and interpreting the qualitative interviews Ricoeur's theory of interpretation was applied.

METHOD

The intervention consisted of two parts: (1) a two-day training program in coaching for nurses and (2) a specially developed communication intervention for cancer survivors.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of the transcribed interview material led to the development of two themes: (1) Support in moving forward in life, and (2) An opportunity to talk about existential thoughts and worries. Our results show how the experience of cancer, even when cured, leaves the survivors with profound existential worries. The cancer survivors described how coaching conversations allowed them to express their current concerns and provided them with an opportunity to discuss wider issues than treatment, symptoms, and after-effects, which had been the main focus during treatment.

CONCLUSION

The time immediately after the end of adjuvant treatment can be challenging, with many existential concerns and opposing emotions. We found that the follow-up coaching conversations performed helped the cancer survivors to process many of these difficult thoughts and feelings.

Internal Medicine Residents' Experience Performing Routine Assessment of What Matters Most to Patients Upon Hospital Admission

PROBLEM

Failure to elicit patients' values, goals, and priorities can result in missed opportunities to provide patient-centered care. Little is known about resident physicians' direct experience of eliciting patients' values, goals, and priorities and integrating them into routine hospital care.

INTERVENTION

In 2017, we asked resident physicians on general internal medicine wards rotations to elicit and document a "Personal History" from patients upon hospital admission, in addition to a traditional social history. We defined a Personal History as documenting "what matters most to the patient and why." The purpose of the Personal History was to understand and consider patients' values, goals, and priorities. We then conducted qualitative interviews of the resident physicians to understand their experiences eliciting and integrating patients' values, goals, and priorities in routine hospital care.

CONTEXT

We performed this exploratory intervention at a large high-volume urban hospital. Two teams from general medicine wards participated in the Personal History intervention. We conducted voluntary interviews of eligible residents (n = 14/15; 93%) about their experience after they completed their general wards rotations. Using the coproduction model, our aim was to explore how patients' self-expertise can be combined with physicians' medical expertise to achieve patient-centered care.

IMPACT

Four major themes were identified: 1) Taking a Personal History had value, and eliciting patients' self-expertise had the potential to change medical decision making, 2) Situational and relational factors created barriers to obtaining a Personal History, 3) Variability in buy-in with the proposed intervention affected effort, and 4) Meaningful Personal History taking could be an adaptive and longitudinal process. Perceived benefits included improved rapport with patients, helpful for patients with complex medical history, and improved physician-patient communication. Barriers included patient distress, lack of rapport, and responses from patients which did not add new insights. Accountability from attending physicians affected resident effort. Suggested future applications were for patients with serious illness, integration into electronic health records, and skills taught in medical education.

LESSONS LEARNED

Resident physicians had generally positive views of eliciting a Personal History from patients upon admission to the hospital. Overall, many residents conveyed the perceived ability to elicit and consider patient's values, goals, and priorities in certain situations (e.g., patient not in distress, adequate rapport, lack of competing priorities such as medical emergencies or overwhelming workloads). External factors, such as electronic health record design and accountability from attending physicians, may further promote residents' efforts to routinely incorporate patients' values, goals, and priorities in clinical care. Increasing familiarity among both resident physicians and patients in routinely discussing patients' values, goals, and priorities may facilitate patient-centered practice.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review

Background

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions.

Methods

We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions.

Results

We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches’, patients’, and clinicians’ commitments to patients’ involvement in decision making and decision coaches’ knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient’s values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient’s progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach’s advocacy for the patient, and the patient’s deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs).

Discussion

In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients’ participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients’ progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0.

Patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and observed patient involvement in videotaped encounters with medical specialists

OBJECTIVE

To assess how patients prefer and perceive medical decision making, which factors are associated with their preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and whether observed involvement reflects patients' perceived role.

METHODS

We asked 781 patients visiting a medical specialist from 18 different disciplines to indicate their preferred and perceived decision-making roles. Patient involvement in videotaped consultations was assessed with the OPTION5 instrument.

RESULTS

Most patients preferred and perceived decision making as shared (SDM; 58% and 43%, respectively), followed by paternalistic (26% and 38%), and informative (16% and 15%). A large minority (n = 103, 21%) of patients preferring shared or informative decision making (n = 482) experienced paternalistic decision making. Mean (SD) OPTION5 scores were highest in consultations which patients perceived as informative (26.0 (19.7)), followed by shared (19.1 (17.2)) and lowest in paternalistic decision making (11.8 (13.4) p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients want to be involved in decision making. Patients perceive that the physician makes the decision more often than they prefer, and perceive more involvement in the decision than objective assessment by an independent researcher shows.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A clearer understanding of patients' medical decision-making experiences is needed to optimize physician SDM training programmes and patient awareness campaigns.

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.

Leveraging the timing and frequency of patient decision aids in longitudinal shared decision-making: A narrative review and applied model

Introduction

Shared decision‐making (SDM) is intended to increase patient‐centredness of medical decision‐making for patients with acute and chronic conditions. Concurrently, patient decision aids (PtDAs) can supplement SDM by providing information to guide communication between patients and healthcare providers. Because of the prevalence of chronic conditions, where decisions may be extended or recurring, we sought to explore how effectively these tools have been leveraged in this context.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of the literature on both SDM and PtDAs, searching PubMed and Boston University's library database search tool for English‐language articles published from January 2005 until March 2021. Additional search terms focused on temporality. Drawing from our findings, we developed a combined framework to highlight areas for future research using the discussion of end‐of‐life decisions as an exemplar to illustrate its relevance to chronic care contexts.

Results

After screening 57 articles, we identified 25 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria on SDM, PtDA use and temporality for chronic care. The literature on SDM highlighted time outside of the medical visit and opportunity to include outside decision partners as important elements of the process. PtDAs were commonly evaluated for process‐related and proximal outcomes, but less often for distal outcomes. Early evidence points to the value of comparative outcome evaluation based on the timing of PtDA distribution.

Conclusion

Our review of the literature on SDM and PtDAs reveals less attention to the timing of PtDAs relative to that of SDM. We highlight the need for further study of timing in PtDA use to improve longitudinal SDM for chronic care. The model that we propose in our discussion provides a starting point for future research on PtDA efficacy.

Patient or Public Contribution

Five patient consultants provided input and feedback on the development and utility of our model.

Patient and physician shared decision-making behaviors in oncology: Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires

OBJECTIVES

We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement.

METHODS

Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later.

RESULTS

In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were>.60 for most items.

CONCLUSIONS

The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice.

"It All Depends": Patient and Decision Partner Experiences in Cancer Clinical Trial Decision-Making

While the supporting role of families and friends has been widely recognized in cancer care, little data exist on how they influence patients' decisions regarding clinical trial participation, accounting for patients' decisional preferences. The goal of our study was to examine the process of clinical trial decision-making from the perspective of adults with cancer and their decision partners. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 decision partners-family and friends engaged in the medical decision-making. Themes included: (1) having the ability and confidence to make decisions; (2) gaining insight about clinical trials; (3) trusting someone in the process; and (4) realizing readiness and context. Our findings will enhance understanding of how patients make clinical trial decisions based on decisional preferences from the perspectives of patients and decision partners. The findings may also help to increase clinician awareness and inclusion of decision partners in conversations regarding clinical trials.

Guidance on Providing Patient-Centered Care

This article explores the clinical applications of Audiology Practice Standards Organization (APSO) Standards 2 and 13, both of which keep us fully focused on the patient-as-person. The topics within Standard 2 include audiologists' interpersonal communication skills, specifically clarity (ensuring patient comprehension) and empathy (understanding the patient's experiences). Standard 2 also addresses the topic of health literacy, which has been recently expanded to consider not only the degree to which individuals are able to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions but also how organizations equitably support those necessary skills. The characteristics and benefits of services provided in patient- and family-centered care contexts are also described. Standard 13 addresses audiologists' support toward overall successful adjustment as defined by the patient, including both technical and personal adjustment to amplification, nontechnical communication issues, and rehabilitation support using readily available technologies. A new assessment protocol that includes goal setting and intervention is described, as well as a patient-centered intervention strategy involving discussion of personally meaningful photographs. Both standards provide a necessary balance to our technology-reliant profession.

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

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

Improving mortality in older adult trauma patients: Are we doing better?

BACKGROUND

Older adult trauma is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Individuals older than 65 years are expected to make up more than 21% of the total population and almost 39% of trauma admissions by 2050. Our objective was to perform a national review of older adult trauma mortality and identify associated risk factors to highlight potential areas for improvement in quality of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of the National Trauma Data Bank including all patients age ≥65 years with at least one International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification trauma code admitted to a Level I or II US trauma center between 2007 and 2015. Variables examined included demographics, comorbidities, emergency department vitals, injury characteristics, and trauma center characteristics. Multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

There were 1,492,759 patients included in this study. The number of older adult trauma patients increased from 88,056 in 2007 to 158,929 in 2015 (p > 0.001). Adjusted in-hospital mortality decreased in 2014 to 2015 (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.91) when compared with 2007 to 2009. Admission to a university hospital was protective (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93) as compared with a community hospital admission. There was no difference in mortality risk between Level II and Level I admission (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.92-1.08). The strongest trauma-related risk factor for in-patient mortality was pancreas/bowel injury (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 2.04-2.49).

CONCLUSION

Mortality in older trauma patients is decreasing over time, indicating an improvement in the quality of trauma care. The outcomes of university based hospitals can be used as national benchmarks to guide quality metrics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.

Men's perception of information and descriptions of emotional strain in the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer-a qualitative individual interview study

OBJECTIVE

To explore men`s perception of information and their possible emotional strain in the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS

A qualitative explorative research design was employed. Data were collected from June to November 2017. The study was set at a urological outpatient clinic at a university hospital in Norway. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten men who had been examined for prostate cancer. Interviews were analyzed using Systematic Text Condensation (STC).

RESULTS

The analysis revealed three themes. The theme 'Different needs and perceptions of information' illustrated that information should be personalized. Despite different information needs, insufficient information about prostate cancer may prevent some men from being involved in decisions. The theme, 'A discovery of not being alone', indicated that a sense of affinity occurs when men realize the commonality of prostate cancer. Some men benefited from other men's experiences and knowledge about prostate cancer. The last theme 'Worries about cancer and mortality' showed that the emotional strain was affected by men's knowledge of cancer and the received information. Men expressed conflicting feelings toward prostate cancer that could be difficult to express.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that men in the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer are not a homogeneous group, but need personalized information. Some men may benefit from other men's experiences and support. Men's emotional strain can affect their communication about prostate cancer, which should be acknowledged. Procedures that identify patients' information needs early on should be an integrated part of the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer.KEY POINTSKnowledge about men's information needs and possible emotional strain in the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer are limited.Men with suspected prostate cancer have different preferences and information needs; however, insufficient information prevents men from participating in decisions.Men experience a sense of affinity with other men affected by prostate cancer, and some men benefit from exchanging experiences.Men consider prostate cancer as a less aggressive type of cancer but may experience emotional strain.

Getting airtime: Exploring how patients shape the stories they tell health practitioners

INTRODUCTION

Effective communication during health encounters is known to decrease patient complaints, increase patient adherence and optimise health outcomes. While the aim of patient-centred care is to find common ground, health practitioners tend to drive the encounter, often interrupting patients within the first minute of the clinical conversation. Optimal care for people with chronic illnesses requires individuals to interact with health practitioners regarding their health concerns, but given these constraints, we know little about how patients strategise conversations with their care providers. This understanding may further our efforts to educate health practitioners and trainees to learn and practice patient-centred care.

METHODS

A constructivist grounded theory approach with iterative data collection and analysis was used to explore the processes patients use to present and shape their stories for interactions with health practitioners. Twenty-one patients (n = 16 female; 5 male) representing a variety of chronic illnesses participated in semi-structured interviews. Using the constant comparative method of analysis, salient themes were ascertained.

RESULTS

Patients engage in extensive strategic preparations for productive health encounters. From the data, we identified four related elements comprising patients' process of planning, preparing, and strategising for health encounters: deciding to go, organising to get airtime, rehearsing a game plan, and anticipating external forces. By focusing on the extensive preparatory work patients engage in, our study expands the dimensions of how we understand illness-related work. Assembling personal health information, gathering disease information and achieving equanimity represent the dimensions of this 'health interaction work'.

CONCLUSION

The work patients engage in for health encounters is noteworthy yet often invisible. And work that is unseen may also be undervalued. Acknowledging, illuminating and valuing patients' preparatory work for health encounters add to how we understand patient-centred care, and this offers new targets for us to effectively teach and deliver it.

The doctor will see you now: eye gaze, conversation and patient engagement in the surgical outpatient clinic. An Australian observational cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Surgical outpatient consultations are demanding for the surgeon and patients without a definite formula for success. Various factors have been identified regarding factors that influence patient satisfaction and engagement. We aimed to examine the modern-day surgical outpatient consultation and report on these factors.

METHODS

An observational cross-sectional study was performed by reviewing video recordings of 182 surgical consultations by 12 surgeons at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South Australia, Australia.

RESULTS

The mean consultation time was 12.3 min, with pre-surgical consultations being the longest. There were 107 consultations for benign conditions (58%). Proportionally, the consultant spoke most (51.9% of total consultation time), followed by the patient (19.5%) and then companion (8.2%). Forty-eight (26.4%) patients brought a companion to the clinic but monopolisation of the consultation by the companion was rare. When a companion was present, there was more mutual eye gaze between the consultant and the patient. Interruptions were present in 23.6% of consultations and were associated with a significant increase of the length of the consultation. Table positioning did not seem to affect the dynamics of the outpatient consultation.

CONCLUSION

Companions are highly valuable for promoting patient engagement and their presence should be encouraged in surgical outpatients. Interruptions should be kept to a minimum to avoid unnecessary delays. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the effect of companions, interruptions and table positioning during a consultation on patient outcomes.

The bigger picture of shared decision making: A service design perspective using the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer as a case

PURPOSE

Solutions to improve the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in oncology often focus on the consultation, with limited effects. In this study, we used a service design perspective on the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We aimed to understand how experiences of patients, their significant others, and medical professionals over the entire care path accumulate to support their ability to participate in SDM.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

We used qualitative interviews including design research techniques with 13 patients, 13 significant others, and 11 healthcare professionals, involved in the diagnosis or treatment of LAPC. The topic list was based on the literature and an auto-ethnography of the illness trajectory by a caregiver who is also a service design researcher. We conducted a thematic content analysis to identify themes influencing the ability to participate in SDM.

RESULTS

We found four interconnected themes: (1) Decision making is an ongoing and unpredictable process with many decision moments, often unannounced. The unpredictability of the disease course, tumor response to treatment, and consequences of choices on the quality of life complicate decision making; (2) Division of roles, tasks, and collaboration among professionals and between professionals and patients and/or their significant others is often unclear to patients and their significant others; (3) It involves "work" for patients and their significant others to obtain and understand information; (4) In "their disease journey," patients are confronted with unexpected energy drains and energy boosts, that influence their level of empowerment to participate in SDM.

CONCLUSION

The service design perspective uncovered how the stage for SDM is often set outside the consultation, which might explain the limited effect currently seen of interventions focusing on consultation itself. Our findings serve as a starting point for (re)designing care paths to improve the implementation of SDM in oncology.

The Multifocal Approach to Sharing in Shared Decision Making: A Critical Appraisal of the MAPPIN'SDM

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making integrates health care provider expertise with patient values and preferences. The MAPPIN'SDM is a recently developed measurement instrument that incorporates physician, patient, and observer perspectives during medical consultations. This review sought to critically appraise the development, sensibility, reliability, and validity of the MAPPIN'SDM and to determine in which settings it has been used.

METHODS

This critical appraisal was performed through a targeted review of the literature. Articles outlining the development or measurement property assessment of the MAPPIN'SDM or that used the instrument for predictor or outcome purposes were identified.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. The MAPPIN'SDM was developed by both adapting and building on previous shared decision making measurement instruments, as well as through creation of novel items. Content validity, face validity, and item quality of the MAPPIN'SDM are adequate. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.94 and agreement statistics from 0.41 to 0.92. The MAPPIN'SDM has been evaluated in several populations and settings, ranging from chronic disease to acute oncological settings. Limitations include high reading levels required for self-administered patient questionnaires and the small number of studies that have employed the instrument to date.

CONCLUSION

The MAPPIN'SDM generally shows adequate development, sensibility, reliability, and validity in preliminary testing and holds promise for shared decision making research integrating multiple perspectives. Further research is needed to develop its use in other patient populations and to assess patient understanding of complex item wording.

Beyond rationality: Expanding the practice of shared decision making in modern medicine

The contemporary healthcare field operates according to an autonomy model of medical decision-making. This model stipulates that patients have the right to make informed choices about their care. Shared decision making (SDM) has arisen as the dominant approach for clinicians and patients to collaborate in care planning and implementation. This approach relies heavily on normative (rational) decision-making processes, and often leaves out descriptive influences that stem from personal, social, and environmental factors and explain how decisions are typically made in the real world. The lack of attention to descriptive decision-making limits SDM in many ways. A multi-level approach to expanding the practice of SDM is proposed, including tailoring the decision encounter based on patients' social, cultural, and environmental context; using relational elements strategically as part of the SDM process; and modifying incentive models to promote greater attention to descriptive impacts on decision-making. These modifications are expected to make SDM, and thus patient care, more inclusive, effective, and acceptable to diverse patients.

Shared Decision-making in Head and Neck Surgery: A Review

Importance

Shared decision-making is a partnership between physicians and patients whereby patient values and preferences are incorporated with the best medical evidence. Shared decision-making may reduce decisional conflict, improve value-choice congruence, and increase patient involvement. Despite potential benefit in many key areas of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, both clinical and research focuses on shared decision-making are scarce. Head and neck surgical oncology is of particular interest owing to the frequency by which preference-sensitive decisions must be made. Information used in this review was obtained between January 1 and February 1, 2020.

Observations

Various conceptual models have been developed in an attempt to define the concept of shared decision-making. More than 40 instruments have endeavored to measure the construct of shared decision-making. However, in head and neck surgery, few studies to date have explicitly done so. Situations of clinical equipoise, such as in the management of indeterminate thyroid nodules and in the treatment of laryngeal cancer, are frequent. In contrast, value-option incongruence may occur when patient values do not align with the most oncologically sound treatment choice, such as when the resection and reconstruction of oral cancer may leave patients with significant sequelae. Several patient decision aids have been developed to improve shared decision-making in specific clinical scenarios, for example, in considering total laryngectomy or primary chemoradiotherapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite its potential benefit, there is a dearth of research and clinical applications of shared decision-making in head and neck surgery. Shared decision-making represents an area of substantial need in this regard, and additional efforts should be put forth.

What makes a patient ready for Shared Decision Making? A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role from patients, which might be difficult for some. We aimed to identify what patients need to be ready (i.e., well-equipped and enabled) to participate in SDM about treatment, and what patient- and decision-related characteristics may influence readiness.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and professionals (physicians, nurses, general practitioners, and researchers). Interviews were analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

We identified five elements of patient readiness: 1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM, 2) health literacy, 3) skills in communicating and claiming space, 4) self-awareness, and 5) consideration skills. We identified 10 characteristics that may influence elements of readiness: 1) age, 2) cultural background, 3) educational background, 4) close relationships, 5) mental illness, 6) emotional distress, 7) acceptance of diagnosis, 8) clinician-patient relationship, 9) decision type, and 10) time.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a wide range of elements that may constitute patient readiness for SDM. Readiness might vary between and within patients. This variation may result from differences in patient- and decision-related characteristics.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should be aware that not all patients may be ready for SDM at a given moment and may need support to enhance their readiness.

A Person-Centered Interdisciplinary Plan-of-Care Program for Dialysis: Implementation and Preliminary Testing

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Despite growing interest in individualizing care, routine dialysis processes, including the interdisciplinary plan of care, often fail to account for patient-identified priorities. To better align dialysis care with patient priorities and improve care planning experiences, we implemented a person-centered care plan program at a single clinic. We also sought to gain insight into key implementation considerations and areas for program improvement.

STUDY DESIGN

6-month quality improvement project with research substudy.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

49 hemodialysis patients and 14 care team members at a North Carolina dialysis clinic.

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES

Implementation of My Dialysis Plan, a person-centered care plan program.

OUTCOMES

Participant perspectives and care plan meeting characteristics (quality improvement); pre- to postprogram change in patient-reported autonomy support, patient-centeredness of care, and dialysis care individualization (research).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide implementation and evaluation. We conducted pre-, intra-, and post-project interviews with clinic stakeholders (patients, clinic personnel, and medical providers) to identify implementation barriers, facilitators, and perceptions. We compared pre- and post-project care plan meeting content and patient-reported outcome survey scores.

RESULTS

We conducted 54 care plans with 49 patients. Overall, care teams successfully used My Dialysis Plan to elicit and link patient priorities to actionable aspects of dialysis care. Participants identified interdisciplinary team commitment, accountability, and the structured yet flexible meeting approach as key implementation elements. Throughout the project, stakeholder input guided program modifications (eg, implementation practices and resources) to better meet clinic needs, but follow-up on care plan-identified action items remained challenging. Among the 28 substudy participants, there was no difference in pre- to post-project patient-reported outcome survey scores.

LIMITATIONS

Single clinic implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

My Dialysis Plan has the potential to enhance dialysis care individualization and care plan experiences. Evaluation of program impact on patient-reported and clinical outcomes is needed.

When life gives you no choice: Context of decision-making when offered an oncology clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer are faced with a wide variety of challenges and difficult treatment decisions made while in a vulnerable life-threatening situation, including decisions about clinical trial participation. Internationally, there is a great focus on shared decision-making as a way to help patients and healthcare professionals to make informed decisions together; nevertheless, research focusing on patient experiences shows that information about clinical trials is insufficient in supporting patients to make trial decisions in the context of their course of disease and managing life with advanced cancer.

AIM

To explore where and how decisions about participation in oncology clinical trials are made and the role of the patients and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

Participant observation was used as a qualitative research method to gain knowledge about decision-making in different clinical situations. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four themes were developed: (a) preformed decisions, (b) dissimilar perceptions of successful treatment, (c) cues and concerns stated by patients and (d) creating common ground.

CONCLUSION

There are underexposed aspects to be aware of in the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. Preformed decisions made by the physicians before the encounter with patients seemed to narrow down the patients' options and could have benefited from including the patients' views. Cues and concerns stated by patients were often neglected. However, when physicians talked with the patients about truly difficult issues such as treatment expectations, hope and death, it led to another kind of conversation about treatment decisions involving the patients' preferences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Awareness of preformed decisions and an increased focus on picking up cues and concerns about existential issues in the clinical encounter may improve the quality of the decisions and increase shared decision-making.

Assessment of psychiatrists' approaches regarding disclosure of psychiatric disorders to their patients: a qualitative study

Background: Diagnosis disclosure is the result of a shift in medical approaches from traditional paternalism to participatory and patient-centered decision making. Disclosure of psychiatric diagnosis remained uncommon and controversial. Giving information about psychiatric illnesses is very complicated, and it is affected by several factors. While clinical guidelines provide a clear pathway for treating patients, in practice, the treatment of patients is influenced by cultural and social factors. The aim of the current study was a qualitative assessment of psychiatrists’ approaches regarding the disclosure of psychiatric disorders to their patients.

Methods: The current study was conducted with a qualitative approach. The participants were purposefully selected psychiatrists from three medical universities in Tehran, Iran. The data gathered using the semi-structured interview method. Sixteen interviews with 14 psychiatrists were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: Psychiatrists decide to disclose the diagnosis based on several factors. We summarized these factors in a central theme, passive situational decision making based on paternalism and displacement of responsibility. It has two subthemes, including "passive and situational decision making" and "paternalism and displacement of responsibility." Each theme presented by detailed quotations.

Conclusion: The results of this study showed that psychiatrists did not actively disclose the diagnosis name to patients. Diagnosis disclosure was influenced by several factors, such as the certainty about the diagnosis and the severity of the disease. This passive approach does not respect the patient's rights. The paternalistic nature of this approach mandates psychiatrists to consider themselves as the responsible perosn for their patients’ welfare.

How to reach trustworthy decisions for caesarean sections on maternal request: a call for beneficial power

Caesarean delivery is a common and life-saving intervention. However, it involves an overall increased risk for short-term and long-term complications for both mother and child compared with vaginal delivery. From a medical point of view, healthcare professionals should, therefore, not recommend caesarean sections without any anticipated medical benefit. Consequently, caesarean sections requested by women for maternal reasons can cause conflict between professional recommendations and maternal autonomy. How can we assure ethically justified decisions in the case of caesarean sections on maternal request in healthcare systems that also respect patients' autonomy and aspire for shared decisions? In the maternal-professional relationship, which can be characterised in terms of reciprocal obligations and rights, women may not be entitled to demand a C-section. Nevertheless, women have a right to respect for their deliberative capacity in the decision-making process. How should we deal with a situation of non-agreement between a woman and healthcare professional when the woman requests a caesarean section in the absence of obvious medical indications? In this paper, we illustrate how the maternal-professional relationship is embedded in a nexus of power, trust and risk that reinforces a structural inferiority for women. To accommodate for beneficial use of power, these decision processes need to be trustworthy. We propose a framework, inspired by Lukes' three-dimensional notion of power, which serves to facilitate trust and allows for beneficial power in shared processes of decision-making about the delivery mode for women requesting planned C-sections.

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework Part 1: A Systematic Review of the Decisional Needs of People Making Health or Social Decisions

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has been used for 20 years to assess and address people’s decisional needs. The evidence regarding ODSF decisional needs has not been synthesized. Objectives. To synthesize evidence from ODSF-based decisional needs studies, identify new decisional needs, and validate current ODSF decisional needs. Methods. A mixed-studies systematic review. Nine electronic databases were searched. Inclusion criteria: studies of people’s decisional needs when making health or social decisions for themselves, a child, or a mentally incapable person, as reported by themselves, families, or practitioners. Two independent authors screened eligibility, extracted data, and quality appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analyzed using narrative synthesis. Results. Of 4532 citations, 45 studies from 7 countries were eligible. People’s needs for 101 unique decisions (85 health, 16 social) were reported by 2857 patient decision makers ( n = 36 studies), 92 parent decision makers ( n = 6), 81 family members ( n = 5), and 523 practitioners ( n = 21). Current ODSF decisional needs were reported in 2 to 40 studies. For 6 decisional needs, there were 11 new (manifestations): 1) information (overload, inadequacy regarding others’ experiences with options), 2) difficult decisional roles (practitioner, family involvement, or deliberations), 3) unrealistic expectations (difficulty believing outcome probabilities apply to them), 4) personal needs (religion/spirituality), 5) difficult decision timing (unpredictable), and 6) unreceptive decisional stage (difficulty accepting condition/need for treatment, powerful emotions limiting information processing, lacking motivation to consider delayed/unpredictable decisions). Limitations. Possible publication bias (only peer-reviewed journals included). Possible missed needs (non-ODSF studies, patient decision aid development studies, 3 ODSF needs added in 2006). Conclusion. We validated current decisional needs, identified 11 new manifestations of 6 decisional needs, and recommended ODSF revisions.

"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.

After encounters: revealing patients’ unseen work through their pathways to care

Purpose

Research has long focused on the notion of access and the trajectory towards a healthcare encounter but has neglected what happens to patients after these initial encounters. This paper focuses attention on what happens after an initial healthcare encounter leading to a more nuanced understanding of how patients from a diverse range of backgrounds make sense of medical advice, how they mix this knowledge with other forms of information and how they make decisions about what to do next.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing on 160 in-depth interviews across four European countries the paper problematizes the notion of access; expands the definition of “decision partners”; and reframes the medical encounter as a journey, where one encounter leads to and informs the next.

Findings

This approach reveals the significant unseen, unrecognised and unacknowledged work that patients undertake to solve their health concerns.

Originality/value

De-centring the professional from the healthcare encounter allows us to understand why patients take particular pathways to care and how resources might be more appropriately leveraged to support both patients and professionals along this journey.

A standardized patient education class as a vehicle to improving shared decision-making and increasing access to breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is a key component of patient-centered care and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction and quality of life. Herein, we study the impact of a standardized patient education class for prospective breast reconstruction patients on clinic efficiency, access to care, and perception on shared decision-making.

METHODS

The number of new patient consultations per clinic, as well as average duration of the first individual clinic encounter, was compared before and after the introduction of a standardized education class given by the senior author to all new breast reconstruction patients. To evaluate patients' perception of shared decision-making, the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and the Satisfaction with Information scale of the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module were electronically distributed among the patients and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Introduction of the patient education class was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of new patient encounters compared to historic controls (31.8 min vs. 53.5 min, p < 0.01) along with permitting a 43% increase in new patient visits. No differences in self-perceived patient education and autonomy were seen between class participants and historic controls in the SDM-Q9 scores (p = 0.58) and BREAST-Q scores (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

The introducing a standardized patient education class translated into a significant reduction in the duration of individual new patient encounters, thereby increasing patient access to care, while maintaining high-quality standards of self-perceived patient education and shared decision-making.

Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires

BACKGROUND

Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill-defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours only or focus on a single patient-physician encounter.

OBJECTIVE

To (a) develop a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure SDM in oncology and (b) determine their content validity and comprehensibility.

METHODS

A systematic review of SDM models and an oncology-specific SDM model informed the domains of the SDM construct. We formulated items for each SDM domain. Cancer patients and physicians rated content validity in an online questionnaire. We assumed a formative measurement model and performed online field-testing in cancer patients to inform further item reduction. We tested item comprehension in cognitive interviews with cancer patients and physicians.

RESULTS

We identified 17 domains and formulated 132 items. Twelve cancer patients rated content validity at item level, and 11 physicians rated content validity at domain level. We field-tested the items among 131 cancer patients and conducted cognitive interviews with eight patients and five physicians. These phases resulted in the 15-item iSHAREpatient and 15-item iSHAREphysician questionnaires, covering 13 domains.

CONCLUSIONS

We thoroughly developed the iSHARE questionnaires. They both assess patient and physician behaviours and cover the entire SDM process rather than a single consultation.

Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.

RESULTS

Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: Make the decision (75%), Patient preferences (65%), Tailor information (65%), Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740.

Practitioners' positive attitudes promote shared decision-making in mental health care

RATIONALE AND AIMS

There is a growing expectation of implementing shared decision making (SDM) in today's health care service, including mental health care. Traditional understanding of SDM may be too narrow to capture the complexity of treatments of mental health problems. Although the patients' contribution to SDM is well described, the contribution from the health care practitioners is less explored. Therefore, our aim was to explore the attitudes of practitioners in mental health care and the associations between practitioners' attitudes and SDM.

METHOD

We performed a cross-sectional study where practitioners reported their sharing and caring attitudes on the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) and age, gender, profession, and clinical working site. The patients reported SDM using the CollaboRate tool. We used a mixed effect model linking the data from each practitioner to one or more patients. We presented the findings and used them as background for a more philosophic reflection.

RESULTS

We included 312 practitioners with mean age 46.1 years. Of the practitioners, 60 held a medical doctors degree, 97 were psychologists, and 127 held a college degree in nursing, social science, or pedagogy. Female practitioners reported higher sharing (4.79 vs 4.67 [range 1-6], P = .04) and caring scores (4.77 vs 4.65 [range 1-6], P = .02) than males. The regression model contained 206 practitioners and 772 patients. We found a higher probability for the patient to report high SDM score if the practitioner reported higher sharing scores, and lower probability if the practitioner worked in ambulatory care.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM in mental health care is complex and demands multifaceted preparations from practitioners as well as patients. The practitioners' attitudes are not sufficiently explored using one instrument. The positive association between practitioners' patient-centred attitudes and SDM found in this study implies a relevance of the practitioners' attitudes for accomplishment of SDM processes in mental health care.

The role of internet resources in health decision-making: a qualitative study

Objective

Internet resources remain important for health information and advice but their specific role in decision-making is understudied, often assumed and remains unclear. In this article, we examine the different ways in which internet resources play a role in health decision-making within the context of distributed decision-making.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 people in the United Kingdom who reported using the internet in relation to decision-making, and representing a range of long- and short-term health conditions. The interviews focused on decision-making activities across different settings and in relation to different stakeholders to understand how internet resources play a role in these activities. We carried out a thematic analysis of the interviews.

Results

We identified three main ways in which internet resources played a role in health decision-making. A supportive role (as a decision crutch), a stimulating role (as a decision initiator), and an interactional role (impacting on the doctor–patient relationship). These three roles spanned different resources and illustrated how the decision-making process can be impacted by the encounters people have with technology – specifically internet based health resources – in different ways and at different time points.

Conclusions

Examining health decisions with respect to internet resources highlights the complex and distributed nature of decision-making alongside the complexity of online health information sourcing. We discuss the role of internet resources in relation to the increasing importance of online personal experiences and their relevance within shared decision-making.

Facing obesity: Adapting the collaborative deliberation model to deal with a complex long-term problem

OBJECTIVE

Care communication about obesity needs to respond to the complex biopsychosocial processes that affect weight and health. The collaborative deliberation model conceptualizes interpersonal work that underpins empathic communication and shared decision-making. The goal of this study was to elucidate how primary care practitioners can use the model to achieve shared obesity assessment and care planning.

METHODS

This qualitative study used direct observation of clinical encounters with twenty patients with obesity sampled for maximum variation in context, semi-structured patient and provider interviews, patient journals and two follow-up interviews over eight weeks. Themes were compared to the original model.

RESULTS

We identified five processes that may be relevant for collaborative deliberation about obesity in addition to the original model: (1) Exploring the story, (2) Reframing the story, (3) Co-constructing a new story, (4) Choosing a priority, and (5) Experimenting with alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose an enhanced collaborative deliberation model for obesity that describes the interpersonal work needed before and after deliberation about preferences and courses of action.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The enhanced model can support clinicians in achieving meaningful conversations about obesity and complex chronic disease resulting in care plans that are responsive to and achievable in the patient's lifeworld.